More than 100 students agreed to testify on the bill, which would ban the teaching of ‘divisive’ concepts around race and gender.
A Rhode Island teacher is being accused of promoting activism in her class after she sent her students an email that mischaracterized legislation that would bar race or sex scapegoating, and then urged her students to testify on the bill with a promise of extra credit.
Not surprisingly, the students appear to have flooded the sign-up sheet to testify via telephone at a March hearing of a state House education committee. But when it came time to speak, few of them picked up their phones, leading the committee chairman to liken it to “dialing for dollars.”
The episode is the latest in a series of dispatches by the nonprofit Parents Defending Education, which has a mission of exposing and rooting out political indoctrination and activist-driven agendas in the nation’s schools. The nonprofit labeled the episode at Barrington High School in Rhode Island as an example of “political indoctrination” and “promoting activism.”
Erika Sanzi, a Rhode Island mom and Parents Defending Education’s director of outreach, told National Review that while the teacher at Barrington didn’t specifically direct students to testify either for or against the bill, “she does lay out very clearly how she feels about the bill.”
“It’s clear where she lands. There is no evidence at all that anyone has read the bill, that the bill has been explained,” said Sanzi, who is not a supporter of the bill. “I think its disingenuous for the district to sort of make it seem, it’s a wide-open assignment.”
The House bill in question, H6070, was introduced in March by Republican state representative Patricia Morgan. The bill, like several others moving through state legislatures, would bar the teaching of “divisive concepts” around race or sex. Specifically, it would bar teaching that any race or sex is inherently superior, that the state of Rhode Island or the country is fundamentally racist or sexist, or that any individual is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive – “whether consciously or unconsciously” – based only on their race or sex.
The bill also specifically prohibits race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating, or “making any individual feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of their race or sex.”
Although the bill doesn’t specifically mention critical race theory, Morgan said at the March committee hearing that that’s exactly what she was trying to fight off with the bill.
“My bill seeks to ban a destructive and divisive ideology that is termed critical race theory from our schools and from any entities that do business with the state of Rhode Island and receive government money,” Morgan said. She said critical race theory – a self-avowedly activist and Marxist-inspired political movement that promotes using race and sex discrimination as a tool to combat past discrimination – “is here, and it is prevalent in our state.”
According to records obtained by Parents Defending Education, on March 30, Barrington social studies teacher Alison Grieco (pronouns she/her/hers, according to her email signature) sent an email to her students noting that she had learned H6070 was to be heard in the House education committee the next day. In the email, she mischaracterized the bill, writing not that it prohibits race shaming or stereotyping, but that it prohibits any discussion of race or gender in classrooms at all. She then provided students with a link to sign up to testify about it.
“I strongly urge you to testify on this bill tomorrow,” Grieco wrote. “As always, if you are a student in my class, you will receive 5 points on your next unit test if you decide to testify and provide me with your written testimony.”
The next day, about 120 people signed up to speak at the committee hearing, and it appears many of them were students from Barrington and another Rhode Island school. However, when it came time to speak, most of the people who had signed up weren’t ready or didn’t pick up their phones, leaving the Democratic committee chairman Joseph McNamara visibly annoyed.
“I’m getting the impression that a teacher said, ‘This is your assignment,” McNamara said.
One Barrington student who spoke against the bill said it’s important for students to learn about systemic racism and privilege, and he said that “discussions of race and sex have helped me grow, have empathy and understand.” But not all of the students who spoke were as eloquent. One suggested that “what is going on is, like, not right.” One student noted that calling in to the hearing was “my school project.” And one, when he picked up the phone, said “I’m so confused as to what’s going on.”
Grieco, the teacher who’d urged students to call, had her testimony cut off when she accused Morgan of “political grandstanding” for a future political race.
“Please don’t make our education system a pawn in some political game,” Grieco said.
Grieco wasn’t the only Barrington teacher to voice opposition to the bill to her students, and then give them instructions on how to testify. Jennifer Bergevine, a teacher in the school’s English department, wrote to her students that “If this passes I would no longer be able to teach the unit on Race or Gender.” She noted that she was preparing to testify against the bill, and “I would like to be able to include student voices. Please feel free to share with me what you believe is the benefit of potentially ‘divisive concepts’ such as Race and Gender.”
Michael Messore, Barrington Public Schools superintendent, defended the teachers to the local newspaper, The Providence Journal, saying the students weren’t coerced into doing anything.
“Our government students are given an assignment every year,” he told the paper. “I looked at the assignment. Nowhere does it tell them what they have to do. Some students knew about the bill and they wanted to testify. The teacher wasn’t looking to make a political statement.”
Sanzi, with Parents Defending Education, said she hasn’t supported any of the anti-CRT legislation across the country, because she is still “holding onto this belief that we beat bad ideas with better ideas.” Likewise, she didn’t support the Rhode Island bill – which has stalled in committee – because “the language is way too broad, and way too vague,” she said.
Sanzi said she would have had less of an issue if the students were allowed on their own to pick a bill, on whatever topic interests them, to learn about and to testify for or against. But it’s another thing for a teacher, who has power, to urge advocacy around a particular piece of legislation they have openly supported or opposed. Sanzi said she would be against it even if the students were urged to testify for a bill she supports.
“I do not want my children to be told what to think about a certain piece of legislation,” Sanzi said, “and I certainly do not want them to be bribed with points.”