A few folks have pointed me to "CRT and the Christian School" and I thought I'd jot down some thoughts in response.
John Stonestreet has a better and shorter treatment of CRT here.
I found the article at Reformed Journal to be very unhelpful in the first section.
- denying the explicit teaching of CRT in schools, when multiple instances have been in the news for a good while now. Maybe it truly isn't in his school, or maybe he is unaware of it. Then he admits this misses the critics' point!
- arguing CRT people don't agree on a common definition, but giving one anyway.
- setting up a strawman: CRT objectors don't understand it, they deny common grace, they conflate it with other things.
- whataboutism - are we as worried about Christian Nationalism? Seriously? Talk about invoking boogeyman labels. Holding a conservative political opinion makes one a dangerous "nationalist," but holding a view that CRT asserts does NOT necessarily make you CRT? Obvious bias, there.
The second section where he lists concerns he's heard about CRT is quite good. I recognized my position there, which is always a good sign that the other side understands you.
The last section where he responds to those concerns is so-so. He basically says, we doing our best to teach the truth, and the truth is complicated. Well, yes, obviously. But are you going to assert in class that America was founded on slavery, or on liberty? Of course, the truth is somewhere between those, but it is CRT and the 1619 project that are making it an absolute binary choice today, more than conservatives. There will always be extreme, polarizing positions on cable news on both sides. The point is, should school boards allow either absolute position to be all that is taught in class? No. Banning CRT is not white-washing history. It is disallowing historical reductionism in the classroom.
The last section could be culled to a few bullet points for school boards to define their position clearly for concerned parents (I took a stab at starting one, at the end of this article). I believe this is an essential responsibility of boards today, or the leftist training that teachers typically receive will have free reign in our education system. I am familiar with a similar dynamic in the church: seminaries are often more liberal than the churches they serve. Churches that call pastors have to know this well, to ferret out potential problem areas in what the pastoral candidate believes. Boards need to do the same with teachers.
CRT is a heresy, and I use the word advisedly. Every heresy is a distortion of the truth, taking one aspect of the truth and over-emphasizing or distorting it, while believing many other true things. What would Athanasius have said to the objection: "why can't we teach Arianism in your churches and schools? Arians believe the Bible is God's Word, teach the atonement of Christ for our sins, and our need for faith in Him. The Trinity is complex, so let's not freak out."
This article is doing a similar thing with CRT:
1. Ignoring or downplaying its fundamental error: exaggerating and distorting the (real and true) importance of race in society.
2. Appealing more to the aspects of the truth that CRT gets right.
3. Appealing to the complexity of history, when CRT's main assumption is the simplicity of history (it boils down to oppression).
It also ignores the Marxist and Gramscian roots and goals of the movement, and the extent to which such ideas have permeated the education of educators, without using the label CRT.
Holding views aligned with CRT while trying to deny you teach it erodes trust. The author comes very close to doing this. I don't mean to imply the author of this article is deceptive, but I do think teachers' unions and professors who train teachers often are. This author is naive to or unaware of leftist aggression in academia. He thinks it's insulting to even consider that teachers could grade papers differently based on political opinions, when this happens routinely in schools.
Parents are right to be suspicious. Yes, their suspicions can be inflamed by political demagoguery on either side. But if school boards do their job - creating clear policy - this can be an opportunity to advance their vision for their highly commendable endeavor in Christian education.
A statement on Critical Race Theory (CRT) from the school board of _____ Christian School
__________ Christian School is aware of many parental concerns over CRT. We have communicated and expect our teachers to follow these basic principles in teaching on these issues.
1. Indoctrination
We reject the attempt to teach that America was founded in slavery and cynical self-interest, more than in principles of liberty.
We affirm the reality of racism in our nation, and that our founders did not all live up to their good ideals in this area.
2. Race Essentialism
We reject the attempt to classify people as oppressors or privileged solely by their whiteness.
We affirm that people are often viewed and treated differently based on their race. Whether to pursue "colorblindness," or to take note of one's race so as to treat them well, is a constructive high school classroom discussion to have.
3. Christian worldview
We reject these and other errors of CRT as fundamentally contradictory to the Christian worldview.
We affirm that CRT shares some goals with the Christian worldview, such as advocating for the marginalized. The merits of how effectively or justly CRT thus advocates, is a constructive high school classroom discussion to have.
No comments:
Post a Comment