There has been one bill passed in Texas which is considered their anti-CRT law, that would be HB3979 signed into law on June 16. The newer bill, SB3, seeks to amend HB3979 and has not been passed because their is no quorum in the House to pass it.
There has been a recent bit of noise in how SB3 would strike certain issues of racism, slavery, and inclusivity from being taught in Texas. Like this Huffpost piece and various other similar takes.
Texas Senate Bill Drops Teaching Requirement That Ku Klux Klan Is ‘Morally Wrong’
To understand how this story is not completely accurate, nor portraying the necessary facts, we have to go back and look at how HB3979 formed.
When it came to very specific topics that must be taught, according to this legislation, the statement in the original bill looked like this:
There wasn’t much in the way of specifics. By the time the bill was in its final form, it contained several dozen specifics. Almost all of which were blue lined out in SB3, to take HB3979 back to something more closely resembling its original form.
So, when these were struck down, the effect was not proclaiming that these things could no longer be taught, it was removing that language from legislation. The implication isn’t that all of these additions were already taught and are now being removed. Furthermore, some of these topics are in fact already taught and this legislation does not remove them from requirements.
Some already exist in Texas Administrative Code:
Keven Ellis, chair of the State Board of Education, told lawmakers that he did not believe the bill would ban anything in the curriculum standards adopted by the board, including for its courses on African American and Mexican American studies. But he suggested adding an amendment to clarify that.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/20/texas-republicans-expand-restrictions-racism-education/8023800002/
It is important for people in Texas to understand this, because you go to the code to see what is being taught, not knee-jerk reactions in legislation.
Neither bill is anti-CRT legislation. They are touted as such, but neither mentions Critical Race Theory, CRT, or anything about limiting CRT. We could say these are anti-1619 project legislation. Both bills state 1619 may not be required, which is different from saying the 1619 project can’t be mentioned. The language is, “…may not…require an understanding of the 1619 project.”
That’s it. Regardless of the outcome, that’s the only language.
The concerning portions of these bills are language of how one is to approach teaching certain topics.
- (1)A teacher may not be compelled to discuss a
particular current event or widely debated and currently
controversial issue of public policy or social affairs;
(2)A teacher who chooses to discuss a topic described
by Subdivision (1) shall, to the best of the teacher ’s ability,
strive to explore that [the] topic from diverse and contending
perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;
What is the result of this language? Teachers are to devise a “whataboutism” to counter a statement of fact? Without deference. The result is not critical thought, it’s Donny Trump style, “Nobody knows.” There are no sure things, it’s all a matter of mushy perspective. The “marketplace of ideas.” How does a teacher teach any current event without worrying about politics? What’s the countering narrative to BLM protests? Proudboy marches? Is that it?
Is the goal not to teach current events at all? When from the top of SB3 it is stated:
(A)A[(1)] the fundamental moral, political, and
intellectual foundations of the American experiment in
self-government
…as a theoretical? Is this dead language speaking to the dead? Do future adults have no place in that experiment, except as the morally vague and indifferent?
“How could a teacher possibly discuss slavery, the Holocaust or the mass shootings at the Walmart in El Paso or at the Sutherland Springs Church in my district without giving deference to any one perspective?” Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, asked.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2021/07/16/texas-senators-approve-tougher-anti-critical-race-theory-bill-but-its-success-unlikely/
2. School districts may not require, make part of a course, or reward credit for:
i)A lobbying for legislation at the
federal, state, or local level; or
(ii)A social policy advocacy or public
policy advocacy;
(B)A political activism, lobbying, or efforts to
persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the
federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct
communication; or
(C)A[(B)]A participation in any internship,
practicum, or similar activity involving social policy advocacy or
public policy advocacy; and
This language doesn’t make clear that a teacher couldn’t encourage activity in social/justice reform, just that it may not be part of a curriculum or rewarded. However, coupled with the inability of a teacher to take a moral stance, I suspect the point is taken. No SJW’s allowed.
3. Now we get to the what I suppose is the concern about racism, slavery, or sexism being taught in school.
It’s impossible to teach about slavery or sexism without blaming someone! “The poor chillins will get their feelsies hurt!”
(ix)A[(x)] with respect to their
relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything
other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to,
the authentic founding principles of the United States, which
include liberty and equality; and
As in Desantis’ rule in Florida, the Declaration of Independence is the only true history of the US. Everything must be measured in that respect.
And how shall we judge a school district or teacher’s shortcomings in this regard?
vi)A[(vii)] an individual should feel
discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological
distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex;
By how someone feels. How they are made to feel.
100 Percent True 