About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (April 14, 2022)

handle is hein.amenin/aeiaehn0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Key Points s Advocates o critical race theory (GRT) are correct to point out that it was originally an aradjrernic rry genrerated in law schools, but CRT' a opponents have been too slow to underst nd the L1 implications of this. a C~l was designed to subvert the Civil Rights Act and America's constitutionai orie. Ahen CRT praxis reaches oubic schools, what appears to be a 'culture war issue is actualy mart of a broader constitutional var issue. To :ight that var, more public :nterest lav firms mut see the bigger picture, and rore parn s U t be wil ing to step forward to fih ton every lrant necessary to preserve our consti'utionai order. Students of Shakespeare know that in times of great political instability, citizens are not inclined to look to lawyers for advice or assistance. The first thing we do. says a character in Hlenr0y V1, Part 1!, Let's kill all the laxwyers, But right now, that would be bad advice for anyone who cares about American public education or the Constitution. After more than a year and a half of public con- troversy over critical race theory (CRT) in K--a schools, parents and lawyers across America are finally waking up to the true significance of the intersection between the legal-academic CRT and its operational implications. CRT was dreamed up by legal scholars explicitly seeking to subvert the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution. This is not political hyperhole; it is a olain reading of lead- ing CRT lurninaries Kimberl5 Crenshaw and Rich- ard Delgado. As this neo-Marxist praxis of subver- sion play' out in news cycle cortroversies based on what happens inside classrooms, it ias been wrongly interpreted as a culture war issue. But in truth, it is a constitutional war issue. The question of whether government mistitu- tions can (and should) treat people differently (or directly antagonize people) based on race should not be an issue up for debate in the American cul- ture war. It is settled constitutional jurisprudence. Tle law recognizes that a public school is not free to segregate Blac.k and White students or treat stu- dents differently because of skin color. Indeed, in 2? 5, the Obama aduinistration's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) held that school-based segregation was wrong in 2021, the 'Trump administration's OCR reached a similar decision) But immediately upon taking office, the Biden administration's OCR took the essentially iprecedented sten of rescinding that decisi mm' When it became clear that the liden admin- istration would not enforce civil rights law, a brave teacher named Stacy Deemar approached my firm, Southeastern Legal Foundation, to effectively