The Interview: Author Bonnie Kerrigan Snyder on Free Speech, Critical Race Theory and ‘Giving the Devil His Due’
Receive stories like these directly in your email. Subscribe to Newsletter.
Check out previous 74 Interviews: NYC principal Alice Hom discussing anti-Asian sentiment and COVID, Gloria Ladson-Billings talking about culturally relevant teaching, and Mary Beth Tinker discussing free speech and youth activism. You can find the complete archive here.
This year, there have been numerous controversies surrounding how schools address topics of race, gender, and sexuality. In response, Republican lawmakers in various states have introduced and passed laws that focus on discussions of "divisive concepts" in classrooms. This movement, which has become a part of the national political debate, has gained support from families who are concerned about their children being taught what they perceive as anti-American propaganda related to systemic oppression and white guilt. However, many teachers argue that these bans infringe on their freedom of speech and risk sanitizing the realities of American society.
Bonnie Kerrigan Snyder, a fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), believes that the resistance against what she calls "thought reform" in classrooms is long overdue. As a former teacher and school counselor, Snyder argues that teachers in many communities have crossed the line and started preaching about politics. Although she is somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of legislating what can and cannot be said in the classroom, she strongly believes that changes need to be made.
This accusation has sparked fierce debates and calls to remove certain teachers from their positions. However, the controversies surrounding these issues are diverse. On one side, critics point to examples like third graders being asked to analyze their identities through the lens of privilege and oppression, as well as school districts incorporating elements of ethnic studies into math lessons. On the other side, educators across the nation are sincerely attempting to bring attention to neglected episodes from American history, such as the Tulsa race massacre.
Typically, the debate over politics in education is associated with higher education, which is where FIRE primarily focuses its efforts. The nonprofit organization often represents faculty members who are suing their colleges over restrictions on free speech and has defended the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX. While FIRE takes a nuanced stance on proposed restrictions regarding classroom speech, Snyder and FIRE President Greg Lukianoff argue that many of these restrictions are likely constitutional but not beyond criticism.
Although FIRE does not currently handle K-12 cases, Snyder, who plays a significant role in FIRE’s high school outreach program, believes that K-12 educators are increasingly inclined to promote their own ideological beliefs. She attributes this trend to teacher preparation programs that have evolved into what she describes as political "monocultures." When it comes to teaching controversial subjects, Snyder believes that instructors need to consider the appropriateness of the subject matter, its alignment with the curriculum, their ability to be unbiased, and the potential for discussions to become inflammatory.
In an interview with , Snyder discusses how schools have veered towards "indoctrination" and shares her views on the matter. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
: I typically associate FIRE with the defense of free speech on college campuses. When does K-12 education and the controversies surrounding its content become a free speech issue? A significant portion of your book focuses on protecting students’ rights to express their opinions in the classroom. However, many argue that state laws aimed at limiting discussions on "divisive concepts," such as race or gender, end up censoring teachers. What is your stance on this?
Bonnie Kerrigan Snyder: At FIRE, we closely monitor the legislation that seeks to ban certain ideas in K-12 education. We support the principles outlined in the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings on freedom of expression. We are highly concerned about the thought reform aspect of this issue, where teachers attempt to infiltrate the private realm of thoughts and beliefs and coerce students into affirming views they may not agree with. We are also concerned about self-censorship among students. When children fear retaliation for expressing their opinions, authenticity is lost in the classroom, and meaningful discussions cannot occur.
School leaders are facing a difficult year filled with public outrage. In my book, I emphasize the importance of teachers maintaining the trust of the community. If they fail to do so, they risk being heavily monitored and losing their professional discretion in the classroom. This warning has proven to be true, as new laws have emerged that restrict teachers’ ability to make independent decisions.
When there is a strong sense of goodwill and trust between parents, teachers, and the community, teachers can operate with flexibility. However, I have come across instances where teachers refer to themselves as "co-conspirators" or discuss "creative insubordination." For example, I wrote about a district official in Missouri who received complaints about certain lesson plans. Instead of addressing the concerns, the official instructed teachers to alter the plans to hide the content from parents. When deceptive tactics like these are employed, it is not surprising that the state intervenes.
Ultimately, there are checks and balances in place. Teachers express their opinions, these conversations take place in school boards, and individuals have the opportunity to vote for their representatives in the legislature. While bills proposing various restrictions have been introduced, not all have been passed. The outcome remains to be seen. However, the saying "When you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind" comes to mind.
But should we not be concerned that banning certain areas of inquiry from the classroom will prevent students from engaging in democratic discussions? It seems that if teachers are apprehensive about broaching uncomfortable topics, students will be confined to an intellectual safe space.
Teachers should certainly have some leeway, and this ties back to the issue of trust. The more professional and trustworthy they are, the more latitude they should have in addressing controversial subjects.
In an article I published, I discussed the importance of guardrails for educators. Recognizing teachers’ concerns, I examined legal precedents to guide them when they find themselves in precarious situations. One guideline is to consider whether the topic is age-appropriate. For example, an elementary school teacher may question whether discussing Afghanistan is suitable. It is essential to recognize our limitations and not assume we are the best judges of current events due to the lack of perspective.
Another consideration is whether the topic aligns with the curriculum. Are teachers mandated to discuss current events in all subjects or only in specific ones, such as social studies? If a certain topic arises, it is crucial to reflect on why it is being discussed. Additionally, teachers ought to present the perspectives of all sides when addressing controversial subjects. They are expected to be impartial and transparent. Failure to do so may result in receiving complaints from angry parents.
Lastly, teachers must assess whether the topic is inflammatory. If it leads to extreme emotional reactions that hinder the learning objectives, it is necessary to reconsider its inclusion. I advise teachers to avoid using trending topics on social media or op-ed articles in local newspapers as the basis for lesson plans. Adolescents, in particular, can become highly emotional, causing rational thinking to be compromised.
Overall, it is crucial for school leaders, teachers, and parents to work together in fostering an environment of trust and open dialogue.
A portion of the criticism against the concept known as "critical race theory" in schools has been directed towards efforts to expand the curriculum and educate students about America’s racial history. For example, some parents have protested against the inclusion of Ruby Bridges’ autobiography, who was one of the first African-American students to integrate an all-white school in New Orleans. Do you have concerns that widening the curriculum too much can hinder the learning process?
I fully agree that certain objectionable aspects of critical race theory have garnered negative attention, which could potentially undermine reasonable attempts to broaden the curriculum. However, it is worth considering that all this negative attention might ironically make it more appealing and attractive to students, as they tend to be naturally inclined to rebel against being told what they can’t study. Therefore, it is important to be cautious in not exaggerating the dangers of critical race theory. At FIRE, our belief is that allowing more speech, rather than enforcing silence, is the best approach to address what may be considered as problematic speech. While one could argue that other subjects should receive more emphasis in the curriculum, outright banning of an idea often leads to unintended consequences.
By the way, I have actually collaborated with 1776 Unites, an educational project initiated by the nonprofit organization Woodson Center in 2020. This project aims to counter what it sees as the "dangerous and debilitating message" of The New York Times’ 1619 Project. Through this collaboration, I have worked with numerous African American scholars to develop lesson plans on these topics. Throughout this process, I discovered gaps and deficiencies in my own education regarding these subjects. For instance, I learned about the Rosenwald Schools, which were considered separate and inherently unequal by the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Despite living in South Carolina where these schools were present, I was completely unaware of their existence due to my lack of knowledge.
I believe it would be beneficial for students to learn more about Native Americans and women in the curriculum. As a woman myself, I have noticed that the majority of the U.S. history I have studied primarily focuses on men or is written by men. However, this has never deterred me from searching for common threads that I can relate to. It is natural for us all to desire some level of reflection of ourselves in what we learn, even when reading stories about individuals who are different from us.
Now, returning to your book, could you explain the issue that you address, which you refer to as "thought reform"? From your perspective, how prevalent is this issue in K-12 schools compared to university settings, where FIRE is most active?
I would describe "thought reform" as teachers exceeding their designated roles in the classroom and utilizing the classroom for personal or partisan purposes. When we talk about public schools, it is important to remember that they are funded by taxpayers and therefore misusing public funds in this way is highly inappropriate.
I believe that this problem extends beyond the current controversy. It is not a new issue; rather, it has been present for decades, albeit in a milder and chronic form. However, recently it has become more severe, comparable to an underlying medical condition that goes unnoticed until a sudden medical incident occurs. It is widely acknowledged that this year, there has been increased transparency and opportunities for parents to observe what is happening in the classroom. Additionally, with all the societal upheaval, some educators have felt empowered to act upon their long-standing inclinations and continue what they have been doing in classrooms for quite some time.
Related: Amid efforts to recover from the pandemic, school leaders fear that the furor surrounding critical race theory will "paralyze" teachers.
I believe that the increase in the adoption of more activist-minded pedagogies might be attributed to the retirement of the Baby Boomers, who were educated by teachers from older generations with more traditional teaching methods. I, for example, was educated by teachers who likely received their training in the 1950s. Hence, it is important to consider not only the age of the educators but also the age of the educators who taught them. This shift seems to be accelerated by the younger teachers who are graduating from education schools and embracing more activist approaches.
You are suggesting that there has been a significant pedagogical transformation as older teachers are replaced by younger, more radical ones. However, could it be possible that the movement towards "anti-racist" pedagogy is driven by a broader change in racial attitudes among white individuals? Additionally, younger Americans, who are more diverse, may desire to see themselves better represented in school curricula and materials.
There are various demographic changes contributing to this shift. One factor is the decreasing number of white individuals in the overall population. Furthermore, the retirement of a generation born in the 1940s and 1950s also plays a role. These demographic forces are converging and influencing the changes we observe. Although the Baby Boomers tend to portray themselves as radical, their education, shaped by earlier generations, was far from it. However, the Baby Boomers played a significant role in educating subsequent generations, potentially allowing their radicalism to be manifested today.
Throughout history, whenever a large group of young people emerges, significant movements tend to take form. Presently, we have the Millennials, a generation comparable to the Baby Boomers, who possess distinctive characteristics. Similar to the impact of the Baby Boomers, partly due to their sheer numbers, we may be witnessing transformative changes led by this large generation. It is a stage that individuals pass through as they mature, and thus, it is not surprising that these ideologies appeal to a substantial number of young people.
Regarding intellectual trends, particularly in K-12 education, it is important to consider the origins. Until recently, public schools predominantly promoted a patriotic, if not chauvinistic, perspective of American history and society, seldom questioning existing power structures.
In an article published by FIRE, we discussed how common schools in America were established by the government to disseminate government speech and maintain domestic tranquility. Consequently, it is expected that these schools would advocate for cohesion and patriotic ideas.
While it is reasonable for there to be room for interrogating the dominant position on American history and exposing students to a reasonable range of competing views, it becomes problematic when the critique seeks to become the prevailing narrative. This approach leaves students with a preconceived conclusion and asks them to retrofit information to fit that conclusion before they have been properly exposed to it.
Furthermore, this critique often seeks to suppress alternative narratives and disallow dissent, which hampers students’ education and discourages them from questioning authority. I believe that this creates an unhealthy learning environment and hinders the development of the critical thinking skills necessary for self-governance.
FIRE frequently defends the rights of university professors who claim to be censored by their institutions. Although I am not part of the legal team, I can see a potential role for FIRE and similar organizations in supporting teachers who face disciplinary actions under laws that restrict discussions of divisive concepts in K-12 classrooms.
We often receive requests from individuals urging FIRE to intervene in legal matters related to K-12 education, and it is something we are considering. Teachers have the support of unions, which will undoubtedly assist in defending them. To my knowledge, leaders of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have expressed their commitment to defending teachers who teach Critical Race Theory.
However, it is essential to acknowledge that parents and students also have rights, while teachers bear responsibilities as part of their profession. They are paid to deliver instruction, which can be seen as government speech since they are hired by the government to implement a curriculum adopted through democratic processes, overseen by districts and state legislatures. Therefore, teachers must align their instruction with the learning standards established by their state.
I would like to present another argument that I have observed, even from individuals who may sympathize with your viewpoints. While it is possible that some teachers are injecting ideology into their history or social studies lessons, the bigger issue is that a significant number of students are not attaining proficiency in these subjects, as indicated by standardized test results year after year. Considering the overall poor academic performance, shouldn’t our primary concern be focused on providing students with essential knowledge?
It’s quite remarkable that teachers find time to engage in discussions about these abstract and advanced perspectives. However, I do not consider most of this to be introductory material; it’s more akin to the discussions held during late-night graduate study sessions. This approach does not effectively introduce students to the basic curriculum, but rather serves the teachers’ own needs more than the students’.
One of the problems we are witnessing is that teachers are covering content that interests them personally, but may not necessarily align with the needs of their students. This is a flawed pedagogical practice. Teachers are employed to meet the needs of their students, and the learning outcomes we are observing suggest that these ideological tendencies are not serving students well in the classroom.
Additionally, I believe that the way these ideologies are expressed in the classroom can be perceived as abrasive and, in some cases, similar to bullying by students and parents. As Maya Angelou once said, "People will forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel." I suspect that many students do not feel comfortable with what is happening in their classrooms. Children should not be treated as a means to an end; they are individuals in their own right. Their presence in the classroom should not serve any partisan agenda. The word "education" means "to draw out" – it is about discovering and nurturing the capabilities within each student, rather than imposing a specific worldview.
Parents are mobilizing in response to this issue. This year, there have been heated school board meetings, and state lawmakers appear willing to make it a campaign topic. However, do you believe that this issue will go further than that?
Parents are definitely stepping forward, driven by a strong desire to protect their children, which is closest to their hearts.
I have been following this problem for over a decade, almost as an unpleasant hobby. Throughout the years, I have heard anecdotes about incidents happening in various places, although I have mainly focused on those reported in the media. However, for a long time, the prevailing strategy has been to think, "It’s just a few more years; I’ll get my child through the system quietly." But now, the problem has become significantly more acute, prompting parents to speak up. Some may argue that they are being too vocal, but I happen to believe that we have been complacent for far too long, and people should have always been more engaged with their school boards. While some parents may be overly aggressive, I understand their concerns. They feel that their children are being singled out and targeted.
At this point, I am optimistic because I see parents asserting themselves. It doesn’t mean they are correct in everything they say, but it is a positive development that everyone is involved in the conversation and the system of checks and balances is functioning as it should. Parents have been far too passive, entrusting everything to the teachers. Now, they realize that they need to pay closer attention to what is happening in school board meetings.
If you have mixed feelings about the laws being passed in legislatures regarding divisive concepts, what do you believe education authorities should do to address parental concerns? One potential avenue that is commonly discussed is reforming teacher preparation programs.
Previously, FIRE has tackled the issue of teacher training, particularly when the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) attempted to impose "social justice dispositions" on educators. This meant that teachers would have to subscribe to specific political ideas in order to be certified. We opposed this move due to concerns about thought reform, and we succeeded in our efforts. In 2006, following protests from FIRE and other organizations, NCATE (now reorganized as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation) removed references to "social justice" from its glossary of recommended dispositions for future teachers.
The central theme in this book revolves around the question, "Where is the supervision?" It is crucial for department chairs, principals, and curriculum directors to ensure consistent practices in schools. The implicit message should be that it is not a chaotic environment where teachers can do whatever they want while others adhere strictly to standardized tests. This lack of administrative control is a failure.
Whenever there is a monopoly within a single political party, problems arise. We are currently experiencing such issues, and it is high time for a correction in our educational institutions.
It is important to recognize that teacher preparation programs are influenced by the broader intellectual culture. The book emphasizes the need for a return to "normative social agreements," which essentially means promoting ideological restraint and respecting diverse perspectives, not just among educators, but everyone. It appears that developing these qualities will be more challenging than simply passing laws to dictate what teachers can or cannot say.
Personally, I believe it is relatively simple to regulate how controversial topics are addressed. They should be approached from various angles, allowing space for dissenting opinions. Some topics have already reached a cultural consensus, such as our role as the "good guys" in World War II. While alternative narratives may exist, it is not necessary to dedicate significant class time to them because there is near unanimity on this issue. However, when discussing current ongoing debates, educators must embrace epistemic humility and acknowledge the possibility of being wrong.
If educators adopt an unscholarly certainty that they possess the absolute truth, they are likely to encounter difficulties. It is un-academic for an educator to take such a stance. John Stuart Mill’s idea that "He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that" is relevant here. It is essential to consider opposing viewpoints and give credit where it is due.
Don’t miss out on stories like these – subscribe to Newsletter and have them sent directly to your inbox.
