No, teaching critical race theory is not teaching history

What I discovered about critical race theory in public schools and why it shouldn't be taught

But despite all of the furor surrounding these bills, many Americans still do not have a firm grasp of what critical race theory is and how it manifests in public schools. I’m a senior fellow with the public policy think tank the Manhattan Institute and have recently completed a multipart investigative series about critical race theory in public schools – and what I discovered shocked me to the core.

First, a definition: Critical race theory is an academic discipline that claims that the United States was founded on racism, oppression and white supremacy – and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Some supporters of critical race theory claim it is merely a "lens," arguing that "race is a social construct" and that racism is "systemic" not individual, but this is a strategic retreat that fails to grapple with some of the theory's more controversial concepts.

Critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dialectic of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: In order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic and political revolution.

 In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced third-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers in a diversity training session to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix.” The trainers told straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males that they are members of the oppressor class and handouts warned of “covert white supremacy.”

In New York City, a public school principal sent parents literature including "tools for action" and touting “white traitors” and advocating for full “white abolition.”

And in Portland, Oregon, my investigation found that students are not only subjected to a critical race theory curriculum, but also trained to develop their so-called white identity and are taught about racial justice in the terms of "revolution and/or resistance." 

Again, teaching critical race theory is not teaching history. It is teaching an attitude and belief that pretty much all white people are racist by nature, that racism is inherent and cannot be prevented, and that (contrary to what Dr Martin Luther King stood for) we cannot be a colorblind society because white people are supremacists and oppressive. 

Moreover, it's a blatant lie to suggest that parents, politicians, and others who reject the CRT and don't want it taught to their children are wanting to eliminate any teaching about slavery, the civil rights movement, or any other racial inequalities. This is simply straw man. Something pushed because CRT advocates cannot win this argument if they tell the truth. 

Nobody had an issue teaching history. They have an issue teaching children that all white people are supremacist and oppressors and all minorities are victims of systemic racism. 

At the end of the day, this sort of concept is being pushed on our children in several states and likely will be pushed on our kids in other states as well. What happens when graduates from Oregon, New York, or California have to move into the workplace and interact with people who are not taught that white people are inherently racist and that minorities are all oppressed? The clash will be epic.