A new education bill in South Carolina, the 鈥淭ransparency and Integrity in Education Act," is posing questions over its relationship to critical race theory and its overall effectiveness and value, according to opponents.
The bill, , passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on Feb. 8 by a vote of 83 to 34. It has now moved to the Senate and, if passed into law, the bill could censor curriculum taught in the state鈥檚 K-12 public schools.
While the bill protects "the fact-based discussion of controversial aspects of history" and discussion of "the historical oppression of a particular group of people,鈥� it does not protect the teaching of several 鈥減rohibited concepts,鈥� including that an individual is inherently "privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive."
The bill also prohibits teaching the idea that "one race, sex, ethnicity, color, or national origin is inherently superior to another race, sex, ethnicity, color, or national origin," or that the "moral character of an individual is determined by the race, sex, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin of the individual."
Although neither the term or the abbreviation "CRT," is included in the bill, at least one opponent believes the legislation to be anti-CRT in nature. According to , critical race theory is an "academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society."
Cameron Graham, a second-year political science student and the co-political action chair of 麻豆小蝌蚪传媒's NAACP chapter, said he believes the bill has something to do with CRT.
鈥淭his bill was worded perfectly without saying 'CRT,' but we know that they鈥檙e trying to oppress it,鈥� Graham said.
South Carolina Rep. Raye Felder (R-York), who sponsored the bill, said that she disagrees with that idea based on public testimony from parents and stakeholders.
鈥淭ruly, the legislation deals with transparency. It鈥檚 not trying to change what teachers teach or how teachers teach it,鈥� Felder said.
Another sponsor of the bill, Rep. James Mikell 鈥淢ike鈥� Burns (R-Greenville) said the bill 鈥渁bsolutely鈥� targets CRT.
"That's not being hidden," Burns said. "That's part of this whole problem. Anything that divides kids, that pits one class or one race against another. It's ludicrous to do that."
Todd Shaw, an associate professor of political science and African American studies at 麻豆小蝌蚪传媒, said that if the bill truly intends to target CRT, it is 鈥渢rying to solve a problem that does not exist.鈥�
"Critical race theory is really an advanced theory taught in graduate schools and law schools," Shaw said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 a public school in South Carolina, or in a lot of other places, that teach critical race theory, per se.鈥�
Further, the bill mandates that schools implement a "complaint form鈥� for parents and other individuals to report teachers or instructors who address its prohibited concepts in class, which is meant to increase transparency and collaboration between students, parents, teachers and the community, according to Felder. Responsibility for creating the forms would be in the hands of the S.C. Department of Education.
Felder said that these forms create a new essential, formal process for resolving issues of teachers straying outside of the given curriculum but that the issue the forms address is not as drastic as it may sound.
鈥淚n all reality, 99% of our classrooms out there are accurately, factually teaching the curriculum,鈥� Felder said.
Shaw said he foresees issues with the complaint forms in their ability to allow parents to contribute to forms outside of their children鈥檚 respective school districts.
鈥淚f I鈥檓 in Columbia, and I object to something being taught in Clarendon County, should I? Should I have that right to do that? Is that fair?鈥� Shaw said.
The cost of the bill鈥檚 implementation could vary greatly, as school districts surveyed by the Department of Education said this bill , though exact expenses were not disclosed, according to the Greenville News.
While co-sponsors Burns and Felder agree that the forms should not cost as much as $3 million to implement, Shaw said that the cost is wholly unnecessary, regardless of what it could end up amounting to.
鈥淚t鈥檚 going to cost, in financial terms, more than it鈥檚 worth, and it鈥檚 certainly going to cost more than it鈥檚 worth in educational and morale terms,鈥� Shaw said.
Graham believes there are also better uses for that kind of money.
鈥淲hen I think of a worthy investment, I think of us getting broadband internet to rural communities. When I think of a worthy investment, I think of taking that $3 million and creating after school programs to keep our kids off of the streets,鈥� Graham said.
Shaw also said that he worries that the bill will further politicize education and work against productive discussions about schools in the state.
鈥淚t will further weaponize debates about what should be in school curriculum and taught in classrooms,鈥� Shaw said.
Felder, however, said that the bill does not hamper students鈥� ability to respectfully share their diverse views in classrooms or discuss controversial topics.
鈥淎 lot of things are controversial but they鈥檙e in the curriculum; we want them taught,鈥� Felder said.
Despite his overall support, Burns concedes that the bill could come with some unintended consequences that are just 鈥減art of the process.鈥�
鈥淭he pendulum swings, it usually swings too far. We鈥檒l see if it swings too far, but at least the pushback is now there," Burns said. "We鈥檙e in a little tug of war right now.鈥�
Burns, however, said there is still work to be done to address South Carolina鈥檚 educational issues, including the success of the curriculum.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 get 49th and 50th without having some problems," Burns said. "This bill doesn鈥檛 address every single problem.鈥�
Graham said opposing politicians in the state should focus on their common goals to promote positive change, especially in the education system.
鈥淎t the end of the day, we have to realize that. We鈥檙e all in the same state. We all want the same thing for each other. We all want the same education,鈥� Graham said.