Photograph Source: Screenshot/Fox News
On June 15, the “Promoting Education Not Indoctrination Act” was
introduced in the Ohio legislature by Sarah Fowler Arthur, a first-term
representative from the overwhelmingly white district of northeastern
Ohio that includes both the rustbelt lake towns of Ashtabula and
Conneaut and the Cleveland suburb of Chardon. Like many other bills now
making their way to law in red states across America, H.B. 327 would
outlaw the teaching of what its proponents label as “critical race
theory” which they define as the idea that the “United States is
fundamentally racist or sexist” or that anyone “is inherently racist,
sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Unlike
similar measures in other G.O.P. controlled states, H.B. 327 very
specifically applies its prohibitions to Ohio’s large public university
system, threatening any institution that allows such teaching with a
reduction of one quarter of its state funding.
In her press conference soon after successfully pushing the bill
through committee, Representative Fowler Arthur was asked what was
different about her bill and she responded,
“We really focus on defining the Marxist ideology…”[1]
When asked to define what Marxist ideology was, Representative Fowler
Arthur said that “those are specifically that one nationality, color,
ethnicity, race, or sex is inherently superior to another nationality,
color, ethnicity, race, or sex… So the main goal of this definition of
divisive concepts is to define the ideology behind some of these Marxist
ideals…”[2]
Fowler Arthur may be forgiven for ginning up neo-McCarthyism with
such weird and wildly inaccurate characterizations of Marxism, as she
herself never went to college, and, in fact, never spent a day in a
school as she was homeschooled on her Rock Creek egg farm.[3]
But her bill should be taken seriously, not merely for the harm it may
do to Ohio colleges and universities, but also because it is just the
tip of the iceberg, or better, the feather poking from the guano pile,
that is contemporary cultural conservatism.
H.B. 327, like similar bills in other states, is modelled on Trump’s
Executive Order issued the last week before election day that purported
to “combat” the indoctrination of government employees and contractors
into the “malign ideology” of critical race theory by “woke” warriors.
It variously libels critical race studies as advocating that races are
essential and some races are superior to others while legislating the
whitewashing of America and punishing its critics. One of its only
differences in substance, besides more effectively including higher
education, is that it does not make the legal unforced error of
outlawing the New York Times 1619 Project, litigation bait that
other states will have to defend. Rather, the bill itself is less
interesting than its sponsor, a figure who symbolizes what the coattails
of Trumpism has raised to power: a literally unschooled leader who has
chosen as her legislative mission defining what can be taught in Ohio.
Fowler Arthur launched her political career by running for a seat on
the Ohio State Board of Education in 2013. During her years as a member
of the Ohio State Board of Education and chair of its Teaching, Leading
and Learning Committee, Fowler Arthur’s main contribution was
unsuccessfully attempting to rewrite the state’s mandated curriculum.
Though her proposals were voted down, her deletions and additions are a
terrifying window into the thinking of contemporary American
authoritarianism.[4]
Currently, Ohio’s first grade teachers are directed that “As children
work and play collaboratively, they understand the importance of fair
play, good sportsmanship, respect for the rights and opinions of others,
and the idea of treating others the way they want to be treated. This
builds to an understanding of perspective and concern for the common
good.” Arthur deleted the words “fair play” and substituted “courtesy”.
The last phrase, “and concern for the common good” was struck out as
well. (The phrase “common good” is also excised from second grade
guidelines while third graders are not to be told that citizenship is
meant to promote the “the well-being of the whole community.” Eighth
graders are not to be told that the “exercise of rights must be
balanced…by the common good.”)
Substituting “courtesy” for “fair play” and eliminating the promotion
of the “common good” is an attempt to write competitive individualism
into schoolyard ethics. “Fair play” is, after all, a notion that some
means of getting ahead of others are wrong while the “common good”
presupposes that the point of work and play is to benefit everyone.
Rather than treating others “fairly” this mode of conservative thinking
is satisfied with treating them courteously, stepping over them with
good graces, saying a sweet “have a blessed day” when stealing their
lunch money.
Such thinking is underscored as a few paragraphs later the reason why
first graders should be taught fair play is also stripped out. Instead
of mandating that “Students understand that rules need to be fair” and
that fair “means justice for all parties and concern for the fair
allocation of resources among diverse members of a community,”
six-year-olds are to be taught to obey rules because breaking them will
hurt. “Rules are established for safety, order, and justice. Justice
means that each person gets what they deserve. This is why there are
consequences to breaking the law or rules,” Arthur’s substitute sounds
more authentic in German.
Likewise, presently, third-graders are taught that government makes
and carries out laws to protect individual rights that “should focus on
being safe and secure.” Fowler Arthur’s red pencil strikes that, leaving
government simply to exist to ensure order and security.
In Ohio, state history is first presented to fourth graders, and here
Fowler Arthur and her collaborators take what at first glance appears
to be a head-scratching objection to Buckeye origins. They delete that
“The Northwest Ordinance incorporated democratic ideals into the
territories” and replace it with “The Northwest Ordinance incorporated
democratic ideals to establish a republican style of government.”
Seemingly a trivial matter of wording, this change twists the curriculum
in an authoritarian direction, because to dictators democracy is not a
goal or an intrinsic value but only at best a mechanism of government.
Children should not be taught to love democracy, but only to respect a
system of representative government.
A similar addition to the guidelines for teaching about government
follows this same hobnailed logic. Unsatisfied with a tripartite
definition of common governments (democracy, dictatorship, and
monarchy), Fowler Arthur adds two others, “Constitutional Republic,”
which she defines as “representatives are elected by the people to make
public policy decisions on their behalf, rather than by a direct vote,”
and “Autocracy,” which is “absolute rule by a self-appointed ruler with
unlimited authority.” Where students may today be led to look kindly on
“democracy” when faced with the two other choices of “dictatorship” and
“monarchy,” with these additions, democracy recedes and even
dictatorship’s reputation is burnished in comparison with “autocracy.”
Clearly, the Fowler Arthurites wish students to consider the
“Constitutional Republic” favorably as its definition is far longer and
more detailed than the others.
Fowler Arthur’s discomfort with democracy becomes more pronounced as
students advance through their levels. By grade six, she can’t stomach
calling the USA a democracy at all. In standards for students being able
to give examples of different forms of government, the USA is dropped
as the sole example of a democracy and replaced with… wait for it…
France! Instead, the United States is listed as an example of the newly
added governmental form, the “constitutional republic” which is a
“limited democratic government” in which lawmakers “make decisions on
public policy for the people.”
For all their claims of color-blindness, Fowler Arthur and her
anti-anti-racist warriors are quite fearful of teaching young students
about different cultures or the history of racial oppression. Second
grade teachers are not to be encouraged to have “cultural groups” from
the “local community” come and show and tell “world cultures” as they
now are. Seventh graders are not to be taught that Europeans “weakened
and supplanted” the “established cultures” of indigenous peoples, rather
they are to be taught that when the Europeans came “there was an
amalgamation of cultures.” The Civil Rights movement was not about
ending a system of racial injustice but, rather, “Dr. Martin Luther King
sought a peaceful end to racial tensions.” It wasn’t just suffragists
and NOW that fought for women’s rights, but so did Phyllis Schlafly’s
Eagle Forum.
Weirdly, Fowler Arthur mandates that schools teach about the “Barbary
Wars” when discussing Jefferson’s presidency, perhaps because TJ sent
the marines to kill Muslims. I speculate here, but only because it
follows a theme as the old instruction to tell students that the attacks
on America on Sept. 11, 2001 led to “an increase in Islamophobia and
xenophobia” is also removed.
Environmentalism is targeted as well, as second graders are not to be
told that dams may “destroy animal habitats” but instead may “alter”
them. Sixth graders are not to be taught that “many of the issues facing
the world today” are the result of “human activities including
pollution and disruption of habitat,” but only that “some” of them are.
Children are not to be taught about “the shrinking of the Amazon
rainforest due to deforestation.” References in current Ohio curricular
guidelines to the polio vaccine or the birth control pill, are deleted,
while references to the Second Amendment and gun rights are inserted
throughout.
Critical thinking is under attack as the unit on teaching eighth
graders how to evaluate historical sources is watered down. Rather than
having students learn to evaluate historical accounts by evaluating the
consistency of arguments, the perspectives and biases of authors, and
cross-checking information with other “credible sources”, Fowler
Arthur’s additions tell students to trust “eye witness accounts” and
“source documents,” in other words, to trust anecdotal information
without the rigors of evaluating their context.
Rather than have students think creatively about their government by
being given an assignment to “devise and implement a plan to address a
problem by engaging either the political process or the public policy
process,” students should regurgitate how government works, or in Fowler
Arthur’s words, “explain the process for civic engagement through
either the political process or public policy process.” This same
directive is repeated instead of having students think about how they
would construct an argument for a “political party or interest group.”
The social vision of Fowler Arthur and her fellow culture war
conservatives is rather transparent: those lucky enough to climb over
their peers and be recognized as worthy citizens should follow the rules
and do as their representatives tell them. Those who would promote
divisive concepts such as democracy, the “common good,” thinking
critically and objectively, or examining the past without national or
racial bias, need to be silenced by the rules of government. But when
firing teachers, be sure and be courteous. Have a blessed day.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/18/anti-critical-race-theory-and-neo-mccarthyism/
Notes.
[1] H.B. No. 237 press conference June 15, 2021. https://ohiochannel.org/video/press-conference-6-15-2021-discussing-h-b-no-327?fbclid=IwAR00pKOucypIJcPKMYnOlmqg-i6uE8_OvKU9MjXyDNIUcmsBE6J1ndqTgXQ time mark 1:50
[2] Ibid., time mark 6:00
[3] https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20131117/NEWS/311179380
[4] http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/State-Board/State-Board-Meetings/State-Board-Meetings-for-2019/June-2019-MEETING-Minutes-Final.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US pp. 54-61.
