A version of this news analysis originally appeared in the Inside Politics newsletter, out Fridays. Sign up here to get it first to your inbox.
The North Carolina Senate approved legislation last week that would prohibit teaching diversity, equity and inclusion in public schools, and limit how teachers can discuss sensitive topics, like race, in classrooms.
The bill passed on a party-line vote. It will now move to the House, where it will likely pass. But it faces a tougher road there because Republicans are one vote short of a supermajority needed in the House to overcome a likely veto by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.
The News and Observer has a good blow-by-blow of how senators debated the “Eliminating DEI in Public Education” measure.
This newsletter will look at the so-called 12 “divisive concepts” that won’t be allowed to be taught — and the minefields the bill could create for teachers.
We’ll take them more or less in order. Some are benign. Others are more complicated.
Teachers will not be able to say:
1. One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
It’s easy to see the merit here. No one wants a teacher saying one race is smarter than the other.
But conservatives have spent much of this decade saying there are inherent differences between the sexes, at least when it comes to athletics and the participation of transgender girls and women in girls’ and women’s sports.
Would a teacher who tells his students that men are, in general, faster and stronger than women run afoul of the law?
Republican lawmakers recently pushed through a ban on transgender girls and women competing in girls’ and women’s sports based on this very belief.
2. An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
3. An individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
These two seem relatively non-problematic. In conservative circles, the idea here is that no one should be taught that being white or “whiteness” is a bad thing. Same for being Jewish or a supporter of Israel. And progressives would be aghast if a teacher attributed negative traits to a minority group, or supported discrimination against gay men.
4. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
This one is a little trickier. On the surface, we can all agree. But what about a class discussion on affirmative action? If the teacher explores the idea that affirmative action was or is needed to remedy past injustices, it doesn’t take a great leap to say that helping one group can be at the expense of another. (That was the whole basis behind the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissions.)
5. An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
6. Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.
These two can be problematic, especially the second.
The idea, presumably, is that a teacher shouldn't ask a white student if they feel guilty or responsible over slavery or Jim Crow. But what about an essay where the students are asked to explore this question and come to their own conclusion?
As for no individual feeling discomfort, “guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” based on their race or sex? This has the potential to go sideways quickly.
A film on the Holocaust could easily cause distress based on someone being Jewish (or non-Jewish). The same for a discussion on the Trail of Tears. Or discrimination against the Irish.
Even if a teacher does not explicitly say a racial group was responsible for this or that atrocity, it’s not a leap for a student to assume that’s the underlying message.
And as any parent knows, 16-year-olds can be quick to feel anguish and psychological distress.
7. A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
This is again part of the debate over phrases that became ubiquitous in the past decade, like “racism exists” and “the country is systemically racist.”
Would a teacher be able to say some people are at a disadvantage because of racism, poverty or other discrimination?
8. The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex.
This is likely in response to “The 1619 Project.”
Its original introduction in The New York Times said: “The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
Under criticism from conservatives and historians, the introduction was revised to remove “true founding.”
It now says: “The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” (I’m not aware of North Carolina K-12 schools officially teaching “The 1619 Project,” although instructors may cobble together bits and pieces of it.)
9. Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
This one seems pretty benign, though I suppose a history teacher would have to tread very carefully around discussing the early 20th century belief in the Protestant work ethic, even if the instructor were attempting to debunk it.
10. The rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.
The wording here is a bit confusing. The idea, it seems, is to forbid teaching that there is no objective “rule of law” and that laws are made simply to oppress others.
Poll taxes during Jim Crow were certainly that. Although that arguably was a law, or a handful of laws — not the “rule of law.”
11. All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
12. Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
This is, again, taking aim at the idea of the nation as systemically racist. It’s interesting to wonder how — or whether — teachers would be able to discuss current events such as Trump’s push to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status. The crux of the legal case against that is, of course, that it’s the government denying equal protection under the law.
It should be noted that the anti-DEI bill may be the final word on what’s taught in K-12 classrooms. But the state already has other guidelines in place.
The Department of Public Instruction, under Republican leadership, passed in 2021 new social studies standards. They include many buzzwords like “oppression” and “marginalized” that make conservatives recoil.
For American history, the guidelines specify students should be able to:
- Critique multiple perspectives of American identity in terms of oppression, stereotypes, diversity, inclusion, and exclusion.
- Critique multiple perspectives of American identity in terms of individualism and conformity.
- Explain how various immigrant experiences have influenced American identity.
- Explain how the experiences and achievements of minorities and marginalized peoples have contributed to American identity over time in terms of the struggle against bias, racism, oppression, and discrimination.
- Explain how slavery, xenophobia, disenfranchisement, and intolerance have affected individual and group perspectives of themselves as Americans.
