Fishers, Indiana has become the latest battleground in the ongoing debate over whether Critical Race Theory (CRT) should be included in public school curriculums. I have resided in Fishers since 1999, and although I am not surprised by the decisions regarding CRT, I am embarrassed that these attitudes are prevalent in my community. The Fishers school district has made the decision not to allow CRT to be taught, sparking both praise and criticism from various segments of the community. In this blog post, I will explore the reasons behind this decision and the wider implications for education in Fishers.
Understanding Critical Race Theory
CRT is an academic framework that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, primarily among legal scholars. It seeks to understand the ways in which race and racism have been ingrained in the legal system and society at large. CRT proponents argue that racism is not just a matter of individual prejudice, but rather is perpetuated through systems and institutions, making it a structural issue.
Reasons for the Decision
The decision to disallow CRT in Fishers’ schools can be attributed to several factors:
- Opposition to CRT as a divisive concept: Critics argue that CRT promotes division rather than unity, as it places emphasis on racial differences and historical injustices. They contend that teaching CRT can lead to increased racial tension and animosity among students.
- Focus on traditional academic subjects: Some stakeholders in the Fishers community believe that the primary focus of public schools should be on teaching traditional academic subjects, like math, science, and history. They argue that introducing CRT in the curriculum may detract from the core subjects that students need to excel in their future careers.
- Parental concerns: Some parents have expressed concerns about CRT being taught to their children, fearing that it could lead to a biased or negative view of American history and society. They worry that CRT’s focus on systemic racism might engender feelings of guilt or victimhood in students.
- Political pressure: The debate over CRT in schools has become highly politicized, with conservative politicians and activists campaigning against its inclusion in curricula. This has created pressure on school boards and administrators to avoid teaching CRT, in order to avoid controversy and potential legal challenges.
The Implications of the Decision
The decision not to teach CRT in Fishers schools has far-reaching implications for the district and its students:
- Potential for missed educational opportunities: Advocates of CRT argue that the framework provides a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of American history and society, by highlighting the role that race and racism have played. By disallowing CRT, students may miss out on these perspectives and be less prepared to engage in nuanced discussions about race and racism.
- Limited exposure to diverse viewpoints: Schools play a crucial role in fostering critical thinking and exposing students to a variety of perspectives. The decision to exclude CRT may limit students’ exposure to different ideas and hinder their ability to think critically about complex social issues.
- Ignoring systemic racism: Critics of the decision argue that excluding CRT from the curriculum sends a message that systemic racism is not a topic worth discussing or addressing in schools. This may contribute to perpetuating racial disparities and inequalities, rather than working to address and dismantle them.
Conclusion
The decision to disallow CRT in Fishers, Indiana schools highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the role of public education in teaching about race and racism. While opponents argue that CRT is divisive and detracts from traditional academic subjects, supporters contend that excluding it from the curriculum denies students a comprehensive understanding of American history and society. As this debate continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the Fishers community and other districts around the country will navigate these complex and contentious issues.