I feel a historical perspective of where CRT is coming from is imperative for getting rid of it in schools. Bureaucrats march to the masters drum, not to public outcry as all have found out at the school board meetings.
I am not sure the source of this article. At the end it I have put the link to the 1977 OMB Directive 15. I feel getting rid of it would be where to go to get rid of CRT. I will try to get with Congresswoman Herrell on how that is done.
Those sentiments are as true today as they were then.
This attitude did not come into being all by itself; at all levels, governments and institutions played an active role in the Americanization process. The Founders knew that the new country would attract even more immigrants, so they believed in assimilating and educating them, as well as the native-born, to inculcate the nation’s philosophy into a new population, giving American democracy its “demos.”
Over the past few decades, however, America has drifted away from assimilating immigrants. Elites in government, the culture, and the academy have led a push toward multiculturalism, which emphasizes group differences. This transformation has taken place with little input from rank-and-file Americans, who overwhelmingly support assimilation.
Only since 1965 has government taken the radical position that immigrants must be categorized as victims deserving of compensatory justice through racial preferences in educational admissions, government contracting, and employment. The experience of African Americans—the only people in America whose ancestors were brought here against their will as slaves—was mistakenly analogized to the experience of voluntary immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
This oppressor–oppressed narrative is now taught to America’s K–12 schoolchildren, reinforced in colleges and universities, and repeated constantly in the media and the culture. The rhetoric of victimhood has also had profound effects on policy toward immigrants. It is not just that assimilation is no longer encouraged; it is now actively discouraged by governments at all levels, most perniciously in the schools, workplaces, and all other centers of public life. Rather than an invitation to be included in the American community, assimilation is now described as a humiliating demand that those who are presumed to be marginalized must conform to the identities of their supposed oppressors.
Our approach to immigrants since 1965 has been a mistake, and the consequences of this mistake will harm America’s ability to continue to offer the freedom and prosperity that immigrants came here seeking in the first place.
Previous immigrants assimilated to American life and succeeded, but indoctrinating people into the victimization narrative has not produced successful immigrants: Instead, it has only produced more and more people claiming victim status. Interpreting all disparities of outcome through a lens of racism preempts any serious discussion of differences in culture, behavior, and interests and how those differences might help or hinder someone from succeeding in this country.
Close the loopholes. For example, Congress should reject the Ninth Circuit’s recent interpretation of the Flores settlement. Flores has been interpreted to require DHS to release from its custody all children, even if they are with their parents. Thus, when adults cross the border with a child, DHS is required to release the child within 20 days. Since the parents broke the law by crossing the border illegally, the government tries to detain and prosecute them after their asylum claims are completed, and since that will take more than 20 days, the DHS has to release the child, leaving the government with the choice of detaining the parents or releasing them all. Congress should legislate to allow accompanied children to remain with their parents while awaiting asylum adjudication or prosecution of misdemeanor violations of immigration law.68
· Do not address legal immigration reform in a comprehensive “deal.” Instead, advance legal reforms on their own merit. In 2007 and in 2013, comprehensive efforts failed to get through the legislation process, and the policy faults of each of those efforts will be present in any bill that tries to address too many topics at once. In these cases and in all future efforts, the trade-offs that must be made to compromise with partisan demands will peel off potential supporters and mire the legislation in political and policy problems.
A compromise on immigration is not like a compromise on other issues: Satisfying partisan demands cannot be made without breaching principles. A comprehensive reform effort subjects the fate of policies with universal appeal to the fate of the most controversial topics. For instance, everyone agrees that asylum cases should be adjudicated much more quickly, but that reform has yet to be made because it is wrapped up in the failed comprehensive efforts of the past.
The key is to begin by working on the solutions on which many can agree rather than insisting on a comprehensive approach that divides Americans. Humanitarian reforms like asylum standards should be addressed in legislation that is separate from legislation that implements merit-based legal immigration. Washington must implement the mandates already on the books, follow through on existing initiatives, and employ the authorities that Congress has already granted before taking on new obligations.
· Promote Patriotic Assimilation. Those who wish to see immigration continue must see to it that the whole edifice of victimhood, oppressor–oppressed, compensatory justice, racial preferences, coercive diversity, etc., is dismantled. This is a large undertaking, but if America is to continue to take in immigrants—and we will—policymakers must be ready to overhaul policies that do not blend well with immigration.
· Congress must put an end to measures that coerce immigrants and their American children and grandchildren into pan-ethnic identity traps. We must stop categorizing them as victims with protected status and start mandating that they participate in all aspects of society. Immigrants came to be American, not to join synthetic nations within the nation.
· The executive branch should stop dividing society into groups by rescinding the 1977 OMB directive and its 1997 revision that divide the population into “Hispanics,” “Asians,” etc., and the courts should finally declare racial preferences in admissions and government contracts to be unconstitutional.
The government should return to the ethos that once an immigrant is naturalized, he or she should be encouraged, in Washington’s words, to “get assimilated to our customs.”86
See, for example, Matthew Spalding and Patrick J. Garrity, A Sacred Union of Citizens: George Washington’s Farewell Address and the American Character (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996, p. 118, and George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-17-02-0112 (accessed February 14, 2019).
Public schools should therefore reinforce these values and not, as they do now, divide school children into ethnic boxes to teach even math according to “culturally responsive teaching.”87
Mike Gonzalez, “Montgomery County’s Wrong Tack on Culturally Diverse Education,” The Washington Post, January 20, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/montgomery-countys-wrong-tack-on-culturally-diverse-education/2017/01/20/ae613906-de67-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.55d7120d5e98 (accessed February 14, 2019).
Rigorous studies indicate statistically significant positive effects of school choice or private schooling on the teaching of civic values, while the civics education provided in public schools is currently falling short.88
Patrick J. Wolf, “Civics Exam: Schools of Choice Boost Civic Values,” Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance, PEPG/07-05, 2007, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381540_Civics_Exam_Schools_of_choice_boost_civic_values (accessed February 14, 2019).
Government schools must do a better job of instilling civic values, and policymakers at the state level should provide more charter schools and private school choice options for families.89
Their charters include their own mission statements and curricula and have a separate school board. We should be encouraging the growing number of civically minded charter schools, such as the Great Hearts and Barney Charter initiatives.
1977 OMB Directive 15:https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/Directive15.html