Read No Evil

What could be more satisfying than prohibiting that certain thoughts be thought, words be said, and books be read?  Prohibiting that certain persons be born or live near to us might be more satisfying to some of us, I suppose, but here we don't dream of unlimited power, but consider power that may be exercised by ordinary humans, especially parents.

There have been reports of school districts banning, or being asked to ban, certain books, or perhaps more properly the teaching and reading of certain books in schools.  Perhaps they may not even be mentioned by teachers or be present in school libraries, or their titles displayed; I'm not sure.  Neither am I sure how widespread and significant the bans or demands for banning are at this time.  But given our long history of prohibiting so many things, and destroying them when we're able to do so, the imposition of bans on the written word should raise concerns.

It's said that all parents hope their children will be "better" than they are.  Better in what sense, though?  I think that "better off" is what's hoped for; better in a material sense.  That may mean that children must be better educated in the sense that education may facilitate economic prosperity.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that parents hope their children will be smarter than they are, or "better" than they are in morals or wisdom.  I suspect that most parents think themselves smart enough, wise enough, moral enough to satisfy if not please everyone.  To them, the thought of their children being better than they are in those senses may not even arise. They may not consider it to be a possibility.

The thought of someone else thinking themselves better than they are, and telling that to their children either expressly or by implication, would be horrifying.  It would even be intolerable.  But teachers are in a position to do just that.  Teachers see children more than parents, in some cases.  Teachers have the authority not only to suggest that children read certain books but require them to do so.  

Certain books suggest, or state outright, that parents aren't wise, or moral, or smart.  They may also suggest or expressly state that things parents hold dear or believe to be the case are unworthy, even evil.

So it's not all that surprising that some parents and school districts have taken it upon themselves to ban certain books from school.  I can think of some I'd like to see banned, frankly.  But what I'd like to see banned aren't necessarily those other parents would like to see banned.  Here is the danger in banning.

There was a time when conservatives were leery of government control in general.  Now, it seems, they support government control of what is taught in schools, provided that means that what is taught in schools is that which they believe should be taught, and not what they believe should not be taught.  This isn't necessarily only a conservative concern.  Books like Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men are considered racist or demeaning to the disabled by those who aren't conservatives, politically or socially or culturally.  

I think that banning, as a rule, isn't effective.  Students will find a way to read and see and hear things of all kinds, and will be especially eager to do so when they know their parents will disapprove.  They probably will be eager to accept what their parents don't accept or even hate or fear.  For good or ill, this is a part of growing up.  In any case, eventually, someone should think for themselves.  

And I suggest that should be the goal of schools.  It's obviously necessary that children learn to read and write, know basic math and science.  It's also appropriate that they know something about history.  Beyond that, they should be taught how to think critically.  Knowing how to do so, they're in a position to exercise their own judgment on what to read.  That would be ideal, in my humble or not so humble opinion.  Schools, and parents, shouldn't be in the business of determining or proscribing what students should or should not read.

This wouldn't necessarily be acceptable to parents, however.  It would require that students be taught the basics of logic and rhetoric, learn to analyze claims and opinions, test them to the extent possible.  That may be more frightening to some parents than learning their children are reading about critical race theory.  Personally, I think that learning to think critically would have the result that critical race theory wouldn't be accepted without question in its entirety and its wilder conclusions and inferences questioned.  That would be the case for other theories, conclusions and inferences as well, however.

And as that would be the case there are no doubt parents who would want critical thinking to be banned.  Well, there's a choice to be made.  Presumably most of us want our children to be able to think.  Then it becomes a question of whether they should think well or not.  If there are parents who are against their children being taught how to think logically and clearly, it would seem appropriate to disregard them when it comes to regulating schooling.

 

The Race Regarding Critical Race Theory

Truth be told, I was unaware of Critical Race Theory ("CRT") until recently.

It seems it developed not in the Academy, where we expect theories to be raised, but in the legal academy.  That's right, in law school.  Perhaps the fact it originated in law schools explains why I've been ignorant of it--I'm a practicing lawyer, and so have been ignoring my law school days for many years.  Law school as I experienced it had very little to do with the practice of law.

I became aware of CRT when glancing through Google News and saw a headline about it being banned from public schools by the State of Idaho.  Bans imposed by government always interest me.  Bans applied to what is taught in schools are especially intriguing.  When legislatures seek to limit what is learned, red flags should fly.

In fact, flags have been flying, but of a different sort--flags of the chattering armies of what has been called the Culture War.  This is the sort of thing pundits (and pulpits?) delight in, and though I avoid them (both!) I can't help but hear or read of what they say.  What they say about CRT is, like all they say, predictable.  It continues to baffle me that people are paid large sums of money for telling us exactly what it may be expected they will tell us, but it seems we so enjoy people telling us things, in particular things we like to think, that they will continue to do so.

I read on some of the websites dealing with this issue claims to the effect that CRT is somehow based on or related to Marxism.  Idaho in its zeal to ban, or perhaps we should say purge, certain ideas from its schools has also apparently banned Socialism and Marxism.  I don't think Communism was mentioned, but there's time enough to ban many ideas if its legislature is so inclined.

I wonder sometimes what people think Socialism to be.  I doubt they think it has much to do with the government owning the means of production.  What it is imagined Marxism consists of I cannot say.  These are words regularly used to inspire fear in our Great Republic, and have been for some time.  For all I know, CRT may share certain characteristics with the theory behind Marxism.  Whether it does or does not will, of course, depend on what it is, but in the realm of the media and cyberspace, where taking the time to think is discouraged, the tendency is exclaim and declare.  Generally, what is proclaimed is left unchallenged or if it is challenged then we can't be bothered to expend the effort to decide what actually is the case.

It seems that CRT involves the claim that racism is a feature of society, and is embedded in our political and social institutions, including the legal system, resulting in the perpetuation of racial inequality.  In other words, it encompasses the view that racism is systemic in our society.  It seems that it makes the same or similar claims regarding sexuality and gender identification.  Unsurprisingly, it rejects claims that racism is in the nature of an aberration and that acts of racism are isolated events, unrepresentative of society as a whole.

When it comes to the legal system, a legal realist would accept that the laws, their enactment, interpretation and enforcement are influenced by race and other considerations, social and economic.  It seems naive to think otherwise.  For my part, I think it's apparent that racism is a feature of our society.

What seemingly raises concerns in the State of Idaho and elsewhere, however, is the perception that what CRT means in practice is the active denigration of our society, our religion, our government, our nation, and white people in particular.  It's claimed that white students come home or will come home from school wondering if something is wrong with them for being white and therefore oppressive and bigoted, or claiming that their parents are, or belittling our nation.  It's said that CRT generates a kind of reverse racism and condemns efforts made in the law and society to promote equality as inadequate or worse. 

There's nothing more disturbing to a parent than what's taught to their children in school, if it conflicts with what the parent believes.  But it isn't difficult for me to imagine proponents of CRT making such claims, in and out of schools.  Righteousness and zeal are characteristics of those of us who believe they perceive a great injustice and vow to eradicate it, as is the demonization of opponents to the cause.  Such claims are bound to anger and infuriate people who, while trying to live their lives, find themselves considered the successors of evil people, and perpetuators of the terrible consequences of their acts.

It must be acknowledged that it's quite possible to overstate such claims and make generalizations which have little or no basis in fact when it comes to racism, when it comes to most anything for that matter.  Take the 1619 Project, for example.  Personally, I find it unreasonable to assert that  racism and slavery in North America arose when 20 or so enslaved Africans were snatched from a Portuguese ship and brought to what is now Virginia.  Also, I think it unreasonable to claim that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. 

It's nice to think the very real problem of racism in our society could be acknowledged and addressed intelligently.  Whether it is the nature of the times or there are other reasons, though, we seem incapable of thoughtfully and pragmatically addressing anything serious.  Resentment and rage are reactions to be expected whenever a criticism is made that suggests there are problems to be solved, or that we're at fault or deficient in some sense.

Which brings me to the figure appearing at the top of this post.  Represented there are Achilles and his nemesis, the tortoise.  The philosopher Zeno imagined a race between the hero and a humble tortoise.  Confidant that he'll win the race, Achilles gives the tortoise a head start.  Zeno claimed that Achilles would never reach the tortoise, however.  Achilles must first reach the spot where the tortoise started.  However, when he does the tortoise has move forward.  However small a distance it has moved, Achilles must reach that point before passing it.  But the tortoise will have moved again before Achilles gets there.  So, he'll never even catch up to the tortoise.  Zeno is famous for his paradoxes, and this is one of them.

Where racism is concerned, are we Achilles pursuing the tortoise?  Will it always be there in front of us?  It has a head start.