Perhaps no issue has taken our nation by storm during the past year quite like Critical Race Theory (CRT). This cleverly disguised Marxist indoctrination uses words that sound harmless enough like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” But floods of parents caught on early last year. And many made it their mission to stop CRT’s invasion of school districts across the nation.
Some people even believe it may have been the central issue that swung Virgina’s gubernatorial election to Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin. But right here in Arizona, the battle is not over.
As you may recall, Arizona lawmakers and Governor Ducey took important steps to prevent children from being indoctrinated in public schools by CRT through a budget reconciliation bill this past July. But in November, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down that ban, ruling that it was integrated in a bill that was a violation of the single subject requirement of the state constitution.
With the Arizona legislature back in session for the past two months, Republicans have made CRT a top priority. Earlier this month, the House already took an important step forward…
Over 200 Arizonans who identified themselves as educators have signed onto a pledge to teach Critical Race Theory (CRT) and all other social justice-oriented curriculum to children, regardless of the law or the wishes of parents. They conveyed a unified message: that they desired to teach the “truth” and the “true history” of this country’s history.
The pledge was created by the Zinn Education Project, a Washington, D.C.-based collaborative effort between Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change. Prominent socialist and author of the anti-American exceptionalism book, “A People’s History of the United States,” Howard Zinn founded the project. Zinn propagated CRT concepts that America suffers from systemic racism, and that its imperialism and capitalism are evil. He also sparked controversy in topics previously associated with American pride by claiming Christopher Columbus was evil, President Abraham Lincoln was indifferent on slaves’ freedom, the Allies and Axis Powers weren’t much different, and that the Vietnam War wasn’t about communism.
The following includes those who signed onto the pledge as Arizona educators:
Avondale: Natalie Cardenas
Bisbee: Etta Kralovec
Black Canyon City: Matthew Schock
Casa Grande: Sharon Tuttle
Chandler: Amy Shinabarger, Angela Thomas, Ann Cicero, Audra Johnson, Beth Herbert, Deanna Celaya, James Wallace, Judith Simons, Julia Palazzi, Melanie Ohm, Rachel Kulik, Shasta Payne, Teri Moser
Flagstaff: Russell Randall, Ricardo Guthrie, Michelle Novelli, Angelina Castagno, Beth Sanborn, Derek Thibodeau, Elizabeth Merrill, Erin Hiebert, Joe Wegwert, Leslie Grabel, Patricia Roach, Sarah Shamah, Stacy Clark, Tami Butters, Yvonne Parent
Glendale: Erin Chisholm, Carlos Velazquez, Craig Lewis, Deanna Bakker, Electra Stafford, Galindo Jack, Jamie Prichard, Kari Vargas, Lisa Cantella, Maggie Malone, Melanie Cobos, Nick Friedman, Rachel Schmidt, Romy Griepp, Valerie Sun
Goodyear: Jill Helland, Catherine Barnett, Nikole Brasch, Susan Hennessy
Laveen: Miguel Ramirez, Nancy Schwartz
Litchfield Park: Melissa England
Mesa: Elisabeth Tanner, Marissa Felix, Quiana Washington, Robin Dodder, Andrea Box, Anica Erickson, Ann Marie Geair, Anne Greer, Christina Bustos, Christina Jameson, Claudia Bloom, Dave Medley, Jacqueline Tambone, Julie Quiroa, Kay Crittenden, Kelly Wright, Kisha Delgado, Michelle Lantz, Paul Kreutz, Quiana Washington, Rachael Clawson, Steve Munczek
Paradise Valley: Justin Brooks
Peoria: Paige DeHaan, Breanna Malmos, Chelsea Charlton, Kaitlin Griffin, Melissa Girmscheid, Stephanie Churchill, Tina Sanders
Phoenix: Karen Hawkes, Susannah Keita, Natasha Alston, Kareem Neal, Admaira Roman, Wilma Rice, Tom Moore, Kerrilee Wing, Sariah Winn, Nishta Mehra, Kelsey Knutson, Courtney Rath, Darcy Heath, Kelly Cutler, David Lee Carlson, Jay Barbuto, Nicolas Culley, Alexandra Zamarron, Alicia Messing, Carla Garcia, Claudia Chiang, Erika James, Ginette Rossi, Janel Vaughan, Judith Robbins, Kelley Gribuski, Kristin Cervantez, Lauren Gaston, Lauren Spenceley-Sheoran, Michelle Schulke, Mike Sarraino, Rodrigo Palacios-Tenorio, Roger Baker, Sarah Bennett, Shana Hornstein, Susan Rego, Tara La O’Garcia
“The thought of censoring the truth of our history in this country at this time in our nation is horrifying. I will not be silenced by frightened white supremist[s],” wrote Karen Hawkes of Phoenix. “We cannot heal and move forward without knowing and understanding the roots of our institutionalized racism.”
Queen Creek: Joanna Auclair
Sahuarita: Dawn Demps
Scottsdale: Louis Sugar, Carole Ancona, Jan Kelly, Kandice Nelson, Mariah Moritz
Sun City West: Harriet Luckman, Stacy Green
Surprise: Jon Alfred, Paula Auble
Tempe: Kelsey McAlarney, Sharon Hansen, Bernadette Lissner, Carol Johnson, Cortney Milanovich, Danielle Degain, Deanna Smith, Dylan Wince, Haylee Newton, Jacob Bley, Jo Anne Craig, Lawdon Haglund, Leslie Ringer, Maren Mueller, Valerie Craig
“All Americans deserve to know the truth about our racist, white supremacist history of violence against BIPOC. I should not have had to have been 66 years old before I confronted this history for the first time,” wrote Sharon Hanson of Tempe. “Although the sins of my forebears are not my personal sins, the current racist situation America IS my problem. America will never move forward until, like Germany, we hold up our ugly past, learn what actually happened (not some whitewashed version of the truth), and endeavor to make reckoning with it all.”
Tucson: Susan Whorley, Katie Vera, Arthur Almquist, Megan Carney, Isabella Porchas, Margaret Chaney, Amber Leeson-Curtis, Lee Foulkes, Peter Blankfield, Julie Elvick, Victoria Bodanyi, Meghan Hipple, Alyssa Cossey, Jenna Brito, Andrea Espinoza, Elizabeth Valenzuela, Jessica Williams, Kari Warner, Kati Gilson, Rita Verdin, Ryan Knst, Adrian Provenzano, Alexandra Mazur, Alison Climes, Ann Marie Palmer, Avis Judd, Barbara Wayne, Brieanne Buttner, Caryl Crowell, Chelsea Forer, Chris Parisoff, Corey Knox, Corina Ontiveros, Devon Holden, Edvina Velagic, Eric Donaghy, Farid Matuk, Jennifer Mullet, Jennifer Quigly, Carole Edelsky, Jessica Bernal Meija, Jim Byrne, Kate Van Roekel, Wes Oswald, Kevan Kiser-Chuc, Kristel Ann Foster, Linda Archuleta, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Mario Garcia, Natalie Taylor, Nataly Reed, Peter Blankfield, Rachael Eggebeen, Rebecca Kristensen, Sheila Wilenksy, Steven Ernsky, Tom McElhaney
“I will not let the white establishment silence me. I will continue to teach an accurate account of history,” wrote Jenna Brito of Tucson. “This includes teaching about how racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc is deeply embedded into our society and how it continues to shape out [sic] experiences.”
Vail: Drew Fellows
Yuma: Dorothy Higuera
At least one Arizona educator didn’t identify their city or town: Andrea Barrera.
It appears that these educators may have some level of support from the state. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) encourages educators to pledge that they will teach social-emotional learning (SEL), which also propagates social justice concepts including CRT.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Thursday, the Arizona House approved two separate bills cracking down on divisive and adult content in K-12 schools: a bill banning critical race theory from curriculum, HB2112, and a bill outlawing sexually-explicit materials from schools, HB2495. Both passed along party lines, 31-28.
Both bills received a similar partisan reception when passed by the House Education Committee: in their opposition of the bills, Democrats doubted their efficacy and necessity, whereas Republicans championed their cause and applauded them.
Introduced by State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa), HB2112 bans teachings rooted in the traditional, original definition racism: that one race, ethnic group, or sex is superior to any other, and that an individual’s race, ethnicity, or sex predetermines their moral character and makes them inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive. The bill also rings of Biblical wisdom: similar to what Ezekiel 18 imparts, teachers also may not assign guilt or lay blame on any student for the actions and events of others who share the student’s race, ethnicity, or sex. Additionally, the bill would reject teachings that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist. Violations of this legislation could result in teachers facing penalties such as suspension or the loss of their teaching certificate, and school districts receiving up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
The legislature’s previous attempt to ban critical race theory was struck down in court last year because it was integrated in a bill that the judge ruled was a violation of the single subject requirement of the state constitution.
Udall explained that she received “countless” pleas from parents on the divisiveness and harms caused by critical race theory teachings in public K-12 schools at present. She cited several specific examples; for one, a Red Mountain High School teacher required students to study the critical race theory terms “intersectionality,” “anti-racist,” and “restorative justice,” then write a self-reflection paper about their privileges. Another example concerned an Arizona State University (ASU) teacher preparation program assigning a book called “Nurture Shock,” in which one chapter discussed “why white parents don’t talk about race.” Yet another example concerned a social studies teacher in Glendale who sent her colleagues materials to discuss race in class, focusing in part on how white people have a greater burden for being anti-racist, such as understanding their privilege.
“This categorization and scapegoating will not heal racial divides. Instead, it emphasizes ethnicity and gender as insurmountable barriers to peace,” said Udall.
Udall then described the gaslighting parents endured when they contended the presence of critical race theory in classrooms: how parents were told their experiences were a one-off incident and that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, despite the National Education Association (NEA) repeatedly advocating for the theory after issuing a resolution last summer that they would make concerted efforts to instill critical race theory teachings in classrooms.
“These concepts should be things we can all agree on: that all men are created equal, that hard work and persistence pay off, that students of all races are capable of being held to a high standard of academic excellence,” said Udall.
Democrats’ arguments against the bill alleged that it would get in the way of teaching history. However, the bill didn’t outlaw teachings of certain history, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws — rather, the bill focused on conclusions and statements of fact imparted by critical race theory teachings.
State Representative Judy Schweibert (D-Phoenix) argued that critical race theory teachings imparted lessons of honesty, integrity, and freedom to pursue dreams.
“When we teach history, it’s not about assigning guilt or blame. It’s about teaching young people to think deeply and critically themselves so we don’t repeat the same mistakes,” said Schweibert.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) insisted that critical race theory teachings were “the truth.” State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Ahwatukee) said that she agreed that “the sins of the father shouldn’t be visited on the children” and appreciated the intent of the bill, but feared that the bill’s wording would prevent teachers from placing any blame on anybody.
HB2495 bans the sexual explicitness of materials given to K-12 students. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced the bill. It would prohibit K-12 public schools from exposing or referring students to “sexually explicit material,” which was defined as depictions of sexual conduct such as masturbation, intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, public area, buttocks, or a female’s breast; sexual excitement, meaning the sexual stimulation or arousal of human male or female genitals; and ultimate sexual acts, such as any form of or allusion to intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, or sodomy.
The bill passed with Udall’s amendments to exempt classical literature, early American literature, and books required for a course awarding college credit, but only with written parental consent prior to exposure of each material. If parental consent can’t be obtained, the school must furnish the student with an alternative assignment without sexually explicit material.
“This is simply a practice that I believe a majority of Arizonans don’t want. I don’t believe that they want sexually-explicit material shown to their children,” said Hoffman.
In rebuttal, Democrats argued that there were already laws prohibiting inappropriate materials from being shown to children. They insisted that they were equally opposed to showing children pornography in schools.
Schweibert argued that parents didn’t have a right to determine what other people’s children were to learn — even in this case. She asserted that the legislature was “treading on dangerous territory” tantamount to instigating a book burning movement. Schweibert cited bans on historically revered books like “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Of Mice and Men,” and the Bible; however, those were the doing of left-leaning groups, often with blessings from Democratic leaders.
Both bills now head to the Senate for consideration.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The struggle over the presence of critical race theory continues with a new bill proposing to ban the controversial academic concept from K-12 classrooms. State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) introduced the bill, HB2112, which passed 6-4 in the committee that Udall chairs, the Education Committee, on Tuesday.
State Representative Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen), Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson), Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler), Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix) voted against the bill.
The bill would prohibit educators from using public money on instruction that blames or judges based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The bill would also prohibit teaching that one race, ethnic group, or sex is inherently moral or intellectually superior; that an individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive either consciously or unconsciously; that an individual should be discriminated against or treated poorly because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; that individual’s moral character is determined by their race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual is responsible for actions committed by other members of their same race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual should feel negative emotions because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; and that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits like hard work are racist or sexist and created to oppress others.
Violation of the bill’s provisions may result in revocation of the educator’s teaching certificate and the charge of a $5,000 fine. School attorneys would confer with the attorney general or county attorney to determine whether a violation occurred.
Critical race theory (CRT) proposes that the U.S. was inherently and systemically racist from its founding and that racism persists through oppressive systems such as capitalism and Christianity. The theory claims that American meritocracy is a myth.
CRT relies on a concept of hierarchies called intersectionality, which asserts that personal traits such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc. determine one’s oppression and privilege. CRT presents a dichotomy: the inherent evil of “whiteness,” and the inherent goodness of “blackness.” In order to fully accept these perspectives, individuals must assume a “race-conscious” outlook on the world and reject the idea that racism comes from beliefs and actions rooted in the intentional hatred of race.
The ultimate goal of CRT is to overthrow this country and remake it in another image.
In the most informal sense of the word, CRT may qualify as a religion. Credit for popularization of the theory is often awarded to Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar and current law professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School. In 1995, Crenshaw authored the book “Critical Race Theory: the key writings that formed the movement” in an effort to explain CRT’s nature and purpose.
“Critical Race Theory is an intellectual movement that is both particular to our postmodern (and conservative) times and part of a long tradition of human resistance and liberation,” wrote Crenshaw.
The concepts that make up CRT may be presented independently or under different names, like: social-emotional learning (SEL), culturally responsive education (CRE), and anti-racism. Crenshaw acknowledged these superficial disparities in her 1995 book, assuring readers that unity exists behind these apparent differences.
“Although [CRT] scholarship differs in object, argument, accent, and emphasis, it is nevertheless unified by two common interests. The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideals such as ‘the rule of law’ and ‘equal protection.’ The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it,” wrote Crenshaw.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In August, 2019, the New York Times began driving an ill-conceived propaganda campaign called Project 1619, named for the year that slavery first came to America in the Jamestown, Virginia colony.
It is that year, argued the Times, that defines our national character to this day — not the iconic 1776.
With their latest propaganda-Pulitzer as a stamp of credibility, the Times and its willing dupes have been ramming this America-hating 1619 propaganda into K-12 and college curricula. But this time the Leftists are getting some real pushback.
Kudos to parents who are speaking up at K-12 school board meetings against the one-sided Project 1619 and the odious Critical Race Theory in their children’s curricula. And kudos especially to Christopher Rufo, who has led a principled, eloquent resistance to the Left’s racialized Marxist indoctrination initiatives.
Another way to fight back against the Left’s propaganda is with an accurate counter-narrative about the Pilgrims’ experience in Massachusetts. The remainder of this article sketches such a counter-narrative.
If educators want to go back four centuries in search of our “national character,” it is the Year 1623 that they should be featuring. It was in that year that the Pilgrims, starving and dying under socialism, abruptly switched to private property and free markets. In short order, the Pilgrims moved from starvation to prosperity, paid off their debts to their English sponsors, and actually did establish a national character that survives to this day.
It is that new national character based on private property, free markets, and personal responsibility that drew a massive migration to America — not the sad introduction of the fusty 10,000-year-old institution of slavery in 1619.
It is with this thought that I write this article with hope.
Namely —
I hope our American educators and media will develop an explicit, deliberate, and positive Project1623 counter-narrative to the one that the Times has been ramming into our media, schools, and our children’s minds.
If Leftist school boards manage to preserve their beloved Project 1619 narrative, then at a minimum, both narratives should be taught with equal vigor, side-by-side, in our schools. Spirited debates by the students, comparing the two narratives would be a positive step.
Prediction: In the near term, as the Democrat Party slides ever-more-leftward toward desultory socialism, racialized Marxism, and communism, the 1623 narrative will emerge as the more positive and relevant today for We the People.
Brief Summary of The Project 1623 Narrative
In November, 1620, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. They promptly lost half their population to starvation, sickness, and exposure that first winter, and they fared little better the second winter. We were all taught that a Native American named Squanto taught the survivors to fish, plant corn, use fertilizer, and hunt deer. While mostly true, it is surely the lesser half of the story.
What most of us never learned (or glossed over) was that the original contract the Pilgrims brokered with their London sponsors required that everything the Pilgrims produced was to go into a common store, and every member was to be allotted one equal share. Further, all the land they cleared, and all the buildings they constructed, were to belong to the whole community rather than to any individual.
To those with visions of Utopia, this must have sounded like the ideal society. Free of outside evil influences from old England and Europe, private property and greed were to be banished. Everyone was to work hard for the common good. Each was to contribute all that one could and take out only what one needed. In modern terms, it was to be a kind of Bernie Sanders neo-Marxist equity-for-all paradise.
So how did it all work out for the Pilgrims?
Horribly!
In the two winters beginning in 1621 & 1622, a great many died from starvation, pneumonia, or both. Here are excerpts from Governor William Bradford’s own retrospective summary of the community’s experience with what we now variously call collectivism, socialism, or communism:
This community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. … Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
In other words, said the Governor, it simply didn’t work, even when their very survival depended on it. Mankind’s inherent nature simply wouldn’t accommodate it, no matter how “ideal” it may have seemed to its proponents.
Simply put, Bradford had discovered that even the most idealistic of peoples have no reason to put in any extra effort without the motivation of personal incentives to do so.
Wisely, in April, 1623, Bradford abruptly abandoned socialism. Instead, he assigned a plot of land to each family, permitting them to keep everything they produced and to market anything they didn’t consume themselves. He actually harnessed all that supposed human ”greed” and put it to work in a free-market system of the type Milton Friedman was to espouse so eloquently in the 20th-century Free to Choose series of books and videos.
So … for the Pilgrims, how did free markets and private property work out for the same people in the same place under the same circumstances?
Boffo!
The Pilgrims soon had more food than they could eat or trade among themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Native Americans. They paid off their debts to their London sponsors and soon attracted a great European migration. Their new society still had its problems, but hunger was never again one of them.
As Bradford summarized the new approach:
The women now went willing into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability, and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. … This [new approach] had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.
Most importantly for us today, Bradford wrote about the bitter lessons learned from the failure of original socialistic plan:
Let none argue that this is due to human failing rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself …
Note even circa 1630, when he began writing his notes, Bradford used the term “communistic.”
The Pilgrim experience of 1623 stands as the most authentic-ever, real-life, before-and-after comparison of socialism versus private property and free markets.
Bottom Line: Socialism lost. Free markets won.
In modern times, when confronted with the undeniable historical record of socialism’s many failures, the Left usually argues that the “right people” weren’t in charge, and if only they had been, their utopian socialist vision would have succeeded. If Bradford could speak today, he would surely disagree based on the Pilgrims’ real-life experience. It wasn’t human failings that were the problem — the fault was in the communistic plan itself.
So then …
Why isn’t this 1623 lesson featured up front, in neon lights, in American history classes? Why isn’t it the lead story of the Pilgrim experience? Why has the history even been falsified and its most important lesson ignored? Why has the New York Times overlooked it and focused on the 1619 introduction of slavery instead?
Perhaps it’s because the people who write our history textbooks still don’t want to believe it. Perhaps those authors still cling to the hope that some form of their beloved faculty-lounge utopian socialism, collectivism, Marxism, communism, progressivism, or whatever-ism will one day triumph over private property and free markets.
See also this link , which provides an explicit record of three major countries that tried socialism with good intent and suffered horribly for it.
It is now 400 years since the landing at Plymouth Rock. As we cast our votes in 2022 and 2024, all Americans will do well to remember the hard-earned lessons learned by the Pilgrims about socialism versus free markets.
