The Nazis and Communists didn’t leave the ideological instruction solely to the direct transmission of ideas, nor could they. Rather, the entire curriculum was constructed to ensure that students were completely submerged in Nazi and Communist ideology.

Thus, instruction in Nazi ideology often came through indirect means — for example, “racial studies.” In such classes Nazi teachers would read children stories that portrayed Jews as inferior, untrustworthy, and parasitic. In one story, Jews were dehumanized and shown to be the “antithesis of Aryan humanity,” pictured as a “poisonous mushroom” that needed to be destroyed lest it kill the German people from within.

In math, the Nazis often couched problems in militarized terms or in a manner that indirectly taught Nazi ideology, for example, by asking how much money the German state wasted on caring for “inferior” races and other undesirables. In biology class, Nazi children were taught of the importance of maintaining racial purity, the necessity of eugenics, and the theory of survival of the fittest, and students were even shown images of those who were deemed “racially pure” and those who were “inferior.” Science experiments were done on plants to demonstrate the “strength” of the purebreds over those that were mixed. Through experiments, storytelling, and carefully crafted lessons and problems, the Nazis indirectly — and perhaps even more powerfully — taught all children Nazi ideology without even needing to use the words, “National Socialism.”

Indoctrination was also accomplished through policies. By separating girls from boys and teaching them a different curriculum, the Nazis indirectly taught children that girls and boys played different roles in Nazi society. For girls, education was aimed at preparing them to be “German wom[e]n and mother[s] in family, home, workplace and national community.” And by prohibiting Jews from attending public school altogether, the Nazis taught children that Jews were inferior and not true Germans.

So while grade-school children may not actually be reading texts by Ibram X. Kendi, Richard Delgado, Derrick Bell, and Robin DiAngelo (and make no mistake — they may also be reading those), there is no doubt that public schools across the nation are teaching children the fundamental tenets and presuppositions of CRT. This is done, at a minimum, indirectly through structured curriculum, classroom activities, and specific policies. And in many districts, it is often done directly as well.

For example, when schools separate out white and black children in different classes, they are teaching children one of CRT’s core presuppositions: that white people, solely by virtue of their skin color, are oppressors, and that black and brown people, solely by virtue of their skin color, are victims — victims of white supremacy and the systemically racist system that prevents people of color (POC) from succeeding in America. Because they are victims, POCs need to be separated from whites and organized into groups with other POCs to give them “more opportunities,” more empathy, more of a voice.

Consider also how schools implement “equity-based” discipline polices that prevent administrators from disciplining minorities because such children have allegedly been disproportionately disciplined in that district. When they do this, schools are teaching students a fundamental tenet of CRT: that justice is not about due process and equal treatment for every individual but instead about achieving equality of outcome for oppressed groups. Unsurprisingly, the NSBA itself advocates for these types of discipline policies.

In other instances, schools are being caught instructing teachers how to teach CRT directly to students. Teachers are being trained in CRT’s key terms and presuppositions and then taught how to implement the ideology’s tenets in the classroom.

So the next time you hear that CRT is not being taught in public schools — don’t believe it. And the next time a pundit insinuates that objections to CRT at school board meetings are without merit and in furtherance of violence, identify the gaslighting for what it is and carry on.

S. Ernie Walton is an Assistant Professor at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, VA. His latest article, “Gender Identity Ideology: The Totalitarian, Unconstitutional Takeover of America’s Public Schools,” will be published in the Regent University Law Review this winter. The views expressed in this article represent his individual views and not necessarily those of Regent University.

                                                                                                                                Article Credit: The American Spectator