Critical Race Theory in the United States

This Black History Month was the first one to be celebrated with abundant restrictions. Within the past calendar year, 14 states have made formal restrictions against the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in the classroom. An additional 35 states have moved towards taking action on restricting CRT. The threat of not adhering to these restrictions is real. Numerous instructors from elementary school teachers to professors have and will face repercussions if they hold classroom discussions on systemic racism. These restrictions are nebulous to navigate with the proposed South Carolina law prohibiting teachers from discussing topics that create “ ‘discomfort, guilt or anguish” on the basis of political belief.’ This makes many topics related to the darker side of American history difficult to touch upon.

Two Black children sit at a table beside a Black man looking at worksheets. The children wear yellow attire and the man is in a red-orange shirt.
Two Black children sit at a table beside a Black man looking at worksheets. Source: Yahoo Images

What is Critical Race Theory?

Critical race theory emerged from the mind of Derrick Bell, a Black Harvard Law professor. The theory was the result of courses aimed at understanding the relationship between American policies and race. Bell ultimately resigned from his position due to his view of Harvard’s discriminatory hiring practices. Bell’s resignation and the accompanying disappearance of Harvard Law’s only course on race and the law left many students, especially Black students like Kimberlé Crenshaw, who eventually developed the notion of “intersectionality”, at odds with the administration on the importance of re-instituting a course focused on the topic. The result was a series of campus discussions on said topic by POC scholars that led to the full emergence of CRT. A step beyond the more digestible concepts traditionally anti-racist concepts like civil rights, CRT argued that American history and law were intertwined with a deeply entrenched racism that ultimately led to discriminatory proceedings and policies that have marginalized people of color, especially Black Americans.

Though initially shrouded in the covers of academia, CRT became more mainstream with President Clinton’s nomination of Lani Guinier, American legal scholar and civil rights theorist and the first woman of color to be appointed tenureship at Harvard Law, to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Aggressive Republican campaigns to prevent Guinier’s appointment led to the twisted reduction of the theory to an American history hate campaign framed by race, an idea that still persists today.

A lage crowd of people stands before the Washington Memorial. They are holding signs and densely packed. There are tents and structures that have been placed in the crowd.
A large crowd of people stands before the Washington Memorial. Source: Yahoo Images

Why Is It In The News?

CRT has only made a recent reappearance into greater societal functioning when the summer of 2020 brought anti-racist reading lists to the attention of many including conservative media, courtesy of Christopher Lufo, senior fellow at the libertarian Manhattan Institute. Lufo made known whistleblower information about Seattle’s race training for municipal employees. Though Lufo never used the words critical race theory in his exposé article on blackness vs. whiteness being the same as good vs. evil in the eyes of municipal diversity training and enforcing leaders, the rush of support from people who had experienced and disliked similar diversity trainings encouraged him to write a second article in which he first employed the term “critical race theory.” He argued that CRT trainings were rapidly infecting federal government proceedings and called for President Trump to ban all trainings in federal departments. This call led to an executive order aligning with Rufo, soon challenged in court and later rescinded by President Biden, sparked the raging fire over the fight of CRT and what role it should play in education, namely K-12, and if it should have a role in education.

Now, though many Americans are still confused by what critical race theory is, divisive rhetoric has led to support behind anti-CRT bills. The strange result is a push for restriction on free speech from conservatives and call backs to the 1st Amendment from liberals.

A man in a suit, an older woman, and a taller older woman all stand from left to rght holding signs. The man is dressed formally. They hold signs that (read from left to right), say "We the parents stand up!" and Stop teaching critical racist theory to our kids" and "STEM not CRT" and "Education not indoctrination."
People stand with signs protesting the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools.

Thinking In The Bigger Picture About Education Restrictions

Though ironic, the result is dangerous. Critical race theory has been misconstrued and grossly exaggerated, encouraging the silencing of educators on pertinent topics making up the foundation of American history. Legislative action backing the quelling of potentially uncomfortable topics is a slippery slope that’s bound to slide fast into the realm of dangerously unassuming utopian worlds of literature like Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 that upon closer look are dystopian. As such, the filtering of knowledge and state-sanctioned control of educational content consumption flirt dangerously on the lines of government sanctioned erasure of BIPOC history.

In an America that’s growing increasingly diverse in color, creed, origin, etc. it becomes arguably more important to address the darker side of American history. Only by shining a light on past misdeeds can we educate future generations on how to work towards a better tomorrow.

 

What Can I Do?

If you’d like to engage more with critical race theory:

1.    Consider reading more about the topic to further educate yourself on the topic

2.    See what your stance your state is taking when it comes to CRT

3.    Hold a discussion with family and friends on CRT and what it really is

 

Exploring “Don’t Say Gay” Bills

Pride Month will look different this year. Large corporations have begun their rainbow themed merchandise sales and included short LGBTQ+ focused ad campaigns, but the typical Twitter decries are in short supply.

Seven years have passed since the incredible expansion of human rights, specifically LGBTQ+ rights, within the United States with the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling secured the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples through the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case brought in waves of support for the LGBTQ+ population and led to greater well-being and life satisfaction for members of the community.

A small crowd of people gather behind parade barriers. One person with a Pride themed bandana holds up the Pride flag.
People behind blocked off space holding up a Pride flag. Source: Yahoo Images

With the recent leaking of Justice Alito’s opinion on an overturning of Roe v. Wade, there is a panic that Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas, which determined that criminal punishment for acts of sodomy was unconstitutional, are speculated to be under threat to be overturned. While only time will tell whether there is a reversal of these rulings, a more pressing threat to LGBTQ+ rights is spreading like wildfire.

Bill Content

The emergence of “Don’t Say Gay” bills across roughly a dozen states serves as the new hurdle in the endless marathon of a fight for LGBTQ+ rights. Originating in Florida where it was signed into place by Governor Ron DeSantis under the name of “Parental Rights in Education”, this bill stops discussion of gender and sexual orientation in classrooms ranging from kindergarten to the third grade and also penalizes discussion of sexual orientation and gender is not presented in an age-appropriate manner. Violation of the bill by educators or an educational institution is ultimately determined by the parents and is grounds for a lawsuit. Additionally, parental provisions included in bills similar to Florida’s  require parental notification about any health or support offered to their child, giving parents the right to deny services for their children.

Florida’s bill passage was only the beginning. More states like Alabama, Ohio, Louisiana, and more have made the move towards passing and signing similar bills. Politicians like DeSantis claim that bills like these support parents in determining how they introduce their children to the topics of sex and gender, and facilitate “education, not an indoctrination.” States like Alabama have gone even farther in their measures regarding LGBTQ+ youth, specifically trans youth, aiming to limit healthcare access for individuals seeking gender-affirming care. Much of the debate revolves around this kind of political justification of the bills and where America draws the line between LGBTQ+ discrimination and parental and state control of education.

The reality of the situation is one that educators and those from the LGTBQ+ community have elaborated upon time and again as sister bills have emerged from various states. Succinctly put by Arjee Restar, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, to NPR, “The institutionalization of these bills is an overt form of structural transphobia and homophobia, and it goes against all public health evidence in creating a safe and supportive environment for transgender, nonbinary, queer, gay and lesbian youths and teachers to thrive.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs the "Don't Say Gay" bill. He is seated and surrounded by young children wearing uniforms as well as some adults who stand more in the back.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Source: Yahoo Images

Potential Bill Effects

LGBTQ+ youths already face relentless stigma and hardship in the process of loving who they are and feeling comfortable sharing that. In fact, according to the Trevor Project, ‘the world’s largest suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning) young people’, estimates that roughly one LGBTQ+ youth attempts suicide every 45 seconds. Additionally, due to the intersectional nature of identity, LGBTQ+ POC youth are speculated to face even higher rates of suicide, mental health conditions, and more. When compounded by critical race theory legislation, these “Don’t Say Gay” bills could negatively effect LGBTQ+ people who face intersectional difficulties in existing.

The “Don’t Say Gay” bills have the potential to exacerbate societal stigma by formally institutionalizing trans- and homophobia by moving towards educational erasure of this population. They also create the potential for familial discourse that could jeopardize a child’s well-being. According to The Trevor Project, the parental provisions section of bills like Florida’s “appear to undermine LGBTQ support in schools and include vague parental notification requirements, which could effectively require teachers to ‘out’ LGBTQ students to their legal guardians without their consent, regardless of whether they are supportive.”

Furthering the concept of family and what role it has to play in youth education, educators bring to light that while gender and sexual orientation may not often be present in forthcoming ways, family certainly is. And with the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, more children come from LGBTQ+ families and may have more than one parent of the same gender. The question this situation produces is to what extent this bill really controls education and where do the boundaries lie in state-control over topics that are are fundamental to a child’s lived experience.

An LGBTQ+ family with a small baby walks through some area that is blurred. One person with long, dark hair carries the baby in a front baby carrier, while the other person has short hair and looks on at the other adult with a smile.
An LGBTQ+ family with a small baby. Source: Yahoo Images

What You

While the effects of these bills is yet to be determined, as of right now, lawsuits and court intervention appear to be the only routes to navigate through undoing this legislation. If you feel called to support the plight of the LGBTQ+ population, please consider the following:

1. Donate to LGBTQ+ affirming spaces and support networks like The Trevor Project.

2. Write letters to your state representatives relaying your support of LGBTQ+ visibility in the classroom and urging for either the prevention of a “Don’t Say Gay” bill or the reconsideration of a politician’s support for one.

3. Check in with people in your life who may be affected by such a decision.

Taliban Executions and Amputations

In the literary classic depicting the aftermath of the French Revolution, Les Miserables, lead character Jean Valjean is sentenced to prison for stealing bread to provide for his family. In 2021 Kabul, Afghanistan, under newly-imposed Taliban rule, Valjean’s crime would at the very least lead to amputation of the limb that stole.

In the wake of Kabul’s fall to the Taliban, the world watches with bated breath to see what emerges from the conquered nation’s new occupiers.

Dimly lit scene of a morning in Kabul, Afghanistan. Two silhouettes appear against the background.
Unsplash

Then and Now: Justice under Taliban Occupancy

Operating under a rigid form of Sunni Islam, the Taliban enforces a radicalized form of Sharia—Islamic law. In the ‘90s under this severe interpretation of Sharia Law, the 90% of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan saw punishments for crimes range from “public executions of convicted murderers and adulterers, and amputations for those found guilty of theft”. Public executions in crowded stadiums chilled the world as media footage of these events was released.

In 2021, nearly 20 years after Afghanistan was temporarily freed of the Taliban’s occupation, it becomes increasingly clear that this harsh interpretation of Sharia will return just like its occupiers. Mullah Nooruddin Turabi, head of the Taliban’s Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the 90s, told the Associated Press that punishments acted as strong deterrents for criminal activity and were to be reinstated. In fact, while many stand in opposition to such strong and inhumane repercussions for crimes, some Afghans appreciate the rapid decrease in crime that accompanied the arrival of the Taliban. Interestingly enough, despite the harsh treatment of women under the Taliban’s rule, Turabi explains that rather than having a judiciary strongly weighted in favor of Islamic clerics adjudicate the cases, this time judges, women included, would weigh in on the ultimate adjudication. Whether or not the Taliban will go public with these amputations and executions remains unclear.

On the other hand as of late September of 2021, Taliban fighters in Kabul have taken matters into their own hands, executing vigilante justice for small theft through public shaming reminiscent of the past. With hands tied, faces painted, and bodies packed into pickup trucks only to be paraded around Kabul, public humiliation marks the beginning of what justice will look like under the new Taliban rule.

Brown gavel at rest.
Source: Upsplash

The Role of Technology in new Taliban Occupation

What exactly justice looks like, at least visually, could be left up to the hands of those living in Taliban-occupied Afghanistan. Turabi further elaborates on what Taliban rule will look like with the surprising admission of technology—phones, television, videos, and photos—as an essential component of everyday life that the so-called changed Taliban will allow. In this sense, the potential role of those living under Taliban rule is paramount as harbingers of an inhumane justice system.

Social media has proven to be a radical tool for change and accountability for actions local, domestic, and global. Seemingly light-speed seeds of change plant themselves in individuals as cries of injustice lead to timelines and social media stories amplifying calls for reform. Should public executions under new Taliban rule wind up on Facebook or Instagram, there’s no telling what exactly will happen, but one thing is for sure, fast and swift as a sword may swing to behead, social media will light fire to the Taliban’s harsh practices in public outcry.

Hand holding a smartphone.
Source: Upsplash

Keeping the embers of a fire of accountability perpetually burning is the best thing those seeking to check the Taliban’s rule from overseas can do. The new occupation of Afghanistan comes with a new need for social acceptance by larger nation-states, especially those in the UN. If the Taliban achieves social acceptability, it achieves acknowledgement as a valid form of government. Should a direct violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights arise—subjection “to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”—negative global feedback from the social media masses and more could waterfall into international political action against the Taliban. As of right now, nations have slowed their accusations against the Taliban with media not commenting or updating on the now occupied Afghanistan since late September.

For now, there is little chance that the Taliban will not partake in these harsh forms of justice from the get go, leaving many poor, hungry, trapped, and afraid as they aim to provide for their families. In this land that is no longer theirs to call home, for a stolen piece of bread, a prison sentence would be favorable to a limb amputation. The decision of which they’ll get is unfortunately out of their hands.

What can you do?

Those interested in aiding those currently residing or fleeing this occupied country can engage in:

(1)  Reading the news to stay informed about what is happening under Taliban rule

(2)  Using social media as a tool to amplify the voices that cannot be heard

(3)  Writing to your local Senator and House of Reps legislators to engage in action that would either hold the Taliban accountable or altogether refuse acknowledgement of its rule as valid

(4)  Donating time and money to help relocate the refugees.

 

COVID-19 and the Native American Population

In retaliation to a day celebrating the world’s best-known colonizer, the infamous Christopher Columbus, on October 11th, Indigenous People’s Day highlights the culture, struggles, and history of America’s indigenous population. A silent struggle, however, persists: disease.

Native Health Disparities in COVID

The early 1600s brought to America the infamous two Gs—guns and germs—the latter proving the most deadly as bouts of influenza took a toll on Native American populations across what is now the United States. In the age of modern medicine, it comes as a surprise that disease still wreaks havoc on America’s indigenous population. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is no exception.

While COVID-19 holds a dizzying death count as its trophy, the disproportionate difference between white people and minorities, including Native Americans, is staggering. In fact, Native Americans can experience anywhere from 3 to 4 times the risk of dying from COVID-19 as compared to their white counterparts.

An animation of what COVID-19 looks like at the viral level
Unsplash

Funding the Indian Health Service

This vast gap is a reflection of poor medical and public health services for Native Americans. Health disparities that plague the Native population include diabetes, heart disease, and rates of addiction to harmful substances. These follow a similar pattern of COVID-19 with Natives being more likely to experience these chronic conditions compared to all other racial categories. These disparities could potentially be alleviated by greater equity in access to medical and public health services, but a fundamental issue in providing this care lies in Native sovereignty. As determined by Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, Native American land, or reservations, are considered sovereign land. While at face value this seems to be a win empowering Natives and acknowledging their right to the land that was once theirs, it creates a vacuum of public services.

Encapsulated by possessors of what was once their land, Native health and well-being are bound by the constraints of the state. A lack of widespread taxes, natural resources, and human resources leaves the reservations reliant upon the ‘external’ state of America for support and sustenance. Most money generated on reservations largely consists of gambling and casino money—practices usually outlawed in the surrounding states. This money only goes so far in providing for the tribe as money often stays within certain families, leaving the rest of the reservation in high rates of poverty.  Thus, the main provider of health care for nearly 2.2 million members of the tribal communities, the Indian Health Service, is funded by American tax dollars. And yet, the IHS’s hospital system is severely underfunded and understaffed. The main mechanism created to fight disease seems designed to fail. In this sense, disease continues to persist as a remnant of colonialism, which directly violates the fundamental human rights to accessible health care and to acceptable standards of living.

Canyon landscape in the American Southwest.
Unsplash

Vaccination Rates on the Reservation

The only light at the end of the tunnel is the rapid rate of Native American vaccination against COVID-19. While co-morbidities and co-mortalities make it such that if COVID is contracted, Natives will be more susceptible to death, the COVID-19 vaccine acts as an equalizer. Once vaccinated, the likelihood of death by COVID-19 significantly decreases.

Native American tribes have been able to boast proud levels of herd immunity with large tribes like the Navajo Nation at roughly 70% fully vaccinated as of May 2021. This commendable statistic is a result of rallied community effort. Cultural values of supporting the elderly and a strong sense of family and allegiance to the tribe—values typically highlighted in Indigenous People’s Day—worked in favor of creating a climate in strong support of vaccination and vaccine acquisition.

Gloved hand pulling the liquid of a bottle labeled COVID Vaccine into a syringe meant to vaccinate people.
Unsplash

Looking Ahead

While the tide has turned in favor of Native Americans, preventing them from being labelled as  another health disparity statistic in COVID-19, it is important to remember and to look towards long-term health care equity and solutions for Natives. While increasing funding for the IHS is certainly a good starting point, robust public health interventions and funding for community programs is necessary. Funding dollars from the top could in theory trickle down, but grassroot rallying and support for public health interventions in a community where cultural values of togetherness and unity already exist could prove to be the needed impetus for transforming not only health care access and quality for the Native American population but also general standard of living that leads to health baselines which are robust to disease.