Author: ECB Staff

There is an accepted definition of racism in Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) that suggests that, by definition, all whites are racist and people of color cannot be racist. Rather than a ‘color blind’ society (the content of one’s character, and all that), racism has been redefined in Marxist terms to create a neat tautology. You see, according to this theory, all people are prejudiced against those who are different, including by race. In order to be defined as “racism” though, this innate prejudice must be combined with institutional power. The theory further defines institutional power as something only whites have, and something all whites have. Therefore, since all whites have institutional power, and since all whites are prejudiced, all whites are, by definition, racist. On the other hand, since ‘people of color’ do not have institutional power, they cannot be racist. (Of course, dividing people into groups of oppressors and oppressed is nothing more than warmed over Marxism–which has always worked out well in the past.)

Neat trick, huh?  So now you know what they are talking about when they say “reverse racism isn’t a thing.”

Do you accept this definition? Do you have a right not to accept it? Acceptance doesn’t matter to the new thought police—they have decided you are a racist. They reserve unto themselves the right to define the terms and then smear you with them.

Predictably, this new theory, whereby some define others by the color of their skin, is called anti-racism. (Orwell, anyone?)

Now we see CRT moving into the mainstream, in colleges, corporations, and even some local public schools. Almost every day we hear about some new incursion, whether it’s defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, sending its executives to CRT training, the introduction of identity-based Marxism into the military, or parents and teachers creating an ‘enemies list’ for those who might oppose “anti-racism.”

It’s probably not a surprise, then, that we are beginning to see pushback from the states, including Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Rhode Island, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, West Virginia, North Carolina and yes, Montana.

Superintendent Elsie Arntzen and Attorney General have recently weighed in on the controversy. Reading the article, you can get glimpses of the truth but, for the most part, the CRT advocates adopt an attitude of “what, we’re just teaching history.” Of course they know where they are heading. It’s not “history,” it’s a theory (Critical Race Theory) that suggests that our entire nation was founded on bondage and evil, that throughout history, the USA was a uniquely evil force of malevolence, and that the only way to balance the scales is to recognize that “whiteness” is evil, and that our entire culture is based on overarching “white supremacy.”

CRT is not about challenging our thoughts with “the facts of history.” It is about casting those “facts of history” into a narrative suggesting that racism is the front, center and rear of history. That nothing else happened in this country beyond what can be seen through the lens of racism. We’re not stupid, folks. We get what you are saying. We are not arguing about “facts,” we are arguing about a theory as to what those facts mean.  Might it be correct? Maybe, but there are many competing theories as was made clear after the debunking of the New York Times’ shameful and narrative induced “1619 Project.” (Which, by the way, is now being taught in some schools.)

This quote, from Montana Teacher of the Year, Dylan Huisken, is quite illuminating as you read on: “It will be hard to meet this standard if we can’t be upfront with students on how racism has shaped society and law, especially if broaching such subjects leads to bad faith accusations of indoctrination.”

One advocate for this theory of the USA as built primarily on the oppression of races other than whites, was Howard Zinn who, through the infatuated and widespread adoption of his “People’s History of the USA” by high school history teachers everywhere has gained an outsized voice in discussions of American history. Zinn passed away in 2010, but is still revered as a socialist who was instrumental in the Hate America First movement.

Zinn’s voice lives on in the Zinn Education Project, which is apparently operated by “two non-profit organizations, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, that have spent decades developing and providing social justice resources for teachers.” Great. Teachers as social justice activists. Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

But wait, it gets worse. Recognizing that many state legislatures (you know, the people’s branch of government) are moving against the teaching of CRT in public schools, the Zinn Education Project has developed its “Pledge to Teach the Truth.” According to the website:

So far, just short of 2,500 teachers have signed the pledge. I highly encourage you to spend some time reviewing the comments. This is ‘bullet-point history’ at its finest, and most of the comments are dripping with virtue-signaling and self-righteousness. Want to bet how many of these teachers are white? Makes you wonder why they don’t give up their ‘positions of power.’ I did not find any Montana teachers on the list, but Huisken’s comment, above, suggests that similar sentiments to those in the comments can certainly be found in Montana classrooms.

Their self-glorified notions of “the truth” are belied by their own obvious ignorance. These are theoretical discussions. (Critical Race Theory) These Mensa candidates, who are so much smarter than the parents of the children they plan to indoctrinate, and so much smarter than the people who go to work every day to pay their salaries, cannot recognize that what they proclaim as “the truth,” never to be violated, is simply a narrative, or interpretation, of historical events. Their self-delusion is embarrassing. None of this is to say that CRT is or isn’t true, that systemic racism is or isn’t true, or even that white supremacy is or isn’t the truth. But it is not, on the whole, objectively true.

I am actually more concerned, though, with the larger picture. What does it mean when the people who work for the taxpayers feel unconstrained to follow the laws the taxpayers adopt (through their representatives)? When you look at the arrogance of the comments to ‘the pledge,’ about teaching “the truth,” it is not hard to imagine similar arrogance leading to public employees demanding pay and benefits while reserving unto themselves the right to define their own jobs. How long will that last?

Remember Lois Lerner? The IRS official who ‘slow walked’ 501(c)(3) deductions for right leaning groups? She retired on a full-pension. Remember Kevin Klinesmith, the FBI agent who was involved in submitting false FISA applications? He got probation. Now we have teachers who (no doubt) would not hesitate to insist on higher pay and better benefits (or no in-person classes!) pledging to ignore the law and insisting on their ‘right’ to teach “the Truth.”

It’s one more brick in the wall between the so-called elites and those of us who foot the bill.