The CRT Debate is Not Over

Critical Race Theory.

One of the hottest topics both nationally and as I talk to local taxpayers and residents is CRT, or Critical Race Theory. I'm not going to debate whether it exists, rather I'm going to review it through the lens of Wisconsin Assembly Bill 411. This bill had the pillars of CRT in its crosshairs:

A school board or the operator of a charter school established under s. 118.40 (2r) or (2x) shall not allow a teacher to teach race or sex stereotyping, including any of the following concepts, to pupils in any course or as part of any curriculum: 

(a) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.

(b) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(c) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex.

(d) Individuals of one race or sex are not able to and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.

(e) An individual's moral character is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex

(f) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for acts committed in the past by other individuals of the same race or sex.

(g) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of the individual's race or sex.

(h) Systems based on meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or are created by individuals of a particular race to oppress individuals of another race.

The votes for this bill were 100% down party lines (see votes): all Republicans were for passing the bill and all Democrats opposed the bill. Because the GOP has a sizable advantage in both chambers, it passed without issue but was vetoed by Governor Tony Evers. But why? If it doesn't exist, why veto the above verbiage?

Upon the bill passing in the Wisconsin Senate Panel, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, or WEAC, put out a statement on their website titled "Update: Senate Panel OKs Bill Preventing Honesty In Teaching". After reading the text of the bill above, I find that an interesting headline. They go on to state:

The Senate Education Committee has voted along party lines to advance legislation that would prevent educators from providing age-appropriate, honest and complete history in K-12 schools. The bill (SB 411/AB 411) is part of a national push against educators teaching honestly about our society in a historical context, including systemic racial inequality and how people have organized and created coalitions across race, class and gender.

That is an interesting interpretation of bill's text. If the definition of CRT is accurate in the bill then the WEAC stance would be pro-CRT.

The Howard-Suamico Education Association, or HSEA, is in Region 3, Zone B of WEAC and links to WEAC resources on their homepage.

Part of the pushback I received when running for school board was that CRT was a "collegiate level curriculum", "was not taught in our school district", and that Social Emotional Learning (SEL) contained no references to CRT.

If the latter is true and SEL contains no references to CRT, then WEAC's position against the banning of CRT as cited in AB 411 makes very little sense. Couple that with the veto of AB 411 by the Governor and one can only conclude that folks want the back door left open for CRT by way of SEL.