A historian looks at Critical Race Theory

President Bill Clinton said, “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

Critical Race Theory (CRT) focuses on things wrong with America, both real and imagined, but seeks no cure in things right with America. Instead of a cure, CRT aims to tear down America and to replace it with a new and different America.

Rejecting CRT does not include ignoring all that has been wrong in the history of the United States. The nations that lived here more than five hundred years ago were harmed and cheated by European settlers and by the U.S. government. The slave trade brought millions of Africans, against their will, into the western hemisphere, treating them as property rather than as human beings. Immigrants have frequently been viewed with suspicion and forced to struggle to earn a place in the United States—including Irish and Italian and Polish and Russian immigrants as well as Jewish and Chinese and Hispanic immigrants. Civil rights were reluctantly granted to American citizens in the second half of the twentieth century, often against the will and the efforts of politicians and others in power, whether Republicans or Democrats or third-party citizens. All these facts cannot be ignored; they are part of our history. But these ills can be cured with what is right with America. What is right with America needs to be taught as clearly as all that is wrong with America.

CRT ignores the efforts of mainstream Americans to work decently with tribal peoples and to treat them properly. CRT ignores the efforts of mainstream Americans to end slavery and to provide equal opportunity to former slaves and to their children and grandchildren. CRT ignores the work of mainstream Americans to welcome immigrants, to embrace them into our common culture, and also to preserve and celebrate the contributions of every culture to the greatness of the United States of America. CRT pretends that mainstream America has always resisted civil rights for its minority citizens, that mainstream America did not outvote the leaders who opposed civil rights, replacing them democratically with leaders willing to support and enforce civil rights.

CRT suggests that racism and discrimination is systemic in the United States. Inasmuch as all people fall short of the glory of God and sin, selfish pride and hatred can be called systemic. But the United States has done more than most countries in the world to overcome selfish pride and hatred and to protect and defend the rights of all people. CRT suggests that some people are born into privilege and others are born into poverty and weakness, as if nothing can be done or is done to share privilege with the unfortunate. But the United States has done more than most countries in the world to relieve poverty, to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, to provide healing for the sick, to educate all citizens, and to open job opportunities and leadership opportunities to those who were born among minority groups or who came legally to this country from other parts of the world.

CRT acts as though wealth and power are limited, as if the only way to help the poor is to take more money from the rich, as if they only way for minorities to gain power is for them to take power away from the majority. America has never functioned that way. Capitalists know that labor adds value to the world. A raw diamond is shaped by a jeweler. The finished product is smaller, but it is more valuable because of the knowledge and effort of the jeweler. In the same way, value increases through businesses and corporations that hire and train workers, providing goods and services to citizens and abroad, improving the world for all people—not merely for the few rich business leaders and investors. Punishing the leaders and investors for their success does not help the poor; punishing those with wealth for their success encourages them not to succeed, not to provide jobs and training and goods and services that enrich the lives of many. So also, American government provides opportunity for all citizens. The very fact that some members of Congress are permitted to speak about their scorn for America, for capitalism, and for our current system of government reveals that America flourishes with freedom and that America provides opportunity for all people.

CRT has existed for years in academic circles, where it belongs. College students and history professors need to be acquainted with CRT as they need to be acquainted with the ideas of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other twentieth-century leaders whose bankrupt theories about history and economics have already been discredited by history. CRT can be a useful tool in the toolbox of any historian, but it must not be the only tool in the toolbox, nor the most-used tool or the first tool used. Some awareness of CRT might be helpful to junior and senior high history teachers as they prepare their lessons. But CRT is not an effective or useful tool for elementary students or high school students. Its procedures are faulty, and its findings are inadequate. Banning CRT from all institutes of learning would be inappropriate, unnecessary, and unAmerican. But asking school boards to ban CRT from elementary and high school classrooms is appropriate and American. Students need to know what is right with America so that, as they are also shown what is wrong with America, they can learn about the cure along with the ailment.

On this, reasonable people should be able to agree. J.

Education: right or privilege? (part one)

(This post continues a series of posts about socialism. I thank this week’s ice storm for making the writing of this post possible by canceling a day of work without cutting off electricity to the home.)

In the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress affirmed that all human beings have three God-given rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Less than a decade later, the new government treated the education of children as a right. In 1785, Congress declared that in all the territories and incipient states of the USA, the sixteenth section of every township would be reserved for a school. A township is a thirty-six square mile piece of land, six miles wide and six miles long. A section of a township is one square mile. The sixteenth section would be near the middle of the township, guaranteeing that every family in the territory or state would live within four miles of a school.

Of course, a school does not need an entire square mile. Congress intended for portions of the land to be sold to raise money to erect a school building, supply it with educational materials, and begin to pay the salary of a teacher. In some places, this plan worked as Congress intended. In others, school board members sold the property and pocketed the profit. Sooner or later, most schools needed additional funding to remain open. Some townships established a tax to support their schools; many others required a fee to be paid by the families of students. In addition to instructing students of varying ages, teachers were also required to maintain schoolhouses, from lighting the stove early in the morning to cleaning the classrooms at the end of the day. They were generally expected to gather fees from the families, which they would often accept as farm produce or volunteer labor when families could not afford to pay directly for their children’s education.

The education of children has always begun in the family. Young children learned to walk and to talk by imitating their elders. In agricultural families, children began working with the crops as soon as they were mobile. Children learned crafts from their parents; in some cases, they would become apprentices to another craftworker in the community. Wealthy families hired or purchased private tutors for their children.

Over time, religious communities began to establish schools for their children. They learned to read and write by studying religious texts. They were taught songs and stories of their religious heritage. Martin Luther was among the first to suggest that governments should support such schools for the benefit of the community. Immigrants to the western hemisphere often established schools along with their congregations—this was especially true of Lutheran and Catholic settlements. In many cases, a group of Lutherans would build a school first and worship there on Sundays until they had raised sufficient money to build a proper church.

Meanwhile, as rural areas benefited from the establishment of a school in every township, American cities often entrusted their children to private academies. No academic standards had yet been set; any man or woman could open a school and call himself or herself a teacher. Sometimes men taught school for a few years while they completed their preparation to work as doctors, lawyers, or other professionals. Larger schools had faculties and accepted boarders from the countryside and from other towns. After the Civil War, many educators came to the southern states to begin schools for African-American children. At the same time, though, attitudes about educating children began to be more specific and more focused.

American thinkers perceived the value of public education to maintain and preserve a uniquely American culture. As immigrants flowed into the New World from many diverse nations and cultures, their children were gathered into schools and taught to speak and read and write in English. They learned to be good citizens of the United States. Instead of Bible stories, they were instructed about Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims, and the Founding Fathers. They learned to revere George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; later generations were also taught about Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford. American attitudes included patriotism, respect for hard work, and the value of the individual. Tax dollars, usually from property taxes, supported education, so no family was required to pay fees. Private education continued among some religious communities. Still, the “melting pot” of American education fell short in some areas. Many communities used the tax dollars of white families to fund schools for white children while they used the tax dollars of black families to fund schools for black children. Therefore, even when the black children outnumbered the white children, the white children benefited from far better resources in their schools.

Around the middle of the twentieth century, public education in the United States was reevaluated. “Separate but equal” schools were disallowed, and classrooms began to be desegregated, often with children bused into other areas to balance the school bodies racially. In response, many families moved to the suburbs or put their children in private schools. At the same time, new theories about education changed life in the classroom. Baby boomers struggled to understand “New Math.” History and geography were replaced with “Social Studies.” New grading scales replaced the traditional A, B, C, D, and F. Formerly heroic figures like Washington and Lincoln were revealed to have had flaws and shortcomings. Schools began to offer mandatory classes on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, and on sexual education. Bible readings and prayers were disallowed. Teachers fought for and obtained the right to train students in controversial theories such as Darwinian evolution.

Some families responded to changing school environments by withdrawing their children in favor of private schools or home schooling. A few parents sought positions on school boards in an effort to preserve education as they remembered it. But, at the same time, the federal government became more involved in the education of children, establishing standards to be met by every school in the country, and encouraging testing to ensure that all children were learning the same skills. Earlier schools in the United States saw their goal as rescuing the children of immigrants from their families and making them Americans. Now schools in the United States saw their goal as rescuing children from their families to free them from unfavorable attitudes such as racial prejudice, religious intolerance, and unscientific attitudes toward the world.

Because tax dollars are collected from all property owners to provide public education for all children in a community, public education in the United States sometimes is presented as a successful experiment in socialism. Freedom to choose private schools or home schooling diminishes the argument that American public education is a successful socialist enterprise. Private schools and home schooling are privileges that many families cannot afford. Arguably, though, their existence offers competition to public schools, competition which forces the public schools to maintain higher quality than they might offer otherwise. Many other political factors enter into this discussion, including school choice, charter schools, and discipline problems in the schools. Americans remain largely in favor of education for children as a right, not a privilege. But many questions remain about the best way to teach children and the best reasons to do so. J.

We used to home school

After twenty-five years of service, the Salvageable Family Home School has closed its doors. That’s not bad news—we celebrate the high school graduation of our youngest child and the successful educational paths they all have chosen.

All have been accepted into colleges. All who are not currently enrolled have completed their Bachelor’s degrees in four years or less. They graduated with honors. Two went on to complete Master’s degrees. All of them are currently employed, even during the virus crisis.

Our decision to home school was not made lightly, but in a sense we were led into it. At the time, I was associated with a church that had a private school, and our children were aware of school children outside the house at various times. They were interested in school, and they were mentally ready, but their birthdays put them just past the starting age as set by the state. I knew that schools sometimes made exceptions regarding those dates, but the school leaders said, “If we make an exception for you, we have to make an exception for anyone else who asks.” They did offer a compromise—two years of half-day kindergarten meant for four-year-olds before entering the full day kindergarten meant for five-year-olds. We declined.

We knew a family in the neighborhood who homeschooled. Two of their daughters sometimes watched our children. They were doing well, and we took advice from them. We agreed that we would evaluate the situation year by year and not commit to home schooling all the way through high school. Little did we know that we would be educating our children for the next twenty-five years.

Starting with a book called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, we began to assemble a home school library.  Saxon Math met our needs in that department, and we found other books that did the job. The summer after we started home schooling I had a job offer and we moved, so there was no pressure to put our children into the church’s school. From time to time we participated in home school cooperatives, but it often seemed that we could accomplish as much at home as we could gain from a cooperative.

One advantage of home schooling is being able to work at the child’s pace. Students who pick up a concept easily do not have to wait for their classmates before moving on to something new; students struggling with a concept can have extra explaining and practice before moving on without hampering anyone else’s education. Also, no time is consumed traveling to and from school or waiting for a bus; that gain in time allows more instruction, more leisure time, or more time to contribute to family chores. Life skills such as cooking and laundry become part of the educational plan. Interesting conversations at mealtime are part of home schooling, and field trips are easy to arrange with little or no planning required.

One concern some people have about home schooling is “socialization”: how will home schooled children learn to make friends among their peers? Home school cooperatives are one answer, church activities are another, and organized athletic events are a third. Several of my daughters took up Irish dancing and have reached the championship level. Moreover, not only in my family but in other home school families I have known, the children are more natural at socializing with people of different ages. They have not spent their days in a room with one adult and a couple dozen children their age.

Not every family should home school. Doing so requires a massive commitment of time as well as a financial investment. Public schools and private schools provide a valuable service for our communities. The irony has not escaped me that we finished home schooling at a time when many families are having their first experience of home schooling. Most will return their children to the public or private schools as soon as they open, but some families—including the students—may be finding value in home schooling. They may be considering continuing the home school experience even when schools reopen. For those in that position, I offer encouragement and best wishes. J.

A novel idea, part two

As I revealed last week, Jason Hero won the lottery—the grand prize of three hundred million dollars—without buying a lottery ticket. Jason never received the full three hundred million dollars. He took the bulk payment option, which was roughly half the promised figure (which would have been paid out over twenty years had he favored the other option), and about half of that prize was claimed by federal and state income taxes. Jason was left, then, with seventy-five million dollars, which is still a lot of money.

Jason chose to tithe, to give one tenth of his winnings to the Church and to various charities. Some congregations are so firmly opposed to gambling in any form that they would have refused his gift. Others would say that he should have tithed from the pre-tax amount. But Jason decided that he would divide his tithe among seventy-five recipients, giving each of them one hundred thousand dollars. He figured that was a large enough gift to do some good in seventy-five different places, but not so much that it would be harmful. Jason had heard of congregations that had been torn apart by arguments about how to spend a large gift. He did not want to cause any such disputes.

Jason chose several congregations that he had attended over the years, and a couple of congregations that were led by friends of his. He also sent some gifts directly to the denominational office, designated for foreign missions and for charitable organizations. He gave gifts to secular charities, including the American Red Cross. He gave gifts to the local public radio station and to the local public television station. Jason donated money to the zoo, to the symphony orchestra, to the ballet company, to the community theater, to the art museum, to the county’s historical museum, and to the hospital. He sent checks to the schools where he had earned his bachelor’s degree and his master’s degree.

After distributing his tithe, Jason began investing in his own future. He set up an account that would pay him one thousand dollars a week for the next fifty years, using up $2,500,000 of his winnings. He then took another five million dollars and set up accounts for his ten children, nieces, and nephews. The accounts were trusts to fund their higher education. Until they turned twenty-five, they could spend the money only on tuition, other academic fees, room and board, and normal living expenses such as a car, maintenance of the car, and clothing. Those who had already attended college could use the money to pay off student loans and, if they chose, to pursue additional degrees. Once they turned twenty-five, they were allowed to do whatever they wanted with the remaining money in their trusts. Jason knew that half a million dollars would not be enough for any of them to drop out of life and do nothing useful for the rest of their years. He hoped that the college educations they received would grant them fuller lives that would also benefit the people around them.

After all these sensible plans, Jason still had sixty million dollars to spend in other ways. Some of those will follow in future posts. J.