This is a framing issue. Nobody — literally nobody in mainstream politics — opposes teaching children about slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, or any other part of American history, including its darkest chapters. That straw man needs to be retired.

Critical Race Theory, as developed by scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, is a specific academic framework with specific claims: that racism is the normal, permanent condition of American society; that all institutions are inherently racist; that colorblindness and meritocracy are themselves racist concepts; that people should be understood primarily through their racial group identity; and that objective truth claims are tools of racial oppression.

These aren't history — they're ideological assertions. Teaching children that the Constitution is a racist document, that being white makes you inherently an oppressor, or that working hard and being colorblind are forms of 'whiteness' is not teaching history. The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture published (and later removed) a graphic listing 'hard work,' 'rational thinking,' 'the nuclear family,' and 'delayed gratification' as aspects of 'whiteness.' That's CRT in practice.

Parents' concerns are validated by what's actually happening in classrooms. A survey by Parents Defending Education documented over 1,000 schools implementing curricula that divide students into 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' groups based on race. Children as young as kindergarten are being asked to identify their racial privilege.

You can teach unflinching history — including the horror of slavery, the injustice of Jim Crow, and the heroism of the civil rights movement — without teaching children to see each other primarily through the lens of race. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream was precisely the opposite of what CRT teaches.