"A Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or Perhaps Both": ACLU Opposes Transparency Law on Educational Materials
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) this week opposed a model law being introduced in over a dozen states. That is not itself uncommon. The ACLU historically opposed laws that denied free speech and other rights under the Constitution, a legacy that I have long cherished and supported. However, this is a transparency law that simply requires teachers and schools to post the educational materials used in class online. It is meant to assist parents in tracking the education of their students and the priorities of their school systems. Yet, the ACLU has declared the law to be so threatening and chilling that it has officially opposed its enactment in any state.
For those of us who have long supported the ACLU, the organization has changed dramatically in the last ten years to a more political organization. That recently included former ACLU former head Ira Glasser who questioned whether the ACLU still maintains its defining commitment to free speech values.
In recent years, the ACLU has also struggled with controversies like an ACLU staffer encouraging activists to "break" Sen. Krysten Sinema (D., Ariz.) and another staffer opposed the admission into college by Nicholas Sandmann. At points, it has become a parody of its own self like celebrating the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by editing her words as offensive.
The greatest concern for those with a long association with the ACLU has been its shift on constitutional rights. In addition to its eroding support for free speech values, it now opposes due process rights when they support the wrong people — a striking departure from the traditional apolitical stance of the group. It has particularly opposed the rights of one particular group: parents. On parental notification laws, the ACLU has brushed aside the rights of parents to be informed (let alone have a say) in medical decisions for their children, including abortions.
This latest position is particularly baffling. I understand the the impetus of this law was opposition to racially divisive materials, including Critical Race Theory (CRT) material. Putting aside the effort to dismiss objections by technically claiming that CRT is not taught outside of law schools, parents are objecting to material that focuses on teaching concepts of white privilege and supremacy that stigmatizes and demonizes identity groups from whites to Christians.
Just this month, kids in Fairfax County public schools (where all of my children have attended or currently attend) were given a "privilege bingo" exercise. The exercise titled "identifying your privilege" had students pick boxes like "military kid," "white," "male," "cisgender," "Christian," to establish identity and privilege.
Assistant Superintendent Douglas A. Tyson said that the exercise was designed for students to determine whether authors have "privilege that may or may not be present in the work" and then to reflect on their own biases based on their race as well as economic and educational status. (Notably, Fairfax later responded to the inclusion of the military family box but not the other privileged identities like being Cis or Christian or white).
The controversy over the bingo game came after a statewide race for governor that centered on the teaching of such issues of racial privilege and identity politics. Gov. Youngkin was elected in part on a pledge to oppose such material.
This brings us back to the model law. The laws passed in states like Pennsylvania are not CRT prohibitions but required posting of teaching materials, syllabi, and scholastic achievement scores online. It is a level of transparency that is common in college and graduate schools, including my own classes.
Greater transparency on public education (like other government programs) would seem a good thing. In the category of "perfecting democracy," information is generally a good thing. That is why we have freedom of information acts on the federal and state levels. Yet, school districts and teachers have opposed such FOIA requests in court. As a result, parents face barriers in obtaining information needed not just in making decisions about their children's education but also in making decisions as voters. School boards are elected by the voters who have a right and a need for such information. For those who commonly decry attacks on democracy, this is an effort that facilitates the democratic process. Parents have a say in how their public schools are run, which is why these boards positions are subject to elections.
Yet, the ACLU is opposing greater transparency, declaring "Curriculum transparency bills are just thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools."
My immediate reaction to that statement was to ask why the ACLU is now holding forth on such political and social issues. It is not claiming that these law are unconstitutional — they are not. It is once again using the organization to support a political cause rather than a constitutional right.
James Madison is often quoted for his statement to "a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both." What is not widely known is that Madison made that statement in response to a letter from William Taylor Barry, a Kentuckian who wrote him about the effort to create primary and secondary educational programs in his state. Information remains the paramount value in public education as well as the transparency needed to secure it.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
429 visitors
Greater transparency on public education would seem an unassailable public good. Why would the ACLU be against that?
Chalk up another one for the ACLU (aka American Civil Leftists Union)!
Remember when they were a civil liberties group?
I most certainly do. I remember the days when the ACLU would stand up for the oppressed that could not afford attorneys no matter who they were or what their skin color was and go up against big business or government on their behalf. Not anymore, now it has become all about who will be the highest profile case. Ethics and morals are long gone from that organization. They are owned lock stock and checkbook by the wealthy hard core liberal left!