In 1867, right after the Civil War, an editorial in Harper’s Weekly said that “the alphabet is abolitionist.” At the time, that wasn’t just a catchy line. Teaching formerly enslaved people to read and write was directly tied to freedom. Literacy meant access to power, knowledge, and participation in society. It was a big deal.
Reading “Right-Wing Legislators Are Trying to Stop Us from Teaching for Racial Justice. We Refuse.” by the Editors of Rethinking Schools, it’s hard not to think about how that idea still applies today. No one is trying to ban reading anymore, but there are real efforts to control what students are allowed to learn about history and society. It’s less about the alphabet now and more about what students are encouraged, or allowed, to understand about the world.
The article talks about laws popping up in different states that limit how teachers can discuss race, gender, and inequality. On the surface, these laws are framed as keeping classrooms fair and unbiased. That sounds fine at first. But the authors argue that the language in these laws is so vague that it ends up discouraging teachers from talking about anything meaningful at all. If you cannot say whether systems or institutions can be racist, then how do you explain why inequality exists?
Students definitely notice that inequality. They see differences in wealth, healthcare, education, and the criminal justice system. They ask questions, which is the whole point of school. But according to the article, these laws can make it risky for teachers to answer honestly. So instead of encouraging curiosity and critical thinking, the system starts to push toward silence or oversimplified answers.
What I found interesting is how the article connects this to bigger political patterns. The authors are basically saying this is not just about classrooms. It is tied to things like voter suppression and the underfunding of public schools. The idea is that limiting what students learn can shape how they think and participate later on. If people are not encouraged to question systems, those systems are less likely to change.
At the same time, the article is not all negative. It actually points out that this backlash might be happening because things are already shifting. After the racial justice protests in 2020, a lot of teachers started rethinking their lessons and including more about systemic racism and social movements. More students were engaging with these topics too. So in a way, these laws might be a response to that momentum.
The article highlights educators who are choosing to push back, even when there are risks involved. Some have signed pledges saying they will keep teaching the truth no matter what. Others have spoken out publicly. It shows that for a lot of teachers, this is not just about following rules. It is about doing what they believe is right for their students.
All of this brings up a bigger question about what education is supposed to be. Is it about keeping things comfortable and avoiding controversy, or is it about helping students think critically and understand complicated realities? The article clearly argues for the second option. Avoiding these topics does not protect students. It just leaves them less prepared to make sense of the world.
That original idea that “the alphabet is abolitionist” packs quite a punch. Education has always been connected to power. Now the issue is not whether students can read, but whether they are encouraged to think deeply about what they are reading and how it connects to real life. Teaching for racial justice, the way the article frames it, is really just part of helping students understand the world honestly. And a lot of educators are not willing to give that up.
Symone,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post because the way you opened with “the alphabet is abolitionist” and carried that idea through to today was powerful. It made the connection between past and present feel very real, not just historical. You showed clearly that education has always been tied to power, it just looks different now.
What stood out to me the most is how you explained that the issue is no longer about whether students can read, but what they are allowed to understand. That shift is so important. It connects to what we have been talking about in class about how silence can be just as harmful as misinformation. When teachers feel restricted or unsure about what they can say, students lose the opportunity to fully understand the world around them.
I also liked how you pointed out that students already notice inequality. That part felt very real. Students are not unaware, they are just sometimes not given the space to process or question what they see. That connects to Delpit as well, because if we don’t acknowledge students’ realities, we end up disconnecting from their lived experiences instead of building on them.
Your point about this being bigger than just classrooms was also really strong. The connection to voter suppression and underfunding schools shows that this is part of a larger system, not just isolated policies. That made me think about how education decisions shape not just what students learn, but how they participate in society later on.
Overall, your post really highlighted that teaching honestly is not about being controversial, it is about being responsible to students.
Hey Symone, I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week because it was such a good reminder that our work in education is directly intertwined with social justice. Although the rise of right-wing ideologies and a populist authoritarian regime has been undermining diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workforce, this should not stop educators from choosing courage to instruct their students about the injustices that continue to exist in the 21st century. Teaching for racial justice is such an important application to the education industry that all educators should strive to adopt in their practices. I find the educators who do this in states that have started to make laws banning this to be extremely brave!! It is unfortunate that they have to take these measures into their own hands because it should already be the standard...
ReplyDeleteHi Symone,
ReplyDeleteThe part about educators choosing to push back even when their jobs are on the line really stayed with me too. It immediately made me think of Precious Knowledge and the teachers in that film who kept showing up for their students despite the backlash and very real consequences they faced. There is something powerful about educators who decide that doing right by their students matters more than playing it safe. It is a reminder that teaching for justice has never been without risk, and yet people keep choosing it anyway. That kind of commitment is what students remember long after the lesson is over.