Thread by @DavidAFrench

You want more discussion of CRT laws? Well, you'll get more discussion of CRT laws. My oped Sunday with @kmele, @thomaschattwill, and @jasonintrator generated a lot of critique, but then I noticed something. See if you notice it also /1 frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/even-the-def…

In his thoughtful critique of the oped, Stanley Kurtz says this about the TX law: "This phrasing could potentially prevent even discussion of the various concepts, which would indeed run afoul of our culture of free expression, despite being legally permissible." /2

In his critique, my friend Rich Lowry also says the same Texas law is allegedly “going to get a scrub in the Texas special session” and says “it’s totally legitimate to worry about the wording of the laws." /3

My friend Dan McLaughlin says, "“There are fair criticisms of how some of the bills that would enact such bans have been drafted; legislation is a blunt instrument with which to control a curriculum, and some of the initial efforts have been more careful than others.” /4

You never want to run afoul of Kevin Williamson's pen, but he says this: "The anti-CRT laws, coarse and genuinely stupid as they often are, are an attempt to change that ideological balance, or at least to put some limit on how far to the left the public schools will tilt." /5

I don't know Cameron Hilditch, but his strenuous defense of anti-CRT laws contained this interesting sentence: “It’s true that the laws in question could have been drafted better, but it is better to have them on the statute book than to have none whatsoever.” /6

Dan came back again, and echoed Greg Lukianoff's warning: "poorly-drafted laws can end up banning the teaching of things that the legislators never intended to ban, and can lead to confusion and discord at the school level." /7

These are all from defenses of the bills, by the way, and yet illustrate the speech code dilemma. It is really really difficult to ban ideas you despise without sweeping too broadly and creating unintended, negative consequences. Let me illustrate with a concrete example. /8

Many of the state bills would ban including this book excerpt in a course. The excerpt runs afoul of provisions prohibiting labeling someone as "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously" by virtue of their race. /9

Is this CRT? No, it's Martin Luther King Jr. (h/t to @Ameen_HGA for highlighting). I'm sorry--agree or disagree with MLK--but if a law bans a state from teaching MLK in full, then that law is gravely and fatally flawed. /10

No one should doubt there are CRT and DEI abuses and excesses. We have legal tools to deal with them. No one doubt there is bad curriculum in the U.S. There is better curriculum to replace it. But the speech codes? They're deeply flawed. Just ask their defenders. /end