I have been trying to understand the objections to “critical race theory,” but I don’t get it. Sure, it’s been misused. So have the Bible, gravity and cheese graters. Human beings can find a way to misuse anything. But the central tenet of critical race theory is to scrutinize the advantage white people have had in our country. Whether you choose to feel guilty about that is up to you.
Personally, I find guilt to be pointless. Instead, if you have the power to make a change, do it. For example, the NCAA recently violated Title IX by giving women inferior amenities during the basketball tournament. Does that mean every man should feel “guilty”? Nope. Does it mean that those with the power to do something should? It surely does. Does it mean we all have the obligation to talk about those inequities? Absolutely. This is what critical race theory calls us to do — to talk about systemic inequities and discrimination.
The other objection is that critical race theory teaches children to not love their country. How exactly? Teaching children to consider their country’s flaws is teaching them to appreciate it in a real way and to help it live up to its promises. Children need to know that it is OK to acknowledge flaws — their own and their country’s. They will still be loved.
Similarly, parents spend a lot of time helping children consider the impact of their words and actions. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they need consequences. Does any of this mean we don’t love them? Does it mean they or we should feel “guilty” about their imperfections? Of course not. It means they need to acknowledge their shortcomings in order to live up to their potential.
That is all critical race theory is asking us to do.
We are an imperfect nation with so much potential. But we cannot reach that potential without acknowledging our flaws, without acknowledging that our nation built its prosperity on the backs of enslaved people, on the lands of Indigenous peoples, and on discriminatory practices against people of color.
KELLY McCONNELL
Hanover
New Hampshire bill HB 544 states, “Nothing … shall be construed to prohibit discussing … divisive concepts in an objective manner and without endorsement.” In other words, it bans teaching certain divisive tenets as though they are fact.
Though clear in its intent, the bill has prompted Forum letters and op-ed columns with varying interpretations. On March 23, Miriam Richards argued that it “does not forbid anyone from believing ‘divisive concepts’ but it forbids the enforcement of those concepts on others in the workplace.” On March 26, Daniel Richards wrote that “open inquiry, study and debate would remain untouched on … ‘divisive topics.’ ” On the other hand, Nirav S. Kapadia on March 24 quoted the bill, saying that HB 544 “defines and prohibits the dissemination of certain divisive concepts related to sex and race.” On March 13, columnist Steve Nelson argued that exposing systematic racism in action is not divisive. The NEA-New Hampshire sees HB 544 inhibiting teachers from addressing race in thoughtful ways.
Given the bill’s intent, I’m puzzled over the views of the critics. It’s evident they support critical race theory, which assumes that racism is the normal state of affairs relevant to every situation. In this view, objectivity regarding racism promulgated by HB 544 is not possible and represents a cover-up.
I support HB 544. I think it addresses an important teaching principle: The teacher should present as an inquirer and continual learner, not as an advocate espousing a particular view. For example, the bill would not prevent me, as a high school social studies teacher, from believing in critical race theory. It would forbid me from presenting my view to students as fact. I can pose questions related to race issues and have students inquire about those issues. My emphasis would be on inquiry, not advocacy. I can organize students’ learning in many ways: posing their own questions for inquiry, referencing historical research, gathering data on present-day citizens’ views, debating different sides of the issue, analyzing news coverage, examining views expressed on social media. It would be an exciting classroom.
BOB SCOBIE
West Lebanon
On June 14, 1977, the Dresden School Board enacted a policy: “Council shall have … authority to act on all matters at HHS not controlled by school board policy, state law, (or) administrative regulations established by the Superintendent.” Since then, the Hanover High School Council has taken a leading role in many issues — including last Wednesday’s decision to remove the Marauder mascot.
Last week’s article (“Students vote to remove Marauders name,” March 20) misstated the name — implying an incorrect representation of the membership — and failed to capture the spirit of Council. For this, I do not fault the reporter. Council is an acquired taste. I’ve been a bystander and a representative. As a senior, I serve as its PR officer. My love of Council has grown with time.
Council benefits from the work of phenomenal students — beyond those mentioned in the recent article. Its powerhouse is students like Zane Schiffman (Class of 2022), and Jessie Lobb (’24), Anna Healey (’24) and Josh Stearns (’24). As co-chair of the Mascot Committee, Schiffman spent hours discussing ideas with staff and students. Lobb, Healey and Stearns prove that raw academic and legislative grit matter more than experience. Tom Hanlon, a Council founder, wrote that school ought to be “wonder … patient impatience about facts.” These students represent the best of Council, and the potential of Hanover High.
Council is not a perfect institution. Sometimes I grimace at bylaws and roll call minutiae. However, it perfectly fills its niche. It is tremendously effective at advancing HHS’s mission: strengthening “hearts, minds, and voices.” But a niche is more than an effect — a niche is the conditions and resources needed to survive. Council needs a community that questions and participates. Upper Valley — while I praise your efforts, I ask you to dive into Council’s work the way it dives into motions — intensely, seriously, with a laugh and grin.
Council, this is not a love letter. We’ve got procedures to streamline, motions to process. But with the support of our community, I trust that we’ve got this.
BEN WAGNER
Hanover
Forum contributor Neil Meliment’s recent letter posited that if Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical adviser, was to advocate that everyone use red clown noses as a COVID-19 preventive measure, there would be people willing to follow his suggestion (“The dictates of corrupt authority,” March 20).
That is an opinion without any real-world rationale behind it.
Fauci, along with other scientists and public health officials at the federal, state and local levels, use data to support their suggestions. A massive amount of data has been collected over the past year that says the same thing: Across different populations, at different times and in different geographic settings, the risk of COVID-19 illness was significantly reduced when people wore masks and exercised social distancing and hand hygiene. Any single study is interesting. Consistency across multiple studies is powerful evidence.
Fauci recently argued with Sen. Rand Paul about masks and vaccines. Paul, an ophthalmologist, was emphatic that vaccination makes masks unnecessary and criticized Fauci for his continued support for masks. The data does not support his allegation.
Let’s consider what we know and what we don’t know. We still are not sure of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity; we know we continue to be at risk of being challenged by new viral strains, some of which may not be prevented by current vaccines; and opportunities for new variants to develop will continue the longer it takes for us to immunize our entire population. We are continuing to collect data on all these issues. We cannot lower our guard by reducing or eliminating non-pharmaceutical interventions (masks, social distancing and hand hygiene) and placing our entire trust solely on a COVID-19 vaccine prevention strategy at this time.
PAUL ETKIND
Grantham
The writer is a retired public health epidemiologist.