The problem is that people are apparently trying to teach CRT (as I showed), and I think that neither (1) the topics as stated are age-appropriate for the students, nor (2) the portion that can be grasped by students at that age is a positive thing to be teaching in most cases. It has a real danger of being far more wrong than right, and far more harmful than helpful.

The myth — which you call a myth in the face of direct evidence that it isn’t — is only sometimes a myth. People are doing their level best to advance key parts of CRT as curriculum, and the anti-myth is that it is not being taught at all.

And yet, as you see, it is. (Ethnic studies is mandatory in Oregon, too.)

So I 100% agree with you that the effort will fail. I suspect that you are correct in thinking that the people who advanced this curriculum do not themselves adequately understand CRT. But I do not agree that the failure will so obviously be innocuous that parents should not pay attention. And it’s completely dishonest — every bit as dishonest as the “CRT is being taught” statement is in school districts where it’s not — to claim that it’s not being taught just because the effort is badly conceived.

For instance, I would be pretty worried if we were going to start teaching kindergartners how to drive. Just because it will fail doesn’t mean that the failure will beinnocuous. If you give instructions to teachers and they go (as they do with this kind of stuff, according to a couple teachers I’ve heard from) “that’s ridiculous, I can’t teach that” and do something sensible instead, well, good on those teachers…but that doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility to ask sensible things and worry when we don’t.