texas against critical thinking

clock This article was published more than  11 years ago

Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really.

(Update: Stephen Colbert’s take; other details)

In the you-can't-make-up-this-stuff department, here's what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

When taken with the other parts of the education platform(see below), it seems a fair conclusion that the GOP Party in Texas doesn’t think much of public education. Unfortunately, this notion isn’t limited to the GOP in Texas but is more commonly being seen across the country by some of the most strident of “school reformers.”

It should be noted that after the plank in the platform was ridiculed, Texas GOP Communications Director Chris Elam told TPM.com that it was all a big mistake and that opposition to "critical thinking" wasn't supposed to be included. It can't be easily removed, he said, because the platform had been approved by a party convention and any changes would also have to go through the same process. That clears things up.

You can see Stephen Colbert's hilarious take on this episode by clicking here .

It also seems worth noting that there is some question as to whether critical thinking can actually be taught. University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham argues that it cannot be taught in this 2007 article.

First Willingham defines critical thinking this way: Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth. Then too, there are specific types of critical thinking that are characteristic of different subject matter: That's what we mean when we refer to "thinking like a scientist" or "thinking like a historian."

Later in the article he writes: After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement, maybe it's time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill.

But of course, that isn’t what the Texas GOP is arguing. It sees “critical thinking” as something subversive. Scary stuff.

Here’s the rest of the education section of the Texas GOP’s 2012 platform:

American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.

Basic Standards – We favor improving the quality of education for all students, including those with special needs. We support a return to the traditional basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, and citizenship with sufficient discipline to ensure learning and quality educational assessment.

Bilingual Education – We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years.

Career and Technology Education (Vocational Education) – We support reinstatement of voluntary career and technology education, including adjusting the 4x4 requirements as needed, without detracting from non-vocational program requirements.

Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

Classroom Expenditures for Staff – We support having 80% of school district payroll expenses of professional staff of a school district be full-time classroom teachers.

College Tuition – We recommend three levels of college tuition: In-state requiring proof of Texas legal citizenship, out-of-state requiring proof of US citizenship, and nonresident legal alien. Non-US citizens should not be eligible for state or federal grants, or loans.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.

Educational Entitlement – We encourage legislation that prohibits enrollment in free public schools of non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States.

Funding of Education – We urge the Legislature to direct expenditures to academics as the first priority.

Higher Education – We support merit-based admissions for all college and university applicants to public institutions. We further support the repeal of the 1997 Texas legislative act commonly known as the Top Ten Percent Rule. All Texas students should be given acceptance priority over out-of-state or foreign students.

Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.

Local Control for Education – We support school choice and believe that quality education is best achieved by encouraging parental involvement, protecting parental rights, and maximizing local independent school district control. District superintendents and their employees should be made solely accountable to their locally elected boards. We support sensible consolidation of local school districts. We encourage local ISDs to consider carefully the advantages and disadvantages of accepting federal education money.

No Taxpayer Paid Lobbyists – We support the prohibition of any paid public school employee or contractor to lobby the legislature or the SBOE, unless on an unpaid basis and in an unofficial capacity. No registered lobbyist should be allowed to run for SBOE.

Parental Rights in Education – We believe the right of parents to raise and educate their children is fundamental. Parents have the right to withdraw their child from any specialized program. We urge the Legislature to enact penalties for violation of parental rights.

Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

Parental School Choice – We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options which fund the student, not schools or districts, to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private, or parochial education for all children.

Permanent School Fund – We believe that because the Permanent School Fund is not paid by taxpayers that the principle balance should be safeguarded and not viewed as a source of additional funding for our state budget.

Political Community Organizing in Texas Schools - We believe neither Texas public schools should be used nor their students should be instructed by groups such as SEIU or other community organizers as instruments to promote political agenda during the instructional school day.

Private Education – We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing.

Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents.

School Surveys and Testing – Public schools should be required to obtain written parental consent for student participation in any test or questionnaire that surveys beliefs, feelings, or opinions. Parental rights, including viewing course materials prior to giving consent, should not be infringed.

State Board of Education (SBOE) – We believe that the SBOE should continue to be an elected body consisting of fifteen members. Their responsibilities must include:

— Appointing the Commissioner of Education

— Maintaining constitutional authority over the Permanent School Fund

— Maintaining sole authority over all curricula content and the state adoption of all educational materials. This process must include public hearings.

The SBOE should be minimally staffed out of general revenue.

Textbook Review – Until such time as all texts are required to be approved by the SBOE, each ISD that uses non-SBOE approved instructional materials must verify them as factually and historically correct. Also the ISD board must hold a public hearing on such materials, protect citizen’s right of petition and require compliance with TEC and legislative intent. Local ISD boards must maintain the same standards as the SBOE.

Supporting Military Families in Education – Existing truancy laws conflict with troop deployments. We believe that truancy laws should be amended to allow 5 day absence prior to deployments and R&R. Military dependents by definition will be Texas residents for education purposes.

Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.

School Health Care – We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools. We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished.

Zero Tolerance – We believe that zero tolerance policies in schools should specify those items that will not be tolerated at schools. The policy should be posted on ISD websites.

Transparency – We support legislation requiring all school districts to post their expenditures online or made readily available to the public.

Foreign Culture Charter Schools in Texas – We oppose public funding of charter schools which receive money from foreign entities. We demand that these Charter Schools have accountability and transparency to local parents, taxpayers, the State of Texas, as do current public schools, including U.S. citizenship of public school trustees.

Follow The Answer Sheet every day by bookmarking www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Get PolitiFact in your inbox.

• Weekly Email Newsletter
• Daily Email Newsletter

• Gail Collins

Gail Collins says Texas GOP platform calls for schools to stop teaching “critical thinking”

New York Times columnist Gail Collins’ latest book, "As Texas Goes," takes the state to task for, well, being Texas. And her Aug. 1, 2012, column did pretty much the same. Casting the nomination of Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate as a harbinger of doom, Collins wrote that Texas "does tend to treasure the extreme" in politics, saying, "The current Republican state platform calls for an end to the teaching of ‘critical thinking’ in public schools." Collins is actually a bit late to this party: Major liberal websites launched assaults on this part of the 2012 platform (adopted June 8) as early as June 26, and Comedy Central’s "Colbert Report" satirized it July 17. Mainstream media weighed in, too. A July 9 Washington Post blog entry was headlined "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really." Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts wrote July 21: "The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers." Austin American-Statesman opinion columnist Ken Herman reported July 21 that the party’s deputy executive director, Chris Elam, told him the platform subcommittee did not intend to indicate that the party opposed critical thinking skills. We began our research by trying to contact Collins but did not hear from her. Her column gives no information about her claim beyond that single sentence. We pulled the complete wording of the "Knowledge-Based Education" plank from the 2012 platform:  

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Next, we contacted Elam, who told us by email that party chairman Steve Munisteri had given a good explanation in a July 24 interview with Austin’s KVUE-TV. Munisteri told KVUE, "The platform plank is against a specific type of teaching called 'outcome-based education.' "The reason why critical thinking is mentioned is some places try to disguise the program of outcome-based education and just re-label it as 'critical thinking.' " That’s supported by the wording in the platform. Following the lead of a July 6, 2012, Chronicle of Higher Education blog post on the Texas platform fracas, we looked back to the 2010 platform . Its "Knowledge-Based Education" plank said, "The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character … We oppose Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and similar programs." Both platforms support critical thinking when it comes to "controversial theories" such as evolution, which "should be taught as challengeable scientific theories ... Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind." Next, we set out to see if we could determine whether opposing outcome-based education is also, de facto, opposing critical thinking in the larger sense. The debate over outcome-based education caught fire in the 1990s as outcome-based curricula were installed in U.S. school districts. In the Lexis newspaper archive and on the web, we saw a dozen news stories and opinion pieces from as many states -- Texas included -- describing public concern about the new approach. Opponents said the outcome-based approach was antithetical to critical thinking. They claimed it "dumbed down" curricula and influenced students to adopt liberal attitudes because the "outcome" of their studies was predetermined by academia. Supporters claimed it encouraged -- in fact, taught -- critical thinking. Rather than testing students on facts learned by rote memorization, they said, it required children to demonstrate that they had learned to analyze the material. So what the heck is it? The news stories we read indicate outcome-based education takes different forms nearly everywhere it’s applied. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram gave a description in an Oct. 30, 1996, news story about opposition to OBE-like elements in the state’s planned education overhaul:  

Under outcome-based education, academic and personal goals are set for students before they can graduate. The program stresses that children are not allowed to fail, so they might be given the same test or report over and over until they do the work satisfactorily. It also may eliminate traditional grades, competitive student assessments and distinct subjects and grade levels.

Methods of implementing outcome-based education include awarding group grades instead of individual grades and eliminating honors programs.

Featured Fact-check

The "founding father" of OBE, education reformer William Spady, gave an example in an interview for the December 1992/January 1993 issue of Educational Leadership magazine, published by ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Asked whether an outcome might be "The student will be able to list the five causes of the Civil War," Spady replied: "No, sorry; that is not an exit outcome. But, ‘Identify and explain the fundamental causes and consequences of the Civil War’ would be an enabling outcome worth pursuing en route to some larger exit outcome." Today, a divide remains between the "OBE teaches kids to think" side and the "OBE suppresses thinking" side. We didn’t find allusions to "critical thinking skills" being used as a code phrase for OBE, but did note that a Feb. 15, 1994, news story in the Dallas Morning News said some educators were avoiding the name "outcomes-based education":  

Because of the controversy, many educators are going to great lengths to avoid being associated with outcomes-based education.

"We've always had outcomes," said state school board member Diane Patrick. But "we'd be foolish to call it outcomes-based education right now. That would be very unwise."

Our ruling As Collins says, the Texas GOP platform does state that the party opposes "critical thinking." But Collins leaves out some important context. The platform makes it clear that its opposition is centered on one type of education model: outcome-based education. That’s just the kind of situation addressed in PolitiFact’s definition of Half True: "The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context." By those lights, Collins’ statement is Half True.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Our Sources

The New York Times , column by Gail Collins, "For God, Texas and golf," Aug. 1, 2012 Austin American-Statesman , column by Ken Herman, "Know your platforms," July 21, 2012 Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform KVUE-TV Austin news story, "Texas GOP chair explains controversial 'critical thinking' platform language," July 24, 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education, blog post "What were they thinking?,"  July 6, 2012 Republican Party of Texas 2010 platform Fort Worth Star-Telegram news story, "State's curriculum rewrite criticized at meeting," Oct. 30, 1996 ASCD Educational Leadership magazine, "On Outcome-Based Education: A Conversation with Bill Spady," December 1992/January 1993 Dallas Morning News news story, "A thorny road to results; Outcomes-based education seems like such a simple idea but it has created a complicated controversy," Feb. 15, 1994

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by sue owen.

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

Teachers, students speak out against Texas laws targeting critical race theory

Bans on anti-racist education could impact students’ development, teachers say.

For former U.S. Army Capt. Diane Birdwell, teaching world history has always been a personal journey into her family’s heritage.

The 60-year-old teacher often invokes her own family’s history when she teaches her 10th-grade students at a local Dallas public high school. In her maternal ancestry, she says she had family members who served in the Confederate Army. On her father’s side, her ancestors served as part of the Nazi German military.

“I don't shy away from it because I accept the fact that it's part of my family's past,” Birdwell told ABC News. “I deal with the fact that there are relatives in my family history who did things I would not have done and I accept that. I can acknowledge what they did.”

Every school year, when Birdwell teaches her students about WWII, she shows them her uncle’s Ahnenpass book, which he was required to keep under Hitler’s rule as a record proving that he was not of Jewish heritage.

“When we're talking about … the Nuremberg laws that Hitler put in place to separate Jews from German citizens that were Christian, you have a situation where you had to prove your ancestry,” she explained. “With this, you have these factual stamps and information on your family's ancestry, and you had to carry these with you wherever you went.”

“I inherited this and I show it in class to make sure they understand that this all really happened. The Holocaust was real, and don't think for a second it didn't happen,” she added. “Hopefully, our country can move and improve when you personalize history and that's what I'm trying to get them to do.”

Although these discussions are sometimes uncomfortable, the Dallas-based teacher said that talking about past injustices is necessary to prevent history from repeating itself.

However, she may soon have to change her candid teaching style if a GOP-led bill in Texas is voted into law. The current version of the state’s Senate Bill 3 would remove a mandate for educators to teach historic moments of slavery, as well as the Chicano movements, women’s suffrage and civil rights.

MORE: 'Anti-democratic': Some teachers blast new laws targeting discussions of race in schools

One of the most controversial pieces of the proposal would remove a requirement to teach students that the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy is morally wrong.

Critics of SB 3 say the bill attempts to legislate education policy to ban teaching anti-racism in K-12 schools. They say the educational efforts in these grades have been politicized and conflated as critical race theory , a higher education academic framework created over 40 years ago to explore how a history of racism and white supremacy may still be embedded in U.S. institutions, including the legal system.

“What legal scholars and their students did was they turned to the law, they turned to institutions, they turned to policies to understand how discrimination was perpetuated by these institutions, by these structures, by these policies, in order to make sense of continuing inequality,” Leah Wright Rigueur, an associate professor of American history at Brandeis University, told ABC News.

MORE: Critical race theory in the classroom: Understanding the debate

While Republican state lawmakers are working to pass prohibitions, critical race theory is not currently a part of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills requirements, which sets the requirements for the K-12 curriculums as mandated by the state Board of Education.

Texas is now one of 26 states that have proposed or passed laws restricting or banning classroom discussions on concepts relating to race and racism, which many Republican lawmakers say are divisive.

While many had come to accept critical race theory as a new way to understand the impacts of racism, former President Donald Trump helped spark debate over its legitimacy during his reelection campaign, and Republicans have lobbied against it ever since.

During a speech announcing his 1776 Commission in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 17, 2020, Trump said that "students in our universities are inundated with critical race theory. This is a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation.”

Trump went on to sign an executive order titled “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” which banned anti-racist, racial and sexual sensitivity trainings for federal employees. He also denounced the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, which focused on the lasting impact of slavery in the U.S.

President Joe Biden has since reversed the executive order, saying he will prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion within his administration.

Battle in the school board

School boards across the country are holding meetings to debate critical race theory, with some parents accusing teachers of having a political agenda in the classroom. Politicians, parents and students are all weighing in on the debate over what children should learn and who gets to make that decision.

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is traditionally responsible for creating the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills — also known as TEKS — which is a basic curriculum for K-12 public education. Marisa Perez-Diaz has been a member of the SBOE since 2013, representing District 3, which includes the San Antonio region.

“This is the first time I've experienced this where the legislature is directly impacting the work that the State Board of Education is responsible for doing and dictating what needs to be taught and what needs to be included in schools. That's never happened and that should never happen,” Perez-Diaz said.

This week, she facilitated a meeting with students and educators across Texas to discuss recent education bills proposed or passed in the state. Burbank High School teacher Luke Amphlett was one of the participants.

“It's not accidental that this is happening at the moment of the largest multiracial uprising against police brutality in history,” he said. “This is happening in a moment where we're seeing the demographics of Texas shifting and a majority of students of color now in Texas schools.”

Alejo Pena Soto, a recent graduate of Jefferson High School in the San Antonio Independent School District, says SB 3 is “just ignorant in the sense that it's forgetting a lot of the history of where education comes from.”

That sentiment is one Perez-Diaz identifies with. She said she wants her four children to grow up knowing how their ancestors contributed to the fabric of this country.

“The work of understanding our histories is also very personal to me, because as a Latina, as a Mexican-American in Texas, I wasn't exposed to my history,” she said. “All I had to learn was what was passed down in oral history from my family.”

Perez-Diaz is a fourth-generation Mexican American and the youngest person to be a member of the SBOE. She’s also the first in her family to graduate college and an alumnus of Texas’ public school education.

“I am proud to be a Texan. I'm not proud of the policy and the laws that come out of Texas,” she said.

Texas has one of the fastest growing populations in the U.S. and more than half of the state’s student population is Hispanic.

Perez-Diaz says critical race theory has become the new catchphrase for conversations about race and diversity not just inside the classrooms but outside them, too. She says much of the fear surrounding it is baseless.

Popular Reads

How Trump’s conviction will impact the election

• May 30, 5:23 PM

Woman who started breathing at funeral home dies

• Jun 4, 12:35 PM

What Americans think of Trump's verdict: POLL

• Jun 2, 9:01 AM

“No, critical race theory is not being taught in K-12 education,” she said. “It is a higher education framework that is engaged typically at the graduate level.”

“There are foundational issues in U.S. history that are very much connected to racial inequity, segregation, redlining, [and] all of those issues are not critical race theory,” she added. “That's history. That's our country's history.”

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth believes that history is important for students to learn, but he says the methods for teaching it should remain traditional.

“I think it's very simple: you teach [that] the past is the past,” he said. “I was taught in school about the Civil War. I was taught about slavery. I was taught about Jim Crow. But I wasn't blamed for it. Slavery was a sin of our past. Jim Crow is a sin of our past.”

Toth and other Republican lawmakers are pushing to ban critical race theory in K-12 public and charter schools, and threatening to take funding away if teachers are caught teaching it. He is the author of Texas House Bill 3979, one of the first of Texas’ bills that aimed to stop critical race theory from being used in classrooms. It was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in June and will take effect in September.

“We have had dozens and dozens of teachers [who] called saying that they do not want to teach critical race theory in Texas classrooms, and this is [a] response to that,” he said.

One of the controversial pieces of Toth’s bill requires teachers to abstain from conversations that might lead to someone feeling “discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex.”

“If you want to say that the United States is still a systemic racist nation, that's a lie. If you want to say that there is racism in our land, that's the truth. Absolutely true,” Toth said.

Another section of his bill prohibits teachers from feeling compelled to discuss current events with students, saying that if it comes up, they must explore the news from “diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective.”

“I honestly don't know how we responsibly teach social studies or civics education without engaging in conversations about current events,” Perez-Diaz said. “Our students, our scholars across the country, leave the classroom and experience the world as it is, right. So then, how do we come into the classroom and we expect them to ignore all of that noise outside when they have a lot of questions?”

For students, American history is personal.

For students like 14-year-old Chris Johnson of Aledo, Texas, our nation’s racist past is still a reality that haunts his daily life. Earlier this year, Chris and a fellow Black student were targeted by classmates who set up a “slave auction” on Snapchat.

That virtual post was initially called “n----- auction,” he said, adding that his classmates pretended to sell them: one for $100 and the other for $1.

Chris’ mom, Mioshi Johnson, said she reported the incident to the school administrators immediately. The school disciplined the students involved and outlined multiple steps to address the problem in the community. But she said they called the incident “cyber bullying,” not “racism.”

“It made it so that people didn't know what really happened. So there was no conversation about how egregious it was,” Johnson said. “There was no conversation about the direct racism that it was.”

Susan K. Bohn, Ed.D., the superintendent of Aledo Independent School District, said in a statement to parents, “I am deeply sorry that a few of our students engaged in racial harassment of two of our students of color. … It was totally unacceptable to all of us, and it should not have happened.”

Chris shared his painful story at a local school board meeting on April 19.

“I spoke up to stand up for myself and every other kid in Aledo to just show them that's not OK and we shouldn't be treated different,” he said.

“They weren't listening to what people were saying, so they needed to hear firsthand from the people that were affected by it,” he said. “If the government, politicians and even the school board would just listen to us, they would understand that we have every right to be a part of the solution.”

Chris says he wants his school district to take action and to make sure an incident like the one he went through never happens again.

“We're not just going to sit back. … We need to actually see them take initiative and change,” he said.

Both he and his mother agree that having honest dialogues about racism is crucial to becoming anti-racist.

“The division comes from not knowing, not being aware, not having someone to tell you or teach you,” she said. “When you take that away, you have instances of teenage boys saying slave trade, slave auction, slave farm because no one has taught them.”

Johnson said she believes that incorporating ideas of critical race theory into a curriculum gives students a fuller picture of their history.

“I don't see critical race theory as being something terrible. I don't see it being a blame game — ‘shame-you’ — type of theory. I believe that it's telling the whole entire story; parts of the story that people aren't learning anymore [and] will probably never hear about if people aren't teaching it.” she said. “When you know the whole story from the history to the present, it kind of brings it full circle to you.”

Athena Tseng, a 15-year-old high school junior in Frisco, Texas is a member of Diversify Your Narrative, an organization that works to incorporate the voices of Black, indigenous and other people of color into classroom curriculums. She was born in Arizona but her family is originally from Taiwan.

“I barely ever see history about my heritage, or anything in my classes, even in the books we read,” Tseng said. “To have diverse representation in our history and literature classes, or just overall, really helps with even just people of color being more comfortable in their skin.”

“I think if you're not exposed to … other cultures ... then I don't think people are going to go out of their way to do that and learn and grow,” she added.

As state lawmakers, parents and school board officials battle over how to teach American history, Birdwell says that opponents of critical race theory should consider how prohibitions in history education could impact students’ critical thinking development.

“These opponents of critical race theory or diversity education, what they're saying is they don't trust their children,” Birdwell said. “I think they really fear that their kids might pick up that their ancestors did some bad things. They might pick up that there is still a legacy in this country of racism and that we need to do something about it.”

On Aug. 3, Rep. James White, the only Black Republican State House member, submitted a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking him to review the constitutionality of critical race theory education and anti-racism teaching.

Regardless of whether the latest bill, Texas SB 3, passes, Paxton's opinion could set a precedent for future legislation that could potentially impact diversity, equity and inclusivity training efforts in education as well as in other public agencies.

In the meantime, Birdwell says she will continue to follow her lesson plans as usual. She says history needs to come with context: facts alone are not enough.

“If you have to confront that racism of the past, then white citizens are going to have to confront that their families were alive when it happened,” she said. “That doesn't make [them] themselves bad people. It just means: accept that in the past, some of our stuff is not pleasant to learn or talk about.”

Key voting groups' thoughts on Trump conviction

• Jun 3, 5:06 PM

Sandy Hook families ask judge to liquidate company

• Jun 3, 11:44 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Texas GOP officially comes out against critical thinking

Who needs book larnin': the texas gop’s platform is explicitly opposed to critical thinking skills in education..

It’s not a shock that the Republican Party of Texas’ official platform, announced and adopted this month, is a seething morass of racism and homophobia . Republicans: That’s how we do! Nor is it surprising that the platform comes out in favor of employee discrimination and corporal punishment in schools, and opposed to comprehensive sex education, environmental protections, affirmative action, and the Voting Rights Act. Yawn, really. But get ready to hand your $10 to Nick Fury, because they actually managed to pull out something so blatant that it surprised even jaded old me: The Texas GOP’s platform is explicitly opposed to critical thinking skills .

Here’s the relevant text:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

To be fair, I guess Texas is willing to grandfather in people who already use critical thinking skills — as long as those skills don’t cause them to support things like marriage equality, voter enfranchisement, environmental responsibility, social justice of any kind, or not hitting children. They just don’t want this stuff to SPREAD. Don’t pass your dirty Communist “logic” on to OUR children, buster, or by god we will have you drinking hemlock.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one .

To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist. Here's How

According to Talking Points Memo , the party is now backpedaling the whole “brain thoughts are for homogays” approach, claiming that it was “not the intent of the subcommittee” to come out against critical thinking and that they “regret” the oversight. But they don’t regret it all that damn much, apparently, because they also say what’s done is done: The convention approved the platform, so it can’t be changed until the next state convention in 2014. By which time, if Texas Republicans had their druthers, there would be nobody left who even knew how to read the thing.

A message from   

Your support matters

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.  

Here’s why the prettiest tomatoes taste the worst

The homeowner mutiny leaving florida cities defenseless against hurricanes, desantis says he’s ‘restoring sanity’ by erasing climate change from florida laws, the american climate corps will get people into green jobs. can it help their mental health too, michigan wants fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change damages, the pollution paradox: how cleaning up smog drives ocean warming, who’s afraid of hurricane debby the peculiar importance of a storm’s name., why this summer might bring the wildest weather yet, how an aboriginal woman fought a coal company and won, modal gallery.

• Manage Account
• Best in DFW
• Website Survey
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

Is Texas discouraging critical thinking in classrooms?

Asking questions matters to understand history.

By David Newman

1:30 AM on Dec 5, 2022 CST

It may seem that the furor over teaching controversial material has died down but, as the Dallas Morning News reported, Gov. Greg Abbott discussed the issue in forceful terms just at the end of November: “ Our schools are for education, not indoctrination . We will put a stop to this nonsense in the upcoming legislative session. Schools must get back to fundamentals and stop pushing ‘woke’ agendas.”

Abbott was directly referring to class discussions of gender identity, but I know that public school teachers are still acutely aware that they are at risk in their classrooms if they broach any controversy having to do with an America that does not always realize its ideals. One of the ideals we insist teachers and students practice is the inculcation of critical thinking. But does the state really want any such thought?

Critical thinking involves asking hard questions: How and why do things happen, how and why do people say the things they say, and how and why should people speak in order to change the things that need changing?

Those who do not ask such questions before participating in civic discourse, before offering a lesson in a public school or before writing new laws about education, are blind to the larger contexts that shape history, that shape opinions; moreover, they want to pass such blindness on to the next generation, and the next, and so on.

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

All people concerned about what is taught in public schools should think carefully about how new ideas should be presented to students. But do we really want to require teachers to eschew thoughtfulness in order to capitulate to vague, imperious rules?

In rhetoric classes, we read and discuss issues that cause the greatest furor in the moment, that have a local connection, and that have sides clearly in opposition; in other words, we discuss issues like whether critical race theory should be banned in Texas.

Since those opposed to critical race theory argue that it indoctrinates students, it is then necessary to study some of the best arguments about confronting controversial speech. We read John Milton, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.

But shall I also teach “Undemocratic Democracy” by Jamelle Bouie — a provocative essay that challenges the idea that all people living in the U.S. have always been equally protected by foundational ideals regulating, among other things, who has been allowed to speak freely and who has not?

These authors seem entirely relevant in shaping a discussion of the larger contexts in the debate about whether CRT is pernicious indoctrination. One context is described in Milton’s profoundly influential essay “Areopagitica”: Different parts of a building (different ideas) are brought by people who know their own parts well, but who may not understand at all the parts others bring. Yet the difference in parts (in ideas) may have essential value in the completion of a glorious edifice richer exactly because no one has a God’s-eye perspective on the whole construct.

Milton was an early advocate of the idea — radical in 1646 — that censorship prevents inculcating critical thought.

But wait: It now turns out that Bouie’s essay cannot be taught alongside Milton’s; Bouie’s work is part of the “1619 Project”; an essay on whether speech has been free to all in America is now banned in Texas. Has the state not banned teachers’ ability to establish contexts, to make issues relevant?

Should teachers encourage students to participate in intellectual conversations that have great depth and subtlety? Or should we use vague terms like “woke” in order to excise that which challenges students to think about how and why their leaders use particular kinds of rhetorical choices?

How will we help students to manage the depth and subtlety of history and literature if we are unable to ask students to look at as many different ideas as possible, and to ask how they are changed by, or need to formulate more and more elegant rebuttals to, these ideas?

A teacher’s highest calling is to help students think for themselves, so that when they decide what to think, they will choose well, not motivated by hostility to information contrary to their beliefs, and not motivated by political expediency.

Texas will need independent thinkers in the coming years, precisely because some state leaders so deeply distrust where that independence comes from.

David Newman teaches English at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi and lives in Odessa. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here .

David Newman

Texas GOP: No More Critical Thinking in Schools

• Share article

Teachers, you may want to be sitting down for this one.

The 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform , adopted June 9 at the state convention in Forth Worth, seems to take a stand against, well, the teaching of critical thinking skills. Read it for yourself:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

As a top commenter on a Reddit thread wrote about the language, “I was absolutely sure this had to be an elaborate fake ... .” It’s not.

We at Teacher think this may be a kind of first. While the push for accountability via standardized testing—which the current Democratic administration has stood behind—has frequently been characterized as potentially undermining instruction in critical thinking, blatant opposition to teaching students to think deeply has not often (ever?) been a part of the policy conversation.

In that same section of the document, labeled “Educating Our Children,” the Texas Republicans go on to state that they “oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten.” And, in a statement that human rights groups (and many others) will find difficult to stomach, the platform says, “We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.”

While corporal punishment is in fact legal in Texas—and 18 other states, according to The Center for Effective Discipline —we’re still poking around to find the research backing its effectiveness in the Lone Star State. Nothing so far. Readers, let us know what you come across.

(HT: Huffington Post .)

UPDATE: A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas said that the “critical thinking skills” language should not have been included in the document after the words “values clarification,” reports Talking Points Memo . The members of the subcommittee “regret” the mistake, he told TPM—however, since the platform was approved, “it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014.”

A version of this news article first appeared in the Teaching Now blog.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Several Texas Republicans against 'critical race theory' advance in State Board of Education primary races

Several Republican State Board of Education candidates who ran in opposition of so-called critical race theory in public schools advanced in Tuesday’s GOP primary election.

All 15 seats of the State Board of Education are up for grabs in November, and there were more than 50 candidates vying for their parties’ nominations. There were 31 Republicans and 25 Democrats on the ballot. Currently, the board is made up of nine Republicans and six Democrats.

Usually, voters pay little attention to races for the body that sets the state’s public school curriculum. But this year, how Texas schools operate has been a particularly hot topic. The pandemic’s impacts on school closings and mask mandates — as well as a new law restricting how students should learn about America’s history of racism — have made the state board races much more visible.

Because the state board is responsible for curriculum standards, the critical race dilemma may open the door for more censorship in schools even though Texas already has its so-called critical race theory law, said Chloe Latham Sikes, deputy director of policy at the Intercultural Development Research Association.

The law is vague, Sikes said, and leaves the door open for interpretation, so state board officials who are trying to oust such teaching from schools could potentially censor materials that are inclusive of people of color and the LGBTQ community.

This has already happened with book bans around the state, she said.

The general election will take place Nov. 8. Board members serve four-year terms and set policies and curriculum standards for more than 1,200 Texas school districts and nearly 5.5 million students.

Some conservative candidates leaned hard into the rhetoric criticizing what they refer to as critical race theory even though no Texas school actually teaches the college-level academic theory in the classroom.

But as elementary and secondary schools work to diversify their curriculum and make lessons about history more inclusive, conservatives have used the term critical race theory to describe a variety of discussions about race and alleged those conversations are discriminatory against white children.

The fact that critical race theory is not taught before college in Texas has not stopped political candidates from their efforts to ban it or use their opposition as a campaign platform.

In Districts 2, 7, 11, 13 and 15, Republican candidates made critical race theory a central part of their campaigns, getting good results.

In District 15, which covers the Panhandle, Republican challenger Aaron Kinsey ousted incumbent Jay Johnson. Kinsey was endorsed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and former Gov. Rick Perry. Kinsey also received a donation from conservative megadonor Tim Dunn and large donations from the Charter Schools Now political action committee.

Kinsey has said that critical race theory is taught under different guises and that Texas needs teachers who can identify how it is being rebranded.

In District 2, which covers part of the Gulf Coast, Republican LJ Francis won the open seat and based his campaign on banning critical race theory from schools, claiming that “woke liberals” are pushing a critical race theory agenda.

He’ll face either Victor Perez or Pete Garcia, who advanced to a Democratic primary runoff election. Democrat Ruben Cortez Jr. currently holds the seat.

Republicans Julien Pricken and Michael Barton were the top vote-getters for the open District 7 seat, which also covers part of the Gulf Coast. Both Barton and Pricken made opposition to critical race theory a top priority. It wasn’t clear Wednesday afternoon if Pricken would win outright or face Barton in a runoff. The eventual winner will face Democrat Daniel Hochman.

In District 11, which covers parts of Tarrant and Parker counties, incumbent Pat Hardy won the nomination. She was first elected in 2002. Going into the primaries, Hardy made it a priority to get critical race theory and The New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project out of classrooms. Current law already prohibits teaching about the 1619 Project.

Republican Kathryn Monette led the race for the District 12 seat but couldn’t avoid a runoff. Monette made opposition to critical race theory a focus of her campaign while her runoff opponent, A. Denise Russell, didn’t.

In District 14, which includes Denton County and reaches to Lampasas County, neither Republican candidate appeared to make critical race theory a part of their campaign, but incumbent Sue Melton-Malone lost to Evelyn Brooks.

Socorro Morales, an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio, who has expertise in critical race theory, said it’s not true that talking about race, inclusivity or ethnic studies means schools are placing the blame on white children.

Stephanie Knight, dean of the Simmons School of Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University, said candidates are using critical race theory this election season as a way to mobilize voters.

“Those who are using critical race theory as a rallying cry are not really thinking about the curriculum, per se,” she said. “They’re thinking about an issue that they want to emphasize.”

The ongoing rancor over race and whether students should be required to wear masks to prevent coronavirus infection has resulted in louder calls for more school choice and so campaign cash followed, with more than $500,000 given to both Democrat and Republican candidates this year from the Charter Schools Now PAC.

Of that, more than $200,000 was given to Democratic candidate Omar Yanar, who ran to replace Georgina Pérez in District 1, which covers the El Paso region. Pérez, who has been an advocate for more charter school accountability, isn’t running for reelection. Yanar lost; Democrats Melissa N. Ortega and Laura Marquez will head to the runoff election.

Ortega and Marquez raised less than $10,000 combined.

___________________________________________________________

From The Texas Tribune

• Local Politics

The Texas GOP’s war on critical thinking

The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers, writes Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.

Share story

Some recent headlines from the alternate universe of modern conservatism:

• Rush Limbaugh claims the bad guy in the new Batman movie was named Bane to remind voters of Mitt Romney’s controversial tenure at Bain Capital.

• Michele Bachmann, citing zero credible evidence, accuses a Muslim-American aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood.

• Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s crack investigators announce that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a fake.

Most Read Opinion Stories

• A brave new world with fewer babies
• The TMX project: This ship should not have sailed
• Failures in student safety jeopardize Seattle Public Schools' bottom line
• Seattle council must continue progress on Equitable Development Initiative
• Should Biden downplay his own success?

In other words, it’s just an average week down there in Crazy Town. And that lends a certain context to a tidbit brought to national attention last week by Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report.” Meaning a plank from the 2012 platform of the Republican Party of Texas which, astonishingly enough, reads as follows: “We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

That is, without a doubt, the most frightening sentence this side of a Stephen King novel.

The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers. Never mind the creeping stupidization of this country, the growing dumbification of our children, our mounting rejection of, even contempt for, objective fact. Never mind educators who lament the inability of American children to think, to weigh conflicting paradigms, analyze competing arguments, to reason, ruminate, question and reach a thoughtful conclusion. Never mind that this promises the loss of our ability to compete in an ever more complex and technology-driven world.

Never mind. The Texas branch of one of our two major political parties opposes teaching critical-thinking skills or anything that might challenge a child’s “fixed beliefs.” So presumably, if a child is of the “fixed belief” that Jesus was the first president of the United States or that two plus two equals apple trees, educators ought not correct the little genius lest she change her “fixed belief,” thereby undermining mom and dad.

For what it’s worth, the Texas GOP says that language was not supposed to be in the platform. Spokesman Chris Elam says its inclusion “was an oversight on the subcommittee’s part.”

If that explanation leaves you cold, join the club. That such an asinine position was even under consideration is hardly comforting. And the fact that something so neon stupid escaped notice of both the subcommittee and the full platform committee suggests the Texas GOP could use a little critical-thinking instruction itself.

Remember when Republicans were grown-ups? Agree with them or not, you never thought of Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, even Richard Nixon as less than serious, substantive adults, susceptible to logic and reason.

The party has since devolved. A toxic stew of faith-based politics, biased news, and echo chamber punditry has reduced it to an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-intellect caricature of itself. Thoughtful conservatives — thoughtful Americans — ought to be alarmed.

How can you have a healthy democracy when a major party not only tolerates lunacy, but elevates it to positions of power? In what sane nation does someone like Rush Limbaugh have a mass audience, Michele Bachmann an elected office, Joe Arpaio a badge?

Well, the Texas GOP just came out against critical thinking. That explains a lot.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email address is: [email protected] .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Texas Lawmakers Take Aim At Critical Race Theory

Texas' governor says a new education bill designed to keep critical race theory out of the state's classrooms doesn't go far enough. Texas school districts deny they even teach critical race theory.

Copyright © 2021 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

The Texas Legislature Has Targeted Critical Race Theory, But Is It Being Taught In Public Schools?

Cracking down on Critical Race Theory is on Gov. Greg Abbott's agenda for the Texas legislative special session that began this week. But Texas educators say they don't teach it, and experts say most people — including critics — don’t even know what is.

At the last Fort Worth Independent School District board meeting on June 22, chants of "USA, USA" and other phrases occasionally interrupted business.

Nearly 100 speakers showed up, many to blast the district for what they deemed an invasion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) into the curriculum.

“I’ve seen critical racist theory enter the school,” speaker Kathryn Pompa said. “CRT is reformulated Marxism, a neo-racist world view that exists to agitate, enable radical identity politics, divide people.”

“This cultural ideology is not a solution to unity but a tool for bondage, destruction, and further separation and clearly, the enemy of our day,” added Janna Clark.

Blanca Martinez pounded her fist on the lectern and yelled “CRT is a poison. It’s a poison to the mind. It corrupts!”

Trustees listened quietly.

The Fort Worth school district says it does not teach CRT and never has.

In Texas and across the country , Critical Race Theory has become a political lightning rod. Many Republican-led states are working to ban the school of thought from classrooms — even though teachers say they don’t even teach it.

This spring, Texas passed two laws taking aim at CRT . Republican Gov.Greg Abbott didn’t think they went far enough, so he included CRT on the agenda for the special legislative session that started this week.

Educators say most people, including critics, don’t even know what is.

What Is Critical Race Theory?

Nikki Jones teaches African American studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Jones described CRT as a way to understand how race influenced the historical laws of this country — laws that justified everything from slavery to violence.

“It’s a way to see race,” Jones said. “To see understandings of race, to see racism, in places where it may not otherwise on the surface of it be apparent.”

CRT is a decades-old intellectual movement born out of law schools that teaches that racism is embedded in systems and structures in the U.S. — such as legal institutions — rather than just being the product of individual prejudice. It is taught in some law schools and universities, but there's little evidence children and teens are learning the concept in grades K-12.

One of the Texas laws targeting CRT is House Bill 3979. Houston-area Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) says he wrote it to help children.

“Kids are being scapegoated,” Toth said. “We're seeing Critical Race Theory popping up all over schools.”

Toth’s bill takes on CRT without ever naming it. He said students are being "indoctrinated," describing a situation a constituent from Highland Park, a high-income, predominantly white enclave surrounded by Dallas, shared with him.

“A parent in Highland Park sent me a copy of the book that her 8-year-old son was asked to read. “It's called 'Not My Idea: A Story About Whiteness,'" Toth said. "I thought that the whole idea of stereotyping, racial profiling was a bad thing, and Critical Race Theory goes into profiling white people. They're being taught that crap now in school.”

"You can't discriminate and say that one race or one gender is responsible for the ills of the past"

Highland Park says that’s not true. The school district said 82% of its students are white and less than 1% are Black. Spokesperson Jon Dahlander said the district can’t even find the book Toth mentioned.

“We don’t have the book in any of our school library catalogs,” Dahlander said. “Nor have we been able to find it on any of our campuses.”

Dahlander also said that Highland Park does not teach Critical Race Theory.

“Period. End of story,” Dahlander ephasized.

A Political Battle

Toth's bill tells history teachers how to teach complex subjects that include explaining racism.

“You can't teach that one race is better than the other. You can't teach that one gender is better than the other. You can't discriminate and say that one race or one gender is responsible for the ills of the past," Toth said. "We need to teach about the ills, but you can't blame this generation for those things of the past .”

State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) says history should be taught equitably and truthfully.

“There were instances in this country, where even in the articles of secession in 1861, it was said that the Caucasian race is superior to the African American race. That’s history," West said. "I think that it would be totally unfair if you said you can’t teach what history has shown us to be the position in the past.”

Senator Nathan Johnson represents Highland Park. He said he sees no need for Toth’s bill because CRT isn’t taught in any Texas school district — no matter what others believe.

“It's not uncommon for people to genuinely believe things that aren't true, particularly when their political leaders tell them they’re true,” Johnson said. “This is a political stunt.”

Gov. Abbott is up for reelection next year, and faces at least two primary opponents further to his right. By doubling down against CRT in the special session, he's joining conservatives across the country in vilifying a curriculum that the majority of K-12 educators in Texas say does not exist.

UC-Berkeley’s Jones says with this legislation, Texas has fallen in line with other states where legislators passed laws that legitimize fear.

“It is not, in fact, true that Critical Race Theory is racist,” Jones said. “It is not, in fact, true that it encourages people to hate this country.”

"Critical Race Theory is being taught to kids about as often as we teach physics to second graders."

At the Fort Worth school board meeting, some people who like what the district’s doing also spoke out.

Fort Worth ISD has created a racial equity plan. Those who defend it say critics are confusing it with CRT.

“Critical Race Theory is being taught to kids about as often as we teach physics to second graders. Children are not being indoctrinated to hate themselves or anyone else," speaker Kent Bradshaw said. "Save that fight for when your kid goes to law school. That’s where they teach CRT.”

Kimberly Williams said she worries how this push will discourage teachers from directly talking racial injustice, and what that could mean for the future.

“As an African American female educator, we know that when racial equity is not consciously addressed, racial inequality is often unconsciously replicated," Williams said.

Audience cheers followed her words.

Got a tip? Email Reporter Bill Zeeble at [email protected] . You can follow him on Twitter @bzeeble .

KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.

Texas' ban on critical race theory in schools proves the GOP still doesn't understand MLK's message

Texas this week became the latest state to ban the teaching of critical race theory. The author of the bill, Republican state Rep. Steve Toth, has insisted that the measure was wholly in keeping with the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.

Civil rights activists like King called their protests “demonstrations” because they sought to demonstrate the realities of segregation and discrimination in undeniable terms.

“It echoes Dr. King’s wish that we should judge people on the content of their character, not [the color of] their skin,” Toth told a reporter this month.

This talking point is apparently the new Republican orthodoxy. At a campaign rally last year, then-President Donald Trump claimed that “critical race theory is a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis likewise asserted that critical race theory was “basically teaching kids to hate our country and to hate each other based on race,” adding: “It puts race as the most important thing. I want content of character to be the most important thing.”

In making such comments, Republican officials reveal that they don’t really understand critical race theory — and don’t really understand Martin Luther King Jr., either.

Despite the moral panic from conservative politicians that it was designed with “kids” in mind, critical race theory has largely been limited to law schools and advanced graduate programs. (As many joked on social media, if your “kids” are really being taught critical race theory, you should be proud they’re in law school.)

Moreover, far from stressing that race is “the most important thing,” critical race theory challenges the idea that race is a thing at all. It starts with the premise that there is no biological or scientific justification for racial categories and that race was a socially constructed invention — a fiction, but one that has nevertheless been written into our laws and legislation.

Those who work on critical race theory are baffled by the seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of their work.

Those who work on critical race theory are baffled by the seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of their work. Kimberlé Crenshaw, the noted law professor at UCLA and Columbia and a pioneering scholar in the field, dismissed Trump’s and DeSantis’ specific claims as “false and slanderous.” As she explained in a recent interview , “Critical race theory just says let's pay attention to what has happened in this country and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes, so we can become that country that we say we are.”

Contrary to Republican cries that this scholarship is “ un-American ,” Crenshaw asserts that “critical race theory is not anti-patriotic.”

“In fact, it is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it, because we believe in the 13th and the 14th and the 15th Amendment,” Crenshaw says. “We believe in the promises of equality. And we know we can't get there if we can't confront and talk honestly about inequality.”

Talking honestly about inequality, it turns out, was a special point of emphasis for Martin Luther King Jr. He devoted a considerable amount of his activism and authorship doing it. But the limited knowledge that Trump, DeSantis and Toth all have of King’s work apparently begins and ends with that one line about “character.”

To appreciate this reality, and to see how wrong those are who see MLK and critical race theory as diametrically opposed, look no further than two iconic moments the Texas law encourages teachers to use: “Martin Luther King Jr.'s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ and ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.”

In his landmark address at the March on Washington in August 1963, King did note his hope that “one day” his children would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin, but that was only one line in a more nuanced address.

While King looked ahead to that day, his vision remained firmly fixed on the realities of racism and discrimination in his own time.

More important, while King looked ahead to that day, his vision remained firmly fixed on the realities of racism and discrimination in his own time; he devoted the bulk of his address to identifying and articulating them. King chronicled the ways African Americans faced systemic patterns of discrimination and inequality, from “the unspeakable horrors of police brutality” to the discriminatory public and private policies that put African Americans on “a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

“We’ve come here today,” King patiently explained again, “to dramatize a shameful condition.”

In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail , which he wrote four months before the March on Washington, King had already sounded out these same things, in greater length.

The letter, which was King’s response to chiding from moderate white ministers, patiently explained that the first “basic step” in his activism was the “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist.”

Asserting that “privileged groups” fail to see how others often lack the same privileges and therefore dismiss their complaints, King rattled off for them — and us — a litany of the systemic and structural inequalities that faced African Americans, including police brutality, voting discrimination and an unequal economy that locked “the vast majority of your 20 million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.”

Notably, King spent a great deal of the letter outlining how “the unjust law” — which he defined as “a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself” — worked to prop up those racial and economic inequalities. The racist intent or racial impact of such legislation might not be overt, King noted. “Sometimes a law is just on its face,” he wrote, “and unjust in its application.”

Civil rights activists like King adopted the word “demonstrations” to characterize their protests, because they sought to demonstrate the realities of segregation and discrimination in undeniable terms. In the letter, King explained that he sought to expose the hypocrisies in Jim Crow laws and demonstrate the inequalities they obscured.

“We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive,” he wrote. “We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

King’s summons to identify and illuminate the racial, economic and political inequalities in American life runs counter to the conservative culture war against critical race theory and related publications like The 1619 Project. (In full disclosure, I am one of several historians who have written chapters for the project’s forthcoming book .)

Politicians like Trump, DeSantis and Toth are certainly welcome to believe that we should not, in fact, acknowledge the deep roots of racism in American society and how that shaped the nation around us, but they shouldn’t invoke the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. when they do so.

At the very least, they should follow their own recommendations and study what the civil rights icon actually wrote and actually said. It seems they might be in for an education of their own.

Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and doctoral degrees from Cornell University.

Advertisement

Supported by

In a Texas G.O.P. at War With Itself, the Hard Right Is Gaining

The speaker of the State House, Dade Phelan, survived a primary challenge from a Trump-backed activist, but many other Republican incumbents were ousted in bitter primary races.

• Share full article

By J. David Goodman

Reporting from the southeast Texas cities of Beaumont, Vidor, China and Orange.

Republican hard-liners in Texas thought this year’s primary elections would be the moment when, after years of trying, they would finally be able to take decisive control of the State Legislature.

They fell just short.

Though more than a dozen Republican incumbents fell to more conservative challengers, the party’s old guard rallied to protect the Texas House speaker, Dade Phelan, from being toppled by an activist endorsed by former President Donald J. Trump.

That victory in a runoff on Tuesday, by a margin of fewer than 400 votes out of more than 25,000 cast, staved off, at least for now, what might have been a swift transformation of the Texas House, which has long been a moderating force in state politics.

How long the House would remain that way was one of the biggest questions emerging from Tuesday’s election. Though Mr. Phelan and a few other high-profile targets avoided defeat this time, the party’s hard right remains confident that its power has yet to peak.

Across Texas, challengers have ousted a total of 15 Republican incumbents from the State House of Representatives in this cycle: Nine fell in primaries in March, and six more in runoffs on Tuesday.

“The party is moving in my direction,” said Representative Steve Toth, a Republican from the Houston suburbs who is aligned with Attorney General Ken Paxton, a leader of the party’s more conservative wing. Mr. Toth spoke on Tuesday outside a polling location in Vidor, Texas, wearing a red “Keep America Great” hat.

But not all the incumbents fell for the same reasons.

Some were targeted because they voted last year to impeach Mr. Paxton on charges of corruption and abuse of office (the State Senate acquitted him ). The challengers to those incumbents were mainly backed by Mr. Paxton and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and supported by two influential, religiously conservative billionaires, Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks.

In many other races, the challengers were supported with millions of dollars in campaign spending from school voucher proponents and from Gov. Greg Abbott, a strong supporter of voucher proposals, which would use government funds to help parents pay for private and religious schools.

The governor crisscrossed the state for months to campaign against fellow Republicans who had thwarted his voucher bills during the latest legislative session. On Tuesday, Mr. Abbott claimed victory. “The Texas Legislature now has enough votes to pass school choice,” he said in a statement.

Most of the candidates backed by Mr. Abbott and the Club for Growth, a national conservative anti-tax group, won their races. The group had spent $4.4 million on the Texas House runoff elections alone, including $1.5 million against Mr. Phelan.

“Had he pushed forward with the governor’s school choice bill, none of this challenge would have materialized,” said David McIntosh, the group’s president, referring to Mr. Phelan. “It sends a message around the country that if you’re not for school choice, you’re not a conservative Republican.”

At the same time, there were signs that the Republican Party’s old guard still held sway in some important contests.

Representative Tony Gonzales, a moderate Republican who represents a border district in Congress and was censured by the state party over his votes for gun control and same-sex marriage protections, survived a challenge by about 400 votes out of around 30,000 cast in the runoff.

Craig Goldman, a state representative, easily defeated a Paxton-backed candidate for the Republican nomination in an open congressional seat around Fort Worth, garnering around 63 percent of the vote in the runoff.

Even so, Jeronimo Cortina, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said the results on Tuesday showed that the party was continuing to move to the right. “Absolutely, 100 percent,” he said. “The next Legislature is going to be more uber-partisan.”

The various political currents threatening Republican incumbents this year were often pushing in the same direction. But sometimes they were at odds.

Many of Mr. Paxton’s and Mr. Patrick’s candidates also supported school vouchers, aligning them with both Mr. Abbott and the Club for Growth, a group that has distanced itself from Mr. Trump .

But Mr. Paxton also took on Republicans who tried to impeach him, even if that meant challenging incumbents who were backed by the governor.

For Mr. Patrick, also a supporter of school vouchers, the goal was loftier: to make the relatively moderate Texas House look more like the Senate, which Mr. Patrick leads with a firm, partisan hand.

“This is just one of the battles,” said Derek Ryan, a Republican political consultant. “As far as which direction the party and the state is going, there are more battles to come.”

Mr. Patrick and other hard-line Republicans have strongly objected to the longstanding practice in the Texas House of having members of both the majority and minority parties serve as committee chairs. The hard-liners have attacked Mr. Phelan for continuing the practice, and accused him of mollifying Democratic members in order to gain their support for his speakership.

On Tuesday, Mr. Paxton took that accusation further, saying that Mr. Phelan had taken advantage of the open primary system in Texas to court Democratic voters.

Mr. Phelan said as the runoff was winding down that his campaign was bolstered by the arrival of the old guard, including former Gov. Rick Perry, who came to Mr. Phelan’s aid when it appeared that he might lose.

The Phelan campaign ended up spending more than $12 million to defend his seat in a southeast Texas district that runs from Beaumont to the border with Louisiana, according to filings through mid-May.

In an interview as he campaigned for Mr. Phelan this month in China, Texas, Mr. Perry said he tried to focus his message on the interests of local voters. “I look at politics through the prism of economics,” he said.

Mr. Phelan’s seat in the Texas House may now be safe — his district is heavily Republican — but his speakership could be in doubt. Minutes after the results of the runoff became clear, Mr. Paxton issued a statement warning Republican members against supporting Mr. Phelan for speaker in the next term.

“Ask your 15 colleagues who lost re-election how they feel about their decision now,” Mr. Paxton wrote. “You will not return if you vote for Dade Phelan again!”

The victories by so many challengers may mean that the next legislative session, the 89th in the state’s history, will be one of Texas’ most conservative. Or it may be one of its most chaotic, as the mixed results in the runoffs further inflame the intraparty struggle for control.

Nate Schatzline, a Republican state representative aligned with Mr. Paxton, suggested as much on social media on Tuesday night: “The 89th is about to be wild!”

J. David Goodman is the Houston bureau chief for The Times, reporting on Texas and Oklahoma. More about J. David Goodman

Our Coverage of the 2024 Election

Presidential Race: News and Analysis

Republican allies of Donald Trump are calling for revenge prosecutions  and other retaliatory measures  against Democrats in response to his felony conviction in New York.

The original super PAC supporting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign plans to report that it raised nearly $70 million in May , and that it will spend a further $100 million through Labor Day.

President Biden blamed Trump and Republicans for the failure  of a previous immigration plan , after announcing that he would prohibit migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump called the new action too little, too late.

New Jersey:  Representative Andy Kim won the Democratic nomination for Senate , entering the race to unseat Senator Robert Menendez. While Representative Rob Menendez staved off a tough Democratic primary challenge  from Ravi Bhalla, the mayor of Hoboken, N.J.

A New Approach:   Ryan Busse and Raph Graybill of Montanna chart a different course  in trying to take down Gov. Greg Gianforte: attacking. While Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL, won the Republican primary for Senate  against the formidable Senator Jon Tester.

Luring Liberals Back to Cable TV:  Jon Stewart’s and Rachel Maddow’s Monday night programs have become something close to appointment viewing  for Democrats anxious about a close election.

Watch CBS News

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech dispute with New York regulator

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: May 30, 2024 / 12:19 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association in a dispute over whether its free speech rights were violated when the top financial regulator for New York state pushed banks and insurance companies to sever ties with the gun rights group.

The court said in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the NRA "plausibly alleged" that the New York regulator violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to end their business relationships with the NRA in order to "punish or suppress" the group's pro-gun rights advocacy.

"The critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries," Sotomayor wrote.

The decision revives a lawsuit that the NRA filed against Maria Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services. The group's suit, known as NRA v. Vullo, had been tossed out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, but the unanimous court invalidated the lower court's ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings.

"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson each authored concurring opinions.

"Today's decision confirms that government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups," David Cole, who is the national legal director for the ACLU and argued the case on behalf of the NRA, said in a statement. "The New York state officials involved here, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his chief financial regulator, Maria Vullo, were clear that they sought to punish the NRA because they disagreed with its gun rights advocacy. The Supreme Court has now made crystal clear that this action is unconstitutional."

Neal Katyal, who represented Vullo, said in a statement that they are "disappointed" by the Supreme Court's ruling and refuted the NRA's allegations that Vullo threatened, coerced or retaliated against insurers.

"Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone's First Amendment rights," he said. "Ms. Vullo enforced the insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities, and industry letters such as those issued by Ms. Vullo are routine and important tools regulators use to inform and advise the entities they oversee about risks."

The NRA's lawsuit

The dispute was one of two before the justices that involved so-called jawboning, or informal pressure by the government on an intermediary to take certain actions that will suppress speech. 

This case arose from investigations that Vullo, then the superintendent of New York's financial services department, opened into two insurers involved in NRA-endorsed affinity programs in 2017. Vullo, who left her post with the state in 2019, found the products offered by insurers Chubb and Lockton violated state insurance law, and she later determined that a third company, Lloyd's of London, underwrote similar unlawful products for the NRA.

One year later, in 2018, the Department of Financial Services entered into agreements with the three insurance companies, which acknowledged that they provided some unlawful NRA-backed programs. They also agreed to stop providing the policies to New York residents.

In the wake of the 2018 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, Vullo issued guidance letters that urged entities regulated by the Department of Financial Services to "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputation risks," that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun rights organizations.

Some banks and insurance companies did cut ties with the NRA, which in turn sued the department. The NRA claimed Vullo privately threatened insurers with enforcement action if they maintained their relationship with the advocacy group and created a system of "informal censorship" that was designed to suppress its speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The NRA prevailed before a federal district court, which denied Vullo's bid to dismiss the case. The district court found that the NRA sufficiently alleged that Vullo's actions could be interpreted as a "veiled threat" to regulated banks and insurers to stop working with the NRA or risk enforcement action from the Department of Financial Services.

A federal appeals court reversed the district court's ruling, determining that Vullo's guidance letters, as well as a press release, couldn't "reasonably be construed as being unconstitutionally threatening or coercive" since they were written in an "even-handed, nonthreatening tone" and used words intended to persuade, not intimidate.

The 2nd Circuit found that the NRA failed to plausibly allege that Vullo crossed the line into coercion and concluded that she was shielded by qualified immunity, though the Supreme Court did not review that finding.

The NRA then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, and it agreed to do so in November. The justices  held arguments in March.

Writing for the majority, Sotomayor said that Vullo could criticize the NRA and pursue violations of New York state insurance law.

"She could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy," she wrote. "Because the complaint plausibly alleges that Vullo did just that, the court holds that the NRA stated a First Amendment violation."

Focusing on Vullo's interactions with Lloyd's and the 2018 guidance letters, the court said the NRA's accusations, "viewed in context," reinforce the group's First Amendment claim.

Sotomayor wrote that the additional lower court proceedings may show that the NRA's claims of coercion are false or certain actions should be viewed differently because of newly disclosed evidence, but at this stage in the case, the court must assume that the factual allegations raised by the gun rights group in its complaint are true.

And although the NRA is not regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services, "Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA's business partners. Insurers in turn followed Vullo's lead, fearing regulatory hostility."

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Travis County DA asks Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse pardon for Daniel Perry

Texas "redoubling" efforts at the southern border in response to Biden's immigration order

Texas House's shift to the right expected to cause contention at State Capitol

Biden unveils new immigration order restricting asylum claims along border

• KSAT Insider
• KSAT Connect
• Entertainment

WEATHER ALERT

2 warnings and 3 advisories in effect for 15 regions in the area

George defeats two challengers in ward 4 democratic primary in race centered on public safety.

Ashraf Khalil

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Janeese Lewis George defeated a pair of challengers in Tuesday’s Democratic primary and will head into November’s general election as a heavy favorite to retain her Ward 4 seat on the D.C. Council.

George, a pillar of the council’s leftist wing, defeated Lisa Gore and Paul Johnson. In a familiar dynamic this election cycle, both criticized George’s politics as soft on crime.

Recommended Videos

Violent crime in the nation’s capital shot up in 2023. Although the numbers for homicides and carjackings are down so far in 2024, the political dynamics and tensions from last year’s crime spree continue to play out this year, with leftist and centrist wings of the Democratic Party facing off in multiple races.

Five of the 13 council seats were on the ballot, with easily the most competitive being the race to replace retiring Ward 7 Councilmember Vincent Gray. A former Washington mayor, Gray has served on the council for 13 years in two separate stints. A total of 10 candidates were vying to be his successor: Wendell Felder, Nate Fleming, Ebbon Allen, Kelvin Brown, Roscoe Grant, Eboni-Rose Thompson, Villareal “VJ” Johnson, Ebony Payne, Veda Rasheed and Denise Reed.

The race remained too early to call Tuesday night with Felder (who was endorsed by Gray), Payne and Thompson all bunched together.

The primary is largely viewed as a de facto election in a city where the Democratic Party dominates political life. However, losing primary candidates have regularly reclassified as independents to take another shot in November’s general election .

Gray, then the D.C. Council chairman, was elected mayor in 2011. But he only served one term before being defeated in the Democratic primary in 2015 by current Mayor Muriel Bowser. After his defeat, Gray returned to his old Ward 7 council seat in 2016, representing one of the poorest and Blackest wards in a fast-gentrifying capital city.

The 81-year-old has suffered from declining health for years and has fended off quiet speculation that he was no longer able to physically carry out his council duties. His office announced last month that Gray had suffered a second stroke.

A pair of Bowser's most recent mayoral challengers — Ward 7 Councilmember Trayon White and at-large Councilmember Robert White (no relation) were expected to retain their seats. Trayon White was being challenged by former high school principal Rahman Branch and Salim Adofo, a representative of D.C.'s neighborhood-level Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. Robert White was being challenged by comedian and community activist Rodney “Red” Grant, a frequent candidate for multiple elected positions.

Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto ran unopposed.

Two other members of the D.C. Council whose seats aren’t being contested this year — Charles Allen of Ward 6 and Brianne Nadeau of Ward 1 — face recall campaigns aiming to gather enough signatures to force a special election. In both cases, the main criticisms of the councilmembers center around their criminal justice policies.

Bowser, a former councilmember currently in her third mayoral term, generally doesn’t get publicly involved in the council races and has not endorsed any candidates. One notable exception came in 2018, when she openly supported a failed effort to oust then-at-large Councilmember Elissa Silverman.

Bowser has frequently sparred with the D.C. Council over public safety issues, charging that overly progressive policies have fueled spiraling violent crime rates in 2023 and damaged police morale.

Those differences came to a head last year when Bowser vetoed a sweeping rewrite of the criminal code, citing objections to the lowering of maximum sentencing guidelines for several crimes. The council quickly overrode her veto but the new criminal code was later overturned by the U.S. Congress — with multiple Democratic members citing Bowser's opposition as proof that the council had strayed from mainstream Democratic policies.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.