I occasionally take up reader queries. If you鈥檇 like to send one along, just send it to me, care of Caitlyn Aversman, at caitlyn.aversman@aei.org.
Dear Rick,
In following this winter鈥檚 fight over AP African American Studies, I鈥檝e grown more and more frustrated. It seems like Republican politicians are either flat-out bigots who want to strip African American history from schools or demagogues willing to tell bigoted supporters what they want to hear. Either way, I don鈥檛 see how any decent person can be anything but outraged. I鈥檝e read your book with Pedro Noguera and a number of your back-and-forth blogs with him. You seem like a reasonable conservative. So, I鈥檓 hoping you鈥檙e as troubled by what DeSantis and the Republicans are doing as I am. Are you?
Sincerely,
A Concerned Educator
Thanks for your thoughtful query and the kind words. It鈥檚 a hugely important topic, and I鈥檓 glad you raised it.
First, the short answer: No. I鈥檓 not troubled by what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing or the objections to Advanced Placement African American Studies. In fact, I shared many of the concerns he raised.
Now, the long answer. My experience is that the press has generally offered a stilted, inaccurate picture of what this debate is all about. As I鈥檝e , media coverage related to 鈥渃ritical race theory鈥� has tends to mischaracterize substantive concerns and skew the debate. To my mind, the punditry has been dominated by takes that are both dubious and unfair. I mean, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin DeSantis of mounting a 鈥渇ull-blown white supremacist鈥� attack on 鈥渇act-based history.鈥� The New York Times featured the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in an opinion piece, 鈥淔lorida is at the forefront of a nationwide campaign to silence Black voices鈥� and 鈥渆rase鈥� African American history.
But these thunderous, ubiquitous denunciations were, I think, both inaccurate and unfair. American slavery and the civil rights movement are (quite appropriately) among the most extensively covered topics in American history classes today, and there鈥檚 widespread, bipartisan support for this state of affairs. This winter, More in Common polling that over 90 percent of Republicans say that Americans have a responsibility to learn from the mistakes of our nation鈥檚 past and over 70 percent think schools should teach the specific history of African American, Hispanic, and Native Americans alongside our shared national history. More than Republicans say social studies textbooks should discuss topics like the slave ownership among many Founding Fathers and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
And Florida鈥檚 鈥淪top WOKE鈥� law, for instance, specifically that students study 鈥渢he civil rights movement鈥� and 鈥渢he ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping.鈥� Contrary to what鈥檚 been reported, the debate isn鈥檛 about teaching what happened in Selma or Montgomery. So, to my mind, the clash hasn鈥檛 been about bigotry so much as the ideological and political tilt of the pilot AP African American Studies framework.
Here鈥檚 what I mean: Florida asserts that the objectionable topics in the pilot framework included Intersectionality and Activism, Black Queer Studies, Post-Racial Racism and Colorblindness, and The Reparations Movement. Whatever one鈥檚 take on these theoretical camps and political movements, I don鈥檛 think that taking issue with them is tantamount to 鈥渟ilenc[ing] Black voices鈥� or opposing 鈥渇act-based鈥� history. Moreover, the readings were remarkably one-sided鈥攇iving students only the progressive perspective on fraught topics like reparations, colorblindness, and intersectionality.
When the College Board announced the revised course framework, the changes actually broadened and deepened the history. The political elements were pared back while new coverage was offered of Black Political Gains, Demographic and Religious Diversity in the Black Community, and Black Achievement in Science, Medicine, and Technology. Republicans have welcomed the revisions as expanding the history and paring the polemics.
And that, I think, is the issue. The objections weren鈥檛 to robust, inclusive African American history. The fight was over whether the course should embody 鈥渁nti-racist鈥� dogma鈥攕uch as that espoused by Nikole Hannah-Jones, architect of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project (who describes America as a 鈥渟lavocracy鈥�), or by Ibram X. Kendi, best-selling author (who teaches that America鈥檚 founding documents were fundamentally racist). If you鈥檙e a fan of the Hannah-Jones/Kendi worldview, that鈥檚 your prerogative, but that鈥檚 actually not how most parents, taxpayers, and classroom teachers think history should be taught. I mean, of Democrats say that all students should learn how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution advanced freedom and equality.
The problem is that the media coverage led people to think the fight was about whether to teach African American history rather than how to teach history鈥攁nd that has sowed confusion and toxic distrust. What鈥檚 the basis for this claim? Well, in late 2021, when the critical race theory fights were raging, I a year鈥檚 coverage of coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.
Every single story mentioned the question of whether or not to discuss racism, even though this isn鈥檛 controversial (consider that Florida鈥檚 鈥渁nti-CRT鈥� law mandates discussion of racism). Remarkably, good-faith objections about the premises and practices associated with CRT were almost wholly ignored. If you don鈥檛 think there are grounds for legitimate concerns, recall that Education Week鈥檚 Stephen Sawchuk observed in 2021, 鈥淐ritical race theory emerged out of postmodernist thought, which tends to be skeptical of the idea of universal values, objective knowledge, individual merit, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberalism.鈥�
So, how frequently did news stories mention such considerations? Well, when major media wrote about CRT, this explicit rejection of equality, rationality, and objectivity was in less than 10 percent of news accounts. CRT鈥檚 rejection of 鈥渃olorblind鈥� thinking was mentioned in barely 10 percent. In short, one could have read almost the whole of coverage in the nation鈥檚 leading newspapers and concluded there was nothing more to the CRT fight than whether schools should teach students about segregation. And that was both misleading and destructive. The result was that even a close observer of the debate had little opportunity to understand or assess the objections voiced by DeSantis or others.
Ultimately, I鈥檇 say that I鈥檓 generally supportive of what DeSantis did here but deeply troubled by how his sensible concerns were caricatured by the coverage of the dispute.
