I felt it was necessary to respond to Robert Supansic’s letter “Critical race theory misconception” (Aug. 8, TribLIVE) questioning the accuracy of my letter, “NEA’s critical race theory push” (July 30, tribLIVE).
For starters, everything I wrote about centered around the National Education Association passing a resolution called New Business Item 39. It was passed by the NEA annual convention earlier this summer.
The term “critical race theory” was referred to five times in the resolution. Three are listed here:
1. “Fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.”
2. “That we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or the 1619 Project.”
3. “”Understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”
It doesn’t matter that CRT is taught solely as a legal theory in law schools as Supansic asserts. What people need to understand is that the NEA is supporting, encouraging the use of, and collaborating with governments and school districts to use an approach called critical race theory. They need to learn what it is and how it will be used in our schools, and evaluate how it will impact our children.
I urge you to read Business Item 39 and make your opinion on this issue known.
James Kelm
Latrobe