Category Archives: Critical Theory

Why the New York Times rewrites history

UnHerd, 11/16/2021  by Ashley Rindsberg

In the world of infotainment, every media brand needs its star. And nowhere is that more true than with one of today’s most influential outlets, the New York Times. In the space of just five years, the Times has succeeded in propelling its stellar asset, Nikole Hannah-Jones, to the rarified heights of celebrity journalism, lending her magnum opus, the 1619 Project, a sanctified glow. But just over two years since 1619 was launched, all that threatens to come tumbling down: the Project has become tainted by a series of errors and inaccuracies — some of which seem to have been committed wilfully.

There’s something uniquely fascinating about the persona of the journalist who betrays his or her professional ethics. There is no medical malpractitioner of historic notoriety, no lawyer so inept or corrupt that their infamy elicits international derision a century later. In fact, it might be only in the field of espionage that we find a parallel. The reason is that, like a nation’s spies, a citizenry loans journalists its most precious asset: trust. This is even more true in secular societies where social institutions take on the characteristics of religious bodies, guiding belief and shaping public perception of reality.

In this context, no American journalist has endured the same level of historical contempt as Hannah-Jones’s most notorious New York Times predecessor, Walter Duranty. One of the reasons Duranty’s name still echoes in the halls of ignominy is because his betrayal was of such an epic nature. He was not only the Times’s top Russia correspondent during the most important period of Russian-American relations in a century (namely, the very early days of the Soviet regime) but a celebrity intellectual.

Duranty’s star had risen so high that when the United States government officially recognised the Soviet Union in 1934, he was chosen to accompany its soon-to-be ambassador to the US — and escorted the newly minted American ambassador from DC back to Moscow. Indeed, it was Duranty himself who had advised Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then at the end of his presidential campaign, that US recognition of the new Soviet regime was the correct course of action.

But that was no shock. Three years earlier, around the time that international headlines were beginning to report on a famine unfolding in the Ukraine, Duranty had reported the very opposite. It wasn’t simply that he downplayed the famine, which Robert Conquest estimated killed upward of five million people in two years; he actively denied it.

What’s often missed when discussing Duranty, however, is the intentional nature of his malfeasance. When the Times came under pressure from the Ukrainian-American community in the early Noughties to return the “Duranty Pulitzer”, the paper’s publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., went against the recommendation of a historian hired by the Times to assess the matter. The historian recommended (unsurprisingly) that the Times should return the prize. Sulzberger refused, chalking Duranty’s cover-up to nothing more than “slovenly” reporting.

Suggested reading

American education needs a revolution

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

But Duranty, an Oxford-educated polyglot, was anything but slovenly. The truth of the matter could be far more disturbing, and can be found in a statement Duranty had made years earlier. In June 1931, while visiting the US embassy in Berlin to renew his passport, Duranty made a remark to a State Department official so significant that the official recorded it verbatim and entered it into the State Department record: “In agreement with the New York Times and the Soviet authorities,” Duranty told the American diplomat, “[Duranty’s] official dispatches always reflect the official opinion of the Soviet government and not his own.”

We might be tempted to think that a correspondent of a previous century would have little to do with the most celebrated journalist of the present day. Certainly, it is inconceivable that anything can compare with Duranty’s attempts to deny the Ukraine famine — and the deaths that followed. But the parallels between Duranty and Nikole Hannah-Jones seem hard to ignore. Like Duranty, Hannah-Jones has become the New York Times’s marquee reporter, her public profile taking on celebrity proportions. Hannah-Jones, like Duranty, is as often the subject of headlines as the creator of them. And, of course, there’s the Pulitzer Prize both she and Duranty won relatively early in their respective careers. But perhaps more than any of these factors, the tone and tenor of the subject matter each reporter covered set the stage for a spectacular rise and, at least in Duranty’s case (for now), an equally precipitous fall.

In her first major piece for the New York Times Magazine, where she was a staff writer, Hannah-Jones focused on school segregation — and did so through the lens of her own experience as a mother of a school-aged child. The 2016 article, “Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City”, placed Hannah-Jones herself squarely at the centre of the all-encompassing topic of race relations in America.

The 10,000-word piece launched Hannah-Jones into that rare elite which consists of reporters who become the focus of a larger reportorial arc. Just a week after it was published, the Times covered Hannah-Jones in an article that was part of a “Times Insider” series. Called “‘Surreal’: A Reporter Is in the Center of a Story She Covered”, the piece was written in the first person by Hannah-Jones and offered a look into the sausage factory of producing a culturally resonant piece for the New York Times. By October 2017, the Times was trumpeting Hannah-Jones in rockstar-like terms, running pieces about her with headlines such as “The Best of Nikole Hannah-Jones”.

And then came 1619, which made her as close to a household name as a journalist can in America. From an Oprah-backed film and TV production deal to appearances on NPR’s Fresh Air and The Daily Show, a talk with Moonlight creator Barry Jenkins to a 1619 book and accompanying children’s book, Hannah-Jones experienced the dazzling embrace of America’s corporate culture machine.

Suggested reading

The media’s betrayal of the poor

By Batya Ungar-Sargon

Crucially, like that of Walter Duranty, Hannah-Jones’s celebrity has had the effect of coating her journalism with a lacquer which shields it from the buffeting forces of criticism. What unites that criticism, from both sides of the political aisle, is something fundamental to any work of journalism: accuracy. While some conservative outlets have attacked the 1619 Project on ideological grounds, the dozens of academics and many journalists who joined the debate intoned with a simple and hard-to-dislodge idea: the 1619 Project was not simply factually flawed, but deliberately, as Phillip Magness, one of the Project’s most vocal critics, put it, it amounts to “the sacrifice of scholarly standards in the service of the ideological objective”.

In the New York Times Magazine issue dedicated to the 1619 Project, there are the subtle but significant problems, such as the mischaracterisation of America’s early economy, which the Project emphasises was built on slavery, when, according to scholars who participated in the debate, slavery played a relatively minor role compared to the Northern industrial and commercial economy. Then there are the arguments that, when taken at face value, are simply absurd, such as the causal connection the Project draws between slavery and modern-day traffic jams in Atlanta or America’s love of sugary treats.

It’s the deeper claims of the Project, however, and specifically those made by Hannah-Jones herself, which are the most problematic — and which most closely tie Hannah-Jones to Duranty. The publication of a piece by Politico by Leslie Harris, a professor of African American history at Northwestern University, months after the 1619 Project was launched, identified the rot at the heart of the Project: “On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.”

This claim, that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery is the fulcrum on which Hannah-Jones’s argument swings. The reason is that the 1619 Project was not simply predicated on the the idea that slavery was of consequence to American history; that is a claim most (if not all) of the Project’s most vociferous critics would not have objected to. Instead, the thesis of the 1619 Project is that America is rooted in slavery. In pursuing this mission, what Hannah-Jones attempted to do is not simply “reframe” American history (as one of the introductions to the 1619 Project claimed) but rework reality.

It’s this attempt to edit history that most closely unites Hannah-Jones’s project with that of Walter Duranty. In both cases, historical realities were tarred over in order to make way for a new narrative. But beyond the personal failings of Duranty and Hannah-Jones, there is a larger and more significant connection between the two journalists. And that, of course, is the New York Times.

It is no coincidence that two largely successful attempts to alter history and edit reality have been carried out under the aegis of the New York Times. While Duranty and Hannah-Jones took centre stage, the platform essential to each was provided by America’s self-described paper of record.

As with any corporate-backed endeavour, a costly investment such as 1619 is undertaken only when there is a likely outcome of commensurately rich rewards. This is what we so often miss about major corporate news organisations such as the Times, which is far less significantly a newsroom built on a system of editorial practices than it is a reputation, a social construct, that produces trust — as well as a business mechanism that monetises that trust and processes it into power.

More from this author

Did the New York Times stifle lab leak debate?

By Ashley Rindsberg

This model applies equally to the denial of the Ukraine Famine and the creation of the 1619 Project. The case of the former is explained by the drive to be positioned at the very centre of the swirl of power, influence and profit presented by the nascent, rapidly industrialising economic power of the Soviet Union that was quickly modernising the agrarian economy of tsarist Russia. The USSR was a massive market of 150 million people that for nearly two decades since the revolution had been restricted to US corporate interests.

With the 1619 Project, the New York Times’s business interests are just as decisive a factor. The Times’s management is well aware that it has to replace its audience of ageing liberals with young adherents of progressive ideologies impassioned enough to pay for the digital subscriptions that are at the heart of its business model. For the Times, this is a matter of existential significance. As a New York Times Company vice president has explained, one of the aims of 1619 is, according to NiemanLab, to “convince more of its 150 million monthly readers to pay for a subscription”.

This makes good sense considering that over a third of the Times‘s revenue now comes from digital subscriptions — and nearly two-thirds of the Times’s American audience is made up of millennial and Gen Z readers. Print subscriptions, meanwhile, are in “steady decline”; advertising is falling by close to (and sometimes more than) double digits each year.

Like all dynasties, the Sulzbergers, the billionaire family that controls the New York Times, are, in part, motivated by financial self-interest. But in the current cultural environment, where a movement of ideological upheaval is at work, it is power as much as money that lies behind what is the most significant journalistic endeavour of the past decade. The Times’s progressive turn (like that of so many American brands) is more top-down than bottom-up; it is a quest for influence rather than principle. The Times knows which way the wind is blowing and in a raging storm why not sail downwind?

The only problem with this approach — in business as much as in life — is that it doesn’t work. As Captain MacWhir in Joseph Conrad’s novella The Typhoon shouts through the raging storm to the story’s young protagonist: “They may say what they like, but the heaviest seas run with the wind.” In its cynical embrace of progressive politics, the Times runs the risk of capsizing in storm waters it mistakenly believes it can control.

The same may well be true about Nikole Hannah-Jones. To her credit, unlike Walter Duranty, Nikole Hannah-Jones does not appear to be a passenger enjoying the cushy ride of celebrity. From all appearances, she is a true believer who is not just willing but eager to make the necessary sacrifices to bring about her vision of justice in the world. Whether that makes her more or less problematic than Duranty, only time will tell.

https://unherd.com/2021/11/why-the-new-york-times-rewrites-history/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=404f4f7dfc&mc_eid=0ff3e7ea29

Share

National School Boards Association Apologizes Over Letter Comparing Parents to Domestic Terrorists

If I were on a school board, I would urge disassociation with NSBA. They issued an apology, but the mentality or beliefs that caused them to write what they did in the first place is likely still very much a part of that organization. Proof is in how they will respond to parents’ input. mrossol

By Lorenz Duchamps  October 23, 2021
 

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) has apologized to its members on Friday for a letter that was previously sent to the Biden administration in which the school board group compared parents accused of trying to intimidate educators to domestic terrorists.

In a memo issued to NSBA members, the board said that “on behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter,” which was sent on Sept. 29, urging President Joe Biden to take action to stop what it described as “threats and acts of violence” against school boards, teachers, and others involved in the public education sphere.

“There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter,” the NSBA wrote. “We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on a communication of this significance. We apologize also for the strain and stress this situation has caused you and your organizations.”

It added that the NSBA deeply values “not only the work of local school boards that make important contributions within our communities, but also the voices of parents, who should and must continue to be heard when it comes to decisions about their children’s education, health, and safety.”

The memo comes as school board organizations in at least 20 states distanced themselves from the NSBA, citing disagreement over the way it has characterized concerned parents. Some have quit or moved to leave the NSBA.

The NSBA’s initial controversial Sept. 29 letter (pdf) claimed that some clashes between school board members and parents over issues such as masking policies, the critical race theory, among others, should be equivalent to parents engaging in “a form of domestic terrorism.”

“As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” the organization wrote.

Emails (pdf) obtained by Parents Defending Education last week disclosed that the NSBA was in touch with the White House and others in the administration before the release of the letter.

“In talks over the last several weeks with White House staff, they requested additional information on some of the specific threats,” Chip Slaven, the NSBA’s interim executive director and CEO, wrote in an email to NSBA board members just hours after the letter was released to the public.

Most of the incidents the board included related to parents vigorously pushing back on controversial teachings or material and not incidents where any laws appeared to be broken.

Several incidents did ultimately lead to arrests at school board meetings, including a father in Loudoun County, Virginia, who was upset his daughter had been raped and school officials allegedly acted to cover it up.

Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum several days after the NSBA’s letter, ordering federal officials to crack down on parents accused of threatening violence or trying to intimidate educators.

Epoch Times Photo
Attorney General Merrick Garland gives an opening statement during a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice at Capitol Hill in Washington on Oct. 21, 2021. (Greg Nash/Pool via Reuters)

Garland, testifying to Congress in Washington, said he learned about the letter by reading about it in the news and had not been told by the White House to issue the memo. He said he was certain the White House communicated its concerns about the letter to his department and that that would be “perfectly appropriate.”

On Oct. 21, Garland denied claims that the U.S. Justice Department would label parents as domestic terrorists, and parents who take issue with school board policies will not be investigated.

“The Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools,” Garland said, the New York Post reported. “That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words ‘domestic terrorism’ or ‘Patriot Act.’”

Jim Green, the executive director of Oregon’s School Boards Association, said in a statement on social media the board appreciates NSBA’s apology over the controversial letter that was issued to the Biden administration.

“We appreciate NSBA’s apology over some of the languages in the organization’s appeal for protecting the safety of school board members,” Green wrote. “That doesn’t mean the underlying issue—keeping volunteer school board members safe from threats and violence—isn’t important. It is.”

“But NSBA recognized that the wording it used alienated many parents, our vital partners in public schools. It’s my hope with this apology that the national organization can learn from the experience and move on.”

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/

Share

The Patriot Act Wasn’t Meant to Target Parents – WSJ

It was the fear of this kind of administrative action which was one of the reasons I voted the way I did in the 2020 election. I was voting against the Democrat ideals which are on display everywhere these days. mrossol

WSJ By F. James Sensenbrenner  October 12,2021

As principal author of the Patriot Act and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during its consideration, I find it necessary to remind the Biden administration that the Patriot Act doesn’t apply to parents’ behavior at school-board meetings.

In recent months, parents across the country have expressed their views on issues ranging from pronoun selection and Critical Race Theory to the medical basis of certain Covid restrictions and age-inappropriate, sexually explicit curricular materials. Parents have a right—indeed an obligation—to participate actively at school-board meetings to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. In Virginia’s Loudoun and Fairfax counties, moms, dads, and teachers shocked by X-rated reading lists, race-based indoctrination, and anti-Christian instruction have made their voices heard.

 
 

Rather than embracing a renaissance of spirited and nonviolent civic engagement, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe recently said: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Democrats’ hostility toward parents seeking a voice in their children’s education is not new. Of greater concern is the recent attempt to weaponize our criminal laws to eliminate these voices.

When asked this week whether the Patriot Act should be used to monitor parents at school-board meetings, White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded: “The attorney general has put out a letter. They will take actions they take, and I would point you to them for more information.” Ms. Psaki’s nonresponse—and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum directing federal counterterrorism agents to monitor parents at local school-board meetings—is emblematic of the Biden administration’s unparalleled effort to transform federal laws and agencies into instruments of domestic political repression.

The Patriot Act was enacted into law following the mass terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its central purpose was to prevent additional foreign terrorist attacks on American soil by enhancing the collection and sharing of foreign intelligence information, restricting terrorist financing, and enhancing border security. The legislation defined terrorism as unlawful acts of violence or acts dangerous to human life intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to affect the conduct of government by “mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” Some provisions, particularly Section 215 and the issuance of National Security Letters, occasioned spirited and necessary debate to ensure against their misuse by federal agencies.

 

When considering the Patriot Act, I sought a bipartisan consensus that was reflected in its unanimous committee approval. Aware of potential abuse—and over the objection of the Bush administration—I ensured the legislation contained sunset provisions and wrote a bill to amend and reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2005. In 2015, I was the author of the USA Freedom Act, which restored the original intent of the Patriot Act by reforming key federal surveillance authorities.

Freedom of expression is a touchstone of self-government. Our laws and jurisprudence draw a clear distinction between acts of terrorism calculated to influence a civilian population and the robust expression of views that sustains democratic self-government. This awareness has informed legislative consideration of the Patriot Act and subsequent revisions.

When debating the Patriot Act and other federal antiterrorism laws, nobody in either chamber of Congress could have imagined these laws would be turned against concerned parents at local school board meetings. Yet on Oct. 4, Mr. Garland issued the memorandum that will live in infamy. It directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. attorneys to develop “strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” This memorandum followed a Sept. 29 National School Boards Association letter to President Biden urging the administration to use the Patriot Act to monitor parents at school board meetings.

Federal agencies lack roving jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute noncriminal conduct. They also lack authority to invoke federal antiterrorism laws to chill protected expressive conduct. The Justice Department’s school-board memorandum violates the letter and spirit of federal law approved by bipartisan, bicameral congressional majorities. Unless it is immediately withdrawn, the memorandum will chill free speech, undermine civil liberties, erode public confidence in federal law enforcement, divert resources from actual terrorist threats, and weaken congressional support for key antiterrorism laws. All of these developments would make Americans less free, less secure and less safe.

Ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The attorney general is America’s top law-enforcement officer; his words have consequences. The press secretary speaks on behalf of the White House. Mr. Garland’s memorandum and Ms. Psaki’s silence speak volumes about this administration’s approach to the constitutional rights of all Americans. Mr. McAuliffe’s hostility toward Virginia’s parents must not be backed by oppressive and unlawful federal mandates calculated to stifle free speech throughout the country.

Members of Congress have an obligation to ensure laws they write are faithfully applied, not intentionally subverted. Congress should demand the immediate withdrawal of the school-board memorandum, bar the appropriation of funds to implement it, and directly challenge the administration’s efforts to misuse federal laws to silence political opposition. Respect for our laws, Constitution and citizens demands no less.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican, served as a U.S. representative from Wisconsin, 1979-2021, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 2001-07.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/patriot-act-parents-education-school-board-free-speech-nasb-critical-race-theory-crt-covid-11634071880?mod=trending_now_opn_5

Share

Yes, Terry McAuliffe, Critical Race Theory Is In Virginia Schools

Critical race theory is rampant in Virginia schools, and McAuliffe is either lying out his rear or is completely ignorant of one of his state’s hottest topics.
Elle Reynolds

By

Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s disastrous interview with a local station on Friday didn’t just show his unpreparedness and inability to budge from one-line talking points, it also outed him as a bald-faced liar.

“How do you define critical race theory?” asked WAVY News 10’s Anita Blanton.

“I answer this question very clearly,” McAuliffe responded, before not answering the question. “It’s not taught in Virginia, it’s never been taught in Virginia. And as I’ve said this a lot: It’s a dog-whistle. It’s racial, it’s division, and it’s used by Glenn Youngkin and others — this is the same thing with Trump and the border wall — to divide people.”

“So how do you define it?” Blanton pressed.

“Anita! It is not taught here in Virginia,” McAuliffe snapped.

“But how do you define it?”

“Doesn’t matter, it’s not taught here in Virginia,” McAuliffe said. “I’m not even spending my time because the school board and everyone else has come out and said it’s not taught. It’s racist. It’s a dog-whistle.”

“But if we don’t have a definition how can we say it’s racist? I just want a definition from you,” Blanton continued, prompting McAuliffe to blame her for “wasting precious viewers’ time” by asking.

Even worse than McAuliffe’s condescending tone or hostility to answering a basic question was the obvious untruth of the talking point he fell back on. Yes, critical race theory is indeed in Virginia classrooms. There may be no other state in the union where examples of radical and pervasive critical race theory in the public school system abound more.

CRT Pervades Virginia Schools

In Alexandria, a page on the Alexandria City Public Schools website promotes resources including “How To Be An Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi, “White Fragility” by Robin DiAngelo, “White Rage” by Carol Anderson, and “White Teachers Need Anti-Racist Therapy” and “Why Teaching Grit Is Inherently Anti-Black” by Bettina Love.

Another ACPS webpage encourages parents to “let go of colorblindness” and “ensure your kids are aware of race,” while also linking to a Forbes article that suggests understanding “our country’s deeply rooted racism” with resources such as:

  • Medium article encouraging readers to donate to their local Black Lives Matter chapter, ask their representatives to decriminalize marijuana, ask their representatives to ban voter ID laws, join their local “white space,” and ask their high school to teach a mandatory class on white privilege,
  • an article titled “White People Have No Culture,” and
  • “Black Marxism: The Making of Black Radical Tradition” by Cedric Robinson.

In Loudoun County, Loudoun County Public Schools first hired consulting firm The Equity Collaborative in April 2019 and has since poured money into critical race theory consultants. The Equity Collaborative, which LCPS paid more than $400,000 for an “equity audit,” operates on the assumption that “racism controls the political, social, and economic realms of U.S. society.”

Monica Gill, a 25-year veteran government and history teacher in Loudoun County, observed in June: “Much of what is being touted in Loudoun County teacher trainings and trickling down into classrooms are poisonous fruit straight off the critical race theory tree.”

The Loudoun County School Board also infuriated teachers and parents in fall 2020 when it tried to introduce a code of conduct for employees that would prohibit even private speech that was “not in alignment with the school division’s commitment to action-oriented equity practices.” Those “equity practices” include the school district’s “Action Plans to Combat Systemic Racism” and its “Comprehensive Equity Plan.”

Andrea Weiskopf, an English and Latin teacher at River Bend Middle School in Loudoun County, tweeted in June, “The best thing about the summer is that I can spend all my time planning how to incorporate Critical Race Theory into my lessons.”

In Fairfax County, Superintendent Scott Brabrand announced in a survey to parents over the summer that Fairfax County Public Schools would be “developing a new Anti-Racism, Anti-Bias Education Curriculum Policy.” The survey came from a New York consulting firm, which FCPS has contracted with for a four-year CRT program and which has been paid nearly $50,000 from FCPS’s chief equity officer.

Fairfax schools also sent a PowerPoint to teachers in July explaining that CRT is an “interpretive framework” that “examines the appearance of race and racism across dominant cultural modes of expression.”

“CRT scholars attempt to understand how victims of systemic racism are affected by cultural perceptions of race and how they are able to represent themselves to counter prejudice,” the PowerPoint claimed, adding that critical race theory is a useful approach to issues such as “school funding, segregation, language policies, discipline policies, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and accountability policies.”

In Arlington County, the director of diversity and inclusion at Arlington Public Schools asked Amazon to send the school district copies of “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by critical race grifter Kendi, after which Amazon sent hundreds of copies of the book to the school system to the tune of $5,000.

In conservative Powhatan County, as Ashley Bateman reported for The Federalist in July, “County Supervisor David Williams shared slides from the Virginia Inquiry Collaborative (VIC), a consortium encouraging race-based teaching to include the oppressiveness of ‘white culture’ and learning through the lens of ‘systemic racism.’”

And at the Virginia Department of Education’s 2020 equity summit, critical race theorist Bettina Love gave a keynote address about “systemic racism” and “dismantling capitalism.”

McAuliffe Is Flat Wrong

McAuliffe’s cringe-worthy conversation with Blanton about CRT comes on the heels of his comment in a debate against Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin that “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

A majority of Virginians disagree with McAuliffe’s sentiment, however, with a new poll showing that 52 percent of respondents believe parents should have more control of school curricula than school boards, and only 33 percent saying school boards should have more power than parents.

Critical race theory is rampant in Virginia public schools, and McAuliffe is either lying out of his rear or ignorant to a disqualifying degree about one of the hottest topics in his state.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/11/yes-terry-mcauliffe-critical-race-theory-is-in-virginia-schools/

Share