A Closer Look Into Fairfax County’s Anti-Racism Education

9 min readJul 9, 2020

As a graduate of the Fairfax County Public School system several years ago, I recall my senior year government teacher being liberal in a true sense of the word — we discussed and debated, and things occasionally got heated as I disagreed with much of the class (it was a particularly contentious election year). However, we also carefully read through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as a class, and he was overall a highly-memorable teacher.

Since then, it seems that not only has it become fashionable to support causes falling under the guise of ambiguously-worded catchphrases, but it has turned into a social obligation, in which refusal to do so can turn one into a pariah.

Perhaps there is no better example of this than the phrase “anti-racism.” Racism is rightfully seen by an overwhelming majority of society as something ranging from mildly distasteful (such as a rude remark) all the way to unthinkably evil (Nazi Germany). It should seem reasonable then, that anti-racism is the practice of not being racist; of treating all human beings equally, regardless of race. Such a notion is referred to as being “colorblind”.

However, behind the phrase anti-racist lies another, more curious definition — one which considers colorblindness to be problematic (and sometimes racist in and of itself). As described by managing partner of Diversity Matters Diane Flinn:

“I associate this terminology with action and behavior more than an identity or subject position. Anti-racist, for me, is more indicative of a process of coming to a healthy and functioning sense of a white racial identity.”¹

It is a clever play of words rooted in postmodernism. The phrase sounds pleasant enough, as most people rightfully associate “anti-racist” with the first definition of “not racist.” Whenever someone catches on to the second definition and tries to call it out, they are easily smeared as not “not-racist” (or simply put, racist) by activists and onlookers unaware of the wordplay. Such an accusation can lead to destroyed relationships, lost employment opportunities, and to generally be cast out of polite society. Once this happens to enough people, many others who might otherwise be skeptical simply fall into place, knowing their fate if they speak out. Such is America in 2020.

It is a sad irony that on Saturday, July 4th, I saw news that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has officially adopted an “anti-racism” curriculum for several grades, to be used starting this Fall. In the release, they point to using two curriculum frameworks from Teaching Tolerance (tolerance.org), whose parent organization is the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“The FCPS Design Principles for Cultural Responsiveness have been at the center of this collaboration for both professional development and curriculum development,” says FCPS Social Studies coordinator Colleen Eddy. “In addition, the Social Justice Standards and Teaching Hard History Framework, both from Teaching Tolerance, have provided context for the project.”²

One framework, Teaching Hard History, claims to be a “truthful, age-appropriate account of our past”³, but further examination seems to reveal otherwise. In the PDF formally outlining the K-5 Framework, one of the more brazen (yet sadly unsurprising) lies appears in Essential Knowledge 17 (see page 23), which states:

“Students will know that the United States was founded on protecting the economic interests of white, Christian men who owned property. In the process, it protected the institution of slavery.”⁴

Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of American history is well-aware that the fate of slaves was an issue that many founding fathers (Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, among others) grappled with immensely. A 1786 letter from George Washington to Robert Morris contains the following paragraph, amidst the context of his disapproval of a Quaker society attempting to illegally free a slave:

“I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it — but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.”⁵

Similar sentiments were expressed by James Madison in an 1819 letter to Robert J. Evans:

“A general emancipation of slaves ought to be 1. gradual. 2. equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned. 3. consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation. That it ought, like remedies for other deep rooted, and wide spread evils, to be gradual, is so obvious that there seems to be no difference of opinion on that point.”⁶

Such viewpoints and concerns, quite commonplace to find in documents from the early republic, must have been deemed inconvenient to to teach by the writers of the curriculum, as they are simply ignored. Here lies a great opportunity for students to have a debate on the motivations regarding the founding. As a student who enjoyed political jousting in my US Government class, I can easily imagine a high school US History class arguing whether America was founded to protect white landowners or if it was founded on principles based on freedom — even if those principles were not to be completely realized for another 70 years (and much later, if accounting for discriminatory laws and acts of terrorism in the painful years that followed slavery’s end). Yet, the lack of a full account of our nation’s history makes such an exchange impossible to take place.

Similar opportunities for debate are stifled in several other areas. The curriculum emphasizes that the American Civil War was fought over slavery, as opposed to states’ rights. While it is clear that slavery was the driving issue toward war⁷, the argument that states’ rights most certainly played a role is a relevant one. At one point, the nuance is so far removed as to reduce the question to a multiple choice question on a quiz:

7. Which was the reason the South seceded from the Union?
a) To preserve states’ rights
b) To preserve slavery
c) To protest taxes on imported goods
d) To avoid rapid industrialization⁸

What is disturbing here is not the conclusion reached so much as it is the lack of opportunity for discussion in order to preserve the integrity of the claim presented in Essential Knowledge 17.

The other framework that FCPS plans to use is called Social Justice Standards, which innocuously bills itself as “a framework for anti-bias education.”⁹ The common theme here is for students to be acutely aware of their own identities as well as the identities of those surrounding them (see the framework outline PDF¹⁰). The notion of intersectionality is discussed (see ID.9–12.3 of the framework outline, on page 10), an idea first devised in 1989 by self-described feminist critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw.¹¹

One of the more particularly telling activities in the “Understanding Justice” module instructs students to add or remove “points” to tally their privilege (see “Going Deeper”). The first five are shown below:

1. If you are a white male, give yourself 3 points.
2. If there have been times in your life when you skipped a meal because there was no food in the house, subtract 1 point.
3. If you have visible or invisible disabilities, subtract 1 point.
4. If you attended (grade) school with people you felt were like yourself, give yourself 2 points.
5. If you grew up in an urban setting, subtract 1 point…¹²

They are then asked to “reflect”:

The closer to 20 your score, the more opportunities you have had in your life.
What do you understand about privilege and justice from this exercise?
How can this exercise impact your life, your relationships or your teaching?
Record your thoughts.¹²

Further exploration of the tolerance.org website reveals quotes such as

“We may be uncomfortable talking about race, but we can no longer afford to be silent. We have chosen a profession that — like parenting — requires us to put our comforts second to those of children.”

attributed to tolerance.org author Jamilah Pitts, a self-described “educational consultant and equity and justice strategist.” In another article entitled Teaching as Activism, Teaching as Care, she advocates for the use of Marxist theory by students when reading news stories:

“Teachers can allow students to apply critical lenses, such as critical race theory and Marxist theory, to the reading of news articles to allow students to think more deeply about who is being most affected and why.”¹³

Ultimately, this shouldn’t come as a tremendous shock to those recently monitoring the state of education. An in-depth article by Nick Wilson from April 2019 describes some of the activities done at the University of Washington Ed School’s STEP program, an accelerated graduate program:

“Another interesting and lengthy feature in STEP are “Theatre of the Oppressed” workshops. These mandatory theatre performances stretch on for weeks, and in them white male students are asked to act out scenes in which they are cast as racist, homophobic, or misogynistic characters. Students and instructors then parse the performances and discuss the dynamics of identity that play out in each scene.”¹⁴

Some of the described activities border on ritual.

“White students are required to demonstrate contrition for their privilege with examples of how whiteness, latent racism, and America’s institutionalized racism has benefited them personally. Essentially, in these classes white people are asked to sit around to free-associate and express how badly they feel about race relations in America. Students of color are put in a separate caucus and at the close of the first quarter the two groups are united into one caucus and, convening in a large circle, are asked to stand up and pat their thighs, rub their palms together and click their fingers — to create the sound of a thunderstorm, for some reason. If my experience is anything to go by, the students of color then regale the group with their painful experiences and excoriate the white students, making accusations of racism and subconscious marginalization.”¹⁴

Of course, none of this is to argue that the history of injustices in America should not be covered or should be minimized, and such a curriculum would be wholly irresponsible. It is important to realize, however, that a version of American history is being taught which aligns with a Marxian ideology — an ideology which views civilization as a collection of groups with competing interests and inherent power structures.

The US education system has been in decline for decades, but never before has it been so glaringly proud of its inadequacies. It seems as though the trends in education are not in favor of creating a generation of enlightened and employable citizens, but instead more concerned with making the trendsetters feel good about themselves — at any cost.

I have very fond memories from all of the 13 years I spent in the K-12 system in FCPS, but it remains to be seen whether or not this will be true for future generations.

Call me skeptical.

Some Questions

1. What is the purpose of introducing this curriculum? What is hoped to be accomplished, and what is the time frame, if any?

2. What metrics will be used to determine if the goal(s) above is/are met, and in what time frame will they occur? (Months, years, decades?)

3. What evidence has been collected suggesting that the curriculum implementation will likely lead to acceptable metrics?

4. Were any dissenters consulted in the meetings and correspondences that took place when deciding on which curriculum to include?

5. How will you know if you are wrong? What are the next steps if the implemented curriculum does not produce desired results (as measured by the metrics stated)?

6. If a teacher or administrator were to raise questions about the general nature of the curriculum, what would happen to that person? How would it likely be received?