A Very FAIR Response

Not that I was familiar with the organization before, and based on its board of advisers, it will no doubt be the target of the usual critics for whom people who are not progressive range from evil scum of the earth to black “centrist” race traitors, but this dissection and response to the open letter to President Biden from the National School Boards Association is pretty impressive. The organization is FAIR, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism.

Its mission statement is unabashedly liberal, not in the sense of people calling progressives liberal but in the liberal ideals of civil rights, freedom and tolerance. You know, what liberal meant when conservatives tried to turn it into a dirty word back in the good old days.

The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity.

Its position supports such archaic notions are free speech, tolerance and, hold on to your seats, the existence of objective truth.

In reaction to the NSBA letter to Biden and the subsequent, and likely consequent, response by Attorney General Merrick Garland directing federal law enforcement to take action to protect school boards against threats of violence, FAIR put together a response that parses the claims. For example, it highlights this portion of the NSBA letter:

This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class.

And, to the left of the highlighted section, responds to the specific claim.

It is true that “Critical Race Theory” originated as a niche sub-discipline in law schools in the 1980s. But since then, it has evolved from a narrow sub-specialty of jurisprudence into the dominant ideology in a wide variety of university departments, including departments of education. As a result, many of the education graduates who go on to be teachers and school administrators naturally ground their work in the philosophy of CRT. While most  grade schools do not teach anything explicitly identified as “critical race theory,” many of them do weave CRT’s core tenets into their policies, curriculum, and lesson plans.  regardless of the label used, concepts from CRT are in fact being widely taught in public K12 schools. At its annual meeting on June 30th, the National Education Association voted on and adopted a plan specifically to “support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory,” and to encourage others to “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.”  Thus, it is false to claim that “critical race theory” is not taught in public schools.

Both the annotated format of its response and the substance are very effective in “debunking” the the cursory claims presented by the NSBA and apparently adopted by the President and Department of Justice, at least to the extent of creating the appearance of taking action. The FAIR response goes on to similarly challenge claims of violence, of which they argue that only one incident across the nation occurred reflecting an isolated incident rather than a ubiquitous problem that demands the clout of federal intervention.

In its opening, the purpose of this response is made clear:

FAIR unequivocally stands against all acts of violence and threats that prevent public school officials from safely doing their jobs. We also recognize the difficulties that school board members face in our polarized political climate, particularly in navigating what are potentially life-and-death decisions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, we strongly disagree with the September 29th letter’s central requests. Our disagreements stem from our concern that these requests will interfere with the right of parents to freely criticize decisions made by school boards. Tensions on all sides are high, and we believe that it is essential to work together wherever possible to ease these tensions in a way that respects the interests of all parties.

Like the NSBA, I share a serious concern that the reaction of parents to school boards, administrations and teachers borders on the edge of explosive. It’s less about their disagreement with educational policies than it is about the methods employed. It’s too angry, too threatening, too outraged, and there is reason to fear that it is mere steps away from boiling over into violence. The sense that parents have that school boards aren’t listening to them may be true, but then, the right to seek redress is not the guarantee that you will get what you want. You can protest. Sometimes, the answer is no.

But the FAIR response raises sound and important points, that the reaction is overbearing, that rights such as free speech are at stake as the response to the complaints and challenges of parents is to exaggerate the facts of what has happened, gloss over reality with artfully deceptive rhetoric and use the fear of what might happen to justify the pre-emptive chilling, if not suppression, of civil rights.

Whether or not you agree with parents on the utility of masks in schools or the propriety of indoctrinating students in progressive ideology, regardless of what name it’s called, they have a right to their views, and they have a right to express those views strongly.

If and when parents cross the line from speech to conduct, then it needs to be addressed, and school board members, admins and teachers need protection from harm. The rhetoric has grown so overheated that it would be entirely unsurprising that it comes to violence. And while the speech may be borderline protected, threats of harm, even if not entirely serious or imminent, are deeply concerning and counterproductive.

Perhaps I take them a little more seriously than FAIR, and find them a lot more improper as a socially acceptable way to vent frustration because parents aren’t getting what they want out of their schools. But I can’t fault FAIR’s principled stance in opposition to an excessive reaction to what appears to be an exaggerated claim of harm. Indeed, this is the sort of calm, rational discussion that we need to overcome the deluge of empty outrage.