Home > Journals > JCRED > Vol. 37 (2024-2025) > Iss. 2
Abstract
(Excerpt)
Opponents of anti-woke legislation have challenged the presumption that the topics being taught are divisive or designed to indoctrinate students with a liberal or Left leaning ideology. Instead, they argue that these topics tell the unvarnished history of the United States. Furthermore, opponents have also challenged the asserted legality and validity of anti-woke legislation, arguing that the legislation infringes upon the First Amendment, specifically students’ and teachers’ academic freedom, students’ right to learn, and parents’ right to direct and control the education of their children. Unlike other controversial topics such as sexual education, which are taught in courses that students and parents can opt-out of, the umbrella term of “divisive concepts” does not present a similar workable solution. Moreover, not only does the refusal to teach such material have a detrimental and deleterious effect on students of color, who are forced to learn an orthodoxy that erases and whitewashes the history of the United States, but it also harms white students, who are shielded from learning an accurate narrative of United States history. Furthermore, because public education is compulsory, the prohibition of teaching such topics disadvantages students who do not have access to the unvarnished history by virtue of their socioeconomic status. Although “anti-woke” legislation is positioned as protecting students from indoctrination; strengthening parental rights to control and to direct the education of their children’s education; and protecting the First Amendment academic freedom, it ultimately does not. Rather, it privileges the educational orthodoxy of a specific group of students, parents and teachers over others. In brief, whose rights and what rights are at stake is the focus of this curricular culture war conflict.
Part II provides a definition of the core terms that serve as the basis of the proposed legislation and current debates, i.e., “divisive concepts,” “anti-woke,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” Critical Race Theory (CRT), and “The 1619 Project.” Part III argues that education should be analyzed using a heightened degree of scrutiny and not rational basis review. Part IV examines the competing rights of students, parents, and teachers in the wake of state legislation seeking to prohibit the teaching of material related to race, gender, gender identity in K-12 schools. This Note concludes that while the supporters of this legislation may be impacted, it is the students, parents, and teachers whose civil rights are infringed when they are denied access to this material.