Demobilizing knowledge in American schools: censoring critical perspectives

The teaching of US history and related issues of diversity, race, gender, and sexuality in public schools has become highly contentious and polarized. Two opposing narratives dominate the debate: one advocating for a view of the US as a work in progress requiring continued efforts towards perfection, and the other promoting an exceptionalist, patriotic account aligning with traditional approaches. This polarization has resulted in significant attacks on what is often termed "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) and related curricula. Since 2021, nearly one-third of US states have banned K-12 curricula offering critical views of the nation's racial past, with over 200 bills introduced in 40 states to restrict curricula on diverse topics. These disputes have significant political and policy ramifications, extending to school board races and influencing the broader political landscape. This study employs a process-oriented knowledge mobilization framework to investigate what knowledge is being restricted in US K-12 schools, how this restriction is occurring, and the underlying reasons. The focus is on states actively restricting critical perspectives, while acknowledging that some states are expanding such offerings.

The paper reviews literature on controversial curricula in US schools since the early 20th century, noting the influence of religious fundamentalism and political ideology. Key historical moments like the Scopes Trial and the rise of critical theories in the 1960s are highlighted, along with the conservative backlash of the 1980s under Reagan and the subsequent push for national standards in the 1990s. The authors discuss the failure of national standards and the continued power of states in shaping curricula, referencing the influence of historians like Howard Zinn and James Loewen who challenged traditional, exceptionalist narratives. The role of the No Child Left Behind Act in focusing federal funding on reading and math is also discussed, leading to uneven standards across states. The authors further analyze the influence of the Trump administration and Trumpism, noting the 1776 Commission, attacks on the 1619 Project, and the broader social and political forces contributing to increased tensions around teaching history and social justice issues. Finally, existing research on the benefits of inclusive curricula and social justice pedagogy is reviewed, highlighting the detrimental effects of omitting critical perspectives for marginalized students.

The study employed a multi-step qualitative textual analysis (TA) approach guided by Ward's (2019) knowledge mobilization framework. Data were collected from primary and secondary sources (government and news websites) from August 2019 to November 2022, focusing on state-level actions with legal implications (legislation, state school board resolutions, executive orders). The research process involved: (1) scouring news outlets for stories mentioning key terms related to CRT, the 1619 Project, and related controversies; (2) organizing data by state, noting political dominance; (3) sourcing news reports and press releases to identify quotations from key political actors; (4) obtaining original texts of state actions; and (5) conducting line-by-line textual analysis using an inductive coding scheme to identify emergent themes and implicit meanings. The framework allowed for investigation into what and whose knowledge was being restricted, how this was occurring, and the underlying reasons. The limitations of the study include the time frame, focus on state-level actions, and the inherent subjectivity of TA. While these limitations may affect generalizability, they do not undermine the study's trustworthiness.

The study found that 16 Republican-dominated states used official government actions to demobilize critical perspectives in schools. These actions targeted curricula such as the 1619 Project and those mentioning CRT, aiming to prevent sensitive or controversial content. Four major linguistic patterns were identified in state actions: (1) explicit bans on CRT and the 1619 Project; (2) restrictions on teaching systemic racism or content causing racial guilt/shame; (3) restrictions on content causing gender/sex guilt/shame; and (4) bans on "divisive concepts" or requirements for "multiple perspectives." All students are potentially affected by these restrictions, but marginalized/minority students are particularly harmed by the lack of access to critical perspectives. The reasons given by political actors for these restrictions included preventing division, protecting students from racism/sexism, and promoting a more accurate (i.e., exceptionalist) view of history. However, the study also reveals a broader influence architecture of elite-funded actors and organizations that actively frame and polarize these issues, leveraging them for political gain. The methods of demobilizing knowledge included state legislation, executive actions, and state board of education resolutions. All 16 states enacting such restrictions were Republican-dominated.

The findings indicate that these actions perpetuate dominant historical narratives, suppress diverse perspectives, and harm marginalized students. The vague language used in many state actions creates a chilling effect, potentially leading teachers to avoid teaching critical topics. The study suggests that the problem has been largely manufactured by political actors leveraging existing political polarization and populist forces to gain political advantage. The language used often aims to protect the interests of white and heterosexual students, implicitly reinforcing existing power structures. The study highlights the international context of these developments, noting similar trends in other countries.

This study reveals the strategic demobilization of critical historical knowledge in US schools by Republican-dominated states. The consequences include perpetuating dominant narratives, limiting access to diverse perspectives for all students (especially marginalized groups), and chilling the discussion of crucial historical topics. Future research should further explore the influence architecture driving these policies and analyze their long-term impact on education and societal discourse. The case of the altered AP African American Studies curriculum demonstrates the far-reaching implications of such actions.

The study's limitations include the time frame of data collection, focus on state-level actions, and the inherent subjectivity of textual analysis. These limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings but do not detract from the importance of the study's insights.