Some time ago I threw in my two-cents’ worth on the controversial topic of “critical race theory.” Since then, across the U.S., more states and local school boards have jumped in with efforts to forbid the topic in school curricula. As I said previously, I disagree with the theory’s basic tenets as I understand them, but I think legislation against it is the wrong move. Forbidding things generally increases publicity and stirs up more controversy. Look what happens when individual book titles are banned.

But publicity isn’t the main issue here. Rather, it’s the matter of freedom of speech and thought. Liberals on college campuses are accused of promoting critical race theory at least partially by silencing conservative opposition. Conservatives rightfully cry foul, but then violate this right themselves by passing laws to silence liberals. The contradictions are obvious.

Despite academia’s squabbles and stalemates, this remains a matter for educators to work out, not legislators, because it involves how we define “academic freedom,” that fine line between teaching and teaching about, though the terms are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, “teaching” can imply that a particular belief is promoted, while “teaching about” involves only the imparting of neutral knowledge. Somewhere I learned that in my classroom I was to keep my opinions to myself. I could prepare lessons about nearly anything reasonable within the realm of “English teacher,” as long as I stuck to facts, writings and motives that were descriptive of a topic, but not prescriptive. I remain convinced that’s the way it should be.

In short, while a little knowledge may indeed be dangerous, it isn’t more knowledge which causes problems. It’s what you do with that knowledge. Forbidding the accumulation of knowledge is simply an effort to promote ignorance, motivated by the fact that ignorance is easy to manipulate. The clichéd but classic description of this problem comes in George Orwell’s "1984," wherein the autocratic government’s Ministry of Truth erases official histories and replaces them with a different version … or nothing at all.

Always, always, truth must be the goal, but you don’t get there by erasing the opposition. Effective persuasion eliminates the opposition’s argument, but not the opposition’s personhood or freedoms. It proves one side wiser or closer to the truth not through guile or force, but through knowledge, reason, and ethical motives. It’s the only honest way to go.

I’m not certain the topic of critical race theory has yet risen to the level of America’s most significant social issues (such as racial relations in general), and as far as I know, Montana has neither voluntarily stuck a toe in these waters, nor been formally required to do so. I hope Montana is too smart to jump in. I also hope national mandates don’t come down, since they would be stuffing a left-leaning load into already over-stuffed curricula, then dumping it on already over-assigned, probably under-trained, and likely-unprotected teachers. And understandably, the righties will retaliate. They’ve already started doing so proactively.

Even a temporary controversy could be tolerated if there was some hope for a rational end -- perhaps first some proof that the topic is necessary at all, and if it is, then a short curriculum acceptable to both sides because it is factually sound and politically neutral. However, I’m a pessimist. After all, we’ve not yet settled the question of how to teach (about) evolution, and that one is a 19th century subject, litigated frequently and famously during the 20th, and still being fired-up sporadically in the 21st.

Our track record on rational resolution of controversial topics is not exactly impressive.

Ron Rude, Plains