Is New York’s Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework a good idea? Not so fast.

In a time when identity-related topics stir up heated debate throughout America, it’s no different where I live in the small town of Warwick, New York. Several weeks ago, a local newspaper called The Warwick Advertiser published an article as a full-page ad by a group calling itself Warwick Parents for Common Sense — which I will abbreviate to WPCS. The article is a strongly-worded criticism of a new state educational policy — the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework (CR-S) — that has already been adopted in New York City. Amidst the Black Lives Matter movement and the cultural conflict simmering around the country, the superintendent of our school district and the Board of Education gave their own endorsement to the CR-S. This endorsement and the article have embroiled my fellow Warwickians in a battle over the course that our students’ education should take.

After reading the article, I too found myself concerned about the proposed adoption of the CR-S into our schools. But to avoid any unreasonable assumptions, I took time to read through the outline of the framework.

There are many who say that WPCS’s article is racist and that it should not have been published to begin with. I do think that the piece comes off as being guided somewhat more by passion than by attention to detail. For example, the idea that we live in the “most prosperous, least racist, least sexist nation” — can we really be sure of that? There’s no argument that we live in one of the wealthiest and most equal countries, but it’s probably a stretch to make those superlative claims.

That said, if one denounces Black Lives Matter, and if they mention problems faced by blacks in inner cities such as gang activity, does that constitute racism? I’d argue that it doesn’t. And those who find WPCS’s piece disagreeable can have their own opinion published as well. In fact, I suggested to the editors of The Warwick Advertiser that a piece arguing the counterview should be included in a future issue. Warwick residents should have a chance to see both viewpoints, as should anybody.

I share the concerns that WPCS’s article expresses about the accusatory, whimsical rhetoric too frequently seen among the ‘woke’ culture and so-called “social justice warriors.” It’s certainly become a thing to, for the vaguest reasons, accuse others of promoting white supremacy — a term which, like racism, has been conveniently redefined among many who claim to support social justice.

It’s natural, therefore, to have concerns about a framework which includes discussion about privilege and implicit bias among its central tenets. Indeed, the word “privilege” is used 16 times in the CR-S, and the term “implicit bias” 20 times. It would be naïve to presume that those terms are not geared almost exclusively towards white New Yorkers.

WPCS’s article gives the following description about the CR-S:

“CRS [sic]… (makes) a person’s skin color the primary attribute on which he or she should be judged, not the content of his or her character. It promotes the narrative that all human relationships are defined through an oppressor/oppressed binary and forces one group into recognizing its ‘privilege’ while telling other groups that they are oppressed by nebulous, conspiratorial and nefarious forces.”

Does this summary hold up to the actual propositions of the CR-S?

Well, certainly there are fair points made in the CR-S outline. Without a doubt, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to teaching students and it is better, at least in some cases, to build on their strengths than to fix their weaknesses. Obviously, our educational system should work to make students of all backgrounds feel welcome. Yet the outline stretches that ideal to a point where it goes rather out of bounds.

It places a great deal of emphasis on equity without making clear the exact methods by which it would work towards this equity. Would a student’s skin color or gender be used to determine whether they should be offered extra help? Would a white student from a working-class family receive more assistance than a non-white student from a wealthy family? It’s a fair question to ask given that schools and workplaces have been found to be, or currently are, limiting white entry in the name of diversity.

In the glossary, the CR-S outline defines institutional racism as being “baked into” our legal, medical, economic and educational institutions, which thereby create some invisible racial caste system. However, the example it provides — overcrowded and under-resourced schools dominated by people of color — is a matter of circumstance, not any modern large-scale racism.

Further, it suggests that everyone from policymakers to students should “continuously” check for implicit bias. Beyond asking for simple common decency, it comes off as expecting one to constantly probe themselves and others for inner transgressions against equality. That this sort of hypervigilant mentality would be counterproductive to education is a given for those aware of the excesses of today’s ‘woke’ culture.

Finally, the CR-S names one of its goals as helping educators to “recognize that personal, cultural, and institutionalized discrimination creates and sustains privileges for some while creating and sustaining disadvantage for others.” This idea suffers from the misguided premise that a disparity in welfare between certain groups is dependent on discrimination. It professes a view of American society as being fundamentally grounded in identity-based privilege and oppression.

All of these points give credence to the concern about the CR-S compelling one group to recognize its privilege while telling others that they are oppressed by an underlying, unseen tyranny. To make that the central basis of New York’s education would threaten to not only create a false impression among both students and educators, but also foster an environment of resentment and self-guilt. That sort of environment cannot be expected to help towards building a civil, tolerant society. We’re losing that quickly enough as it is.

It’s clear already to most people that poverty and incarceration do not equally affect all races in this country. Implicit bias by those involved in court proceedings may play a role in the latter, but it’s not fair to call that institutionalized racism. First, one has to distinguish the institution from the individuals who take part in it. Second, there are other and probably more significant reasons than racism [links: a, b, c] for the disparities between racial groups. Whites are still going to prison for the same crimes that non-whites are. The white children in our schools should not be taught to carry a burden of guilt that they don’t deserve.

The CR-S presents noble ideas but also a flawed foundational philosophy which is likely to sew unwarranted guilt and resentment within New York’s schools. The concerns that many have about its potential adoption therefore have merit. I assume that the propositions offered by the authors of the framework are well-intentioned. Even so, it’s deserving of vigorous review and, quite arguably, some revision.

Correction: April 28, 2021 An earlier version of this article referred to the CR-S at several points as a “curriculum.” The word has been replaced to more accurately represent what the CR-S is — an educational policy or framework.