Court backs Arkansas ban on Critical Race Theory, cementing state power over curriculum
A decades-old struggle over race and education has resurfaced in the heart of Arkansas, this time not at the steps of Little Rock Central High School, but inside its classrooms. A federal court ruling on Wednesday gave the state legal clearance to enforce its ban on teaching critical race theory (CRT), marking a decisive moment in a national battle over who controls the narrative in American public education.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, vacated a prior injunction that had partially blocked the enforcement of the law. In doing so, the court declared that students do not possess a First Amendment right to demand a particular ideology in school curricula. a verdict that legal experts say could have sweeping implications for classroom instruction across the country.
Historic site, Modern conflict
The lawsuit was brought by two teachers and two students at Little Rock Central High School—a school forever etched in civil rights history for the desegregation crisis of 1957.
This time, the conflict centers not on access to education, but on what is allowed to be taught within it.
While the district court had previously granted a temporary injunction for the students, the appellate court struck it down, affirming that educational content lies squarely within the government's discretion.
Critics warn of a chilling effect
Attorneys for the plaintiffs expressed deep concern about the court's reasoning. Attorney Mike Laux warned that by reinforcing state control over pedagogy without clear definitions or protections, the ruling risks silencing necessary conversations about race, power, and history, as reported by the Associated Press.
Although parts of the legal challenge remain active, the court's ruling hands Arkansas a significant interim victory in its broader push to reshape public education along conservative ideological lines.
Governor Sanders and GOP officials celebrate
Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who signed the education overhaul into law in 2023, praised the court's decision as a win for 'common sense and educational freedom.' The Republican governor has positioned herself as a leading voice in the conservative campaign to ban CRT and similar frameworks, repeatedly asserting that children should be taught 'how to think, not what to think.'
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin echoed her sentiments, calling the ruling a validation of democratic control over curriculum.
Vague law, broad consequences
Although CRT is a graduate-level academic framework rarely taught in K-12 settings, the law's opponents argue that its ban, deliberately undefined, grants sweeping authority to state officials to suppress discussions about systemic racism, white privilege, and other socially significant topics.
Arkansas's statute does not offer a clear definition of what constitutes CRT, leaving teachers and administrators in a state of uncertainty. Critics say the ambiguity could lead to self-censorship, the erasure of diverse perspectives, and a whitewashing of historical truths.
A pattern of conservative curriculum wars
Arkansas is not alone. Over the past three years, more than a dozen Republican-led states have enacted legislation to restrict how race and gender are discussed in classrooms.
President Donald Trump added momentum earlier this year by ordering that federal education funds not be used for 'indoctrination' involving CRT or what he labeled as 'radical gender ideology.'
Supporters argue these efforts protect children from divisive ideologies. Opponents see a coordinated campaign to undermine intellectual freedom and rewrite historical narratives for political ends.
Beyond the classroom walls
While the appellate panel acknowledged the students' discomfort with ideological overreach in education, it maintained that courts have no authority to interfere with curriculum decisions based on policy disagreements alone.
'The Constitution does not give courts the power to block government action based on mere policy disagreements,' the judges wrote.
That assertion may provide legal clarity, but it does little to settle the moral and educational questions now gripping communities across the nation. Who decides what young Americans learn? And how do public schools balance civic values with political mandates?
The new front line in the culture war
This ruling carves out a stark new boundary in the ongoing cultural clash over American identity and education. As state governments claim greater control over what is taught, teachers, students, and parents are left navigating a fragile terrain, where history is contested, speech is regulated, and the classroom becomes a battleground for competing visions of truth.
In Arkansas, the lesson is clear: The curriculum may no longer be just an educational tool, it is now a political weapon.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
An Impossible Choice for Priests
Washington state wants to put priests in an impossible bind: Break your vows or break the law. A new law, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson in May, would require clergy to violate the confessional's seal of confidentiality if they hear about potential child abuse. Failing to break the seal and report suspected abuse to authorities carries a penalty of up to 364 days in jail and a fine as high as $5,000. Catholic clergy in the state sued, and U.S. District Judge David Estudillo of the Western District of Washington blocked the law with a preliminary injunction on July 18. Judge Estudillo ruled the law likely violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion because it denies priests the confidentiality extended to other professions. The state has until Aug. 18 to appeal. Confession is an essential practice of the Catholic faithful, who believe it reconciles a sinner with God. In the sacrament, the penitent admits wrongs and receives God's forgiveness through the priest's prayer of absolution. The seal of confession is so crucial to the Catholic faith that any priest who violates it is automatically excommunicated. 'For us, that's a matter of spiritual life and death,' says Bishop Robert Barron, an American Catholic evangelist who filed an amicus brief in the case. The bishop says even 'the slightest suspicion' that one's confessed sins might be repeated elsewhere is an obstacle to the sacrament. Any law that might discourage a repentant sinner from seeking God's forgiveness would hinder the free exercise of religion. Washington's law is 'the most egregious violation of religious liberty' in the U.S. right now, Bishop Barron said. Washington lawmakers passed another bill this year exempting higher education attorneys from reporting abuse related to clients they represent. For these legislators, sins confessed to a priest don't merit the confidentiality of what is said to an attorney. That 'appears to be a textbook example' of targeting religious conduct, Judge Estudillo wrote. Washington state Sen. Noel Frame, the main sponsor of the bill, said during a committee hearing in March that even if the law conflicts with Catholic teaching, 'I believe they can change their rules.' That's more evidence of targeting, the judge said. Lawmakers knew confession is a 'religiously sacrosanct' practice, and their comments leading up to the bill's passage 'evince an intentional abrogation' of the sacrament. The Church's child sex abuse scandals have made public defense of the seal more difficult. Sen. Frame said testimonies by survivors of clergy abuse and her own childhood abuse led her to sponsor the bill. In January, she said it's hard 'to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including sexual abuse, of children.' Protecting children is a laudable goal. But Jean Hill, president of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said dioceses in the state already require priests to report abuse to authorities. The new law, she said, would push people away from the sacrament of confession while doing little to protect kids. 'In practical situations,' Ms. Hill says, 'this bill has the very high potential of driving people who are abusing or being abused away from talking to anyone.' A potential abuser who would go to confession might be deterred if the sacrament isn't confidential. If a victim tells the priest about abuse during the sacrament, Ms. Hill says, the priest and penitent can step out of the confessional, and 'the mandatory reporting kicks in.' If a person confesses to a crime like child abuse, Bishop Barron says, any priest 'worth his salt is going to encourage that person to go to the authorities.' But a law that breaks the confessional seal may discourage potential victims and abusers from seeking the sacrament, eliminating the possibility of such an encounter. 'You don't get more honesty,' Ms. Hill says, 'you get people going underground and not telling anyone what's going on.' More people might also stay away from the sacrament entirely. This 'chilling effect' is one focus of a group of Orthodox Churches who filed a similar suit, says Eric Kniffin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Kniffin, an attorney representing the Churches, says the law could push parents away from the confessional. In Washington, mandatory reporting of 'child abuse and neglect' includes not just sexual abuse but also 'negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child.' The state advises 'to err on the side of reporting,' Mr. Kniffin says. 'It's not hard at all to imagine a parent saying, 'I sometimes see my child as burdensome. I lost my temper and yelled at my children.' ' Would a priest be required to report such confessions? 'It's equally valid for someone to say, 'I don't want to put my priest in a position where he's breaking the law because of my confession.' ' To Mr. Kniffin, the bottom line is that exceptions undermine the sacrament in all cases: 'Confession is either absolutely confidential, or it's not.' The state hasn't signaled if it will appeal. Whatever the outcome, Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane has made clear that his clergy 'are committed to keeping the seal of confession—even to the point of going to jail.' Mr. McKenna is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Resilient Trump Lifted by Improved View of the Economy, WSJ Poll Finds
Buoyed by voters' improving views of the economy, President Trump's political standing is showing notable resilience, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds, despite the unpopularity of the GOP's big tax-and-spending law, dissatisfaction with Trump's tariff plan and high suspicion that the government is hiding important information about its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The set of turbulent recent events, which also has included the administration's aggressive deportation program and the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, has failed either to dent or improve the public's overall view of the president. Some 46% approve of his job performance—unchanged from April—with 52% disapproving. The poll shows why the near-unshakeable backing of Trump's Republican base is so valuable to him. With 88% of GOP voters approving of his job performance — and 66% strongly approving— he has been able to retain political potency in Congress and among much of the electorate when voters overall are dissatisfied with the country's direction and disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and other aspects of his agenda. A majority of 52% oppose Trump's landmark legislative achievement, the tax and domestic policy bill that narrowly passed in Congress, 10 percentage points higher than the share supporting it. More voters disapprove than approve of his handling of the economy and inflation, by 9 points and 11 points, respectively. Disapproval of his tariffs agenda outweighs approval by 17 points. Even on immigration—Trump's signature issue—voters give him tepid marks: By narrow margins of 3 points or less, voters disapprove when asked about his handling of 'immigration' and approve of his handling of 'illegal immigration.' By 16 points, more voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction rather than on the right track, compared with a 10-point gap in April. Voters are distinguishing between the direction of the country under Trump, however, and the direction of the economy, on which the poll finds a brightening outlook. Some 47% in the survey rated the economy as excellent or good—a significant, 11-point leap from April and the most positive rating in Journal surveys dating to 2021. Some 51% of voters assessed the economy as not good or poor, compared with 63% who said so in April. By 8 points, more voters say the economy is getting worse rather than better—a sour outlook, but markedly improved from the 26-point gap in April. Fewer also said that inflation was causing them major financial strains. At 46%, Trump's job approval rating is stronger than the 40% he drew at this point in his first term, and it sits at the upper end of the unusually narrow range that marked voter views of his performance during his first White House term. By contrast, views of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden varied far more widely. Obama's job-approval rating moved in a 20-point range, between 40% and 61%, and it stood at 45% at this point in his second term before he finished his time in office at 56%. Biden's approval rating stood at 50% at this point in his term before sinking into the low 40s, NBC polling found. 'They called Reagan the Teflon president,' said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who conducted the Journal survey with Republican Tony Fabrizio, referring to the adage that bad news rarely stuck to former Republican President Ronald Reagan. 'Trump has that in him, as well.' While Trump stirs up plenty of controversies that could be politically damaging, he said, 'they seldom bite him on the backside.' The Journal survey, conducted July 16-20, found high skepticism that the Justice Department has fully investigated the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy money manager who socialized with political figures, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Trump has said their friendship ended before the financier was indicted on a charge of soliciting prostitution in 2006. A spokesman for Clinton recently referred to a 2019 statement that the former president had cut ties more than a decade before Epstein's second arrest and didn't know about Epstein's alleged crimes. Some 76% of voters in the new poll, including 64% of Republicans, said they believe the Justice Department is hiding important information from its findings in the Epstein investigation. Nearly half said they had no confidence in the department's investigation, and an additional 21% said they had little confidence. Less than one-quarter said they had complete confidence or at least some confidence in the department's investigation. The Journal poll shows that the public remains open to persuasion on many aspects of Trump's agenda, suggesting that the expected billions of dollars soon to be spent ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could change voter views of the president. Voters strongly support some aspects of the GOP tax-and-spending legislation, with more than 70% supporting its new tax breaks for many workers who are paid by tips or get overtime. And as of now, voters are equivocal when asked about whether they would benefit, personally, from the bill. But the bill overall is seen as helping the wealthy and large corporations while hurting the poor and adding to the deficit. Similarly, voters strongly approve of deporting people who are in the country illegally, but at the same time they disapprove of many of the methods Trump is using to do so. Narrow majorities say he has gone too far with his deportations and has crossed a line by deporting people without giving them legal protections or court hearings. Asked about the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, a narrow plurality of 47% agreed with the statement that the June strikes were a good idea and reduced the nuclear threat from Iran. Some 43% saw the raid as a bad idea that risked drawing the U.S. into war. One statistic in the survey stands out for showing the cohesiveness of Trump's coalition: 45%. That is the share of voters—give or take a point—who hold positive views of the president, of many of his actions and of the people or institutions associated with him. Some 45% have a favorable view of Trump personally, while about the same share hold favorable views of the Supreme Court; of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary; and of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the primary immigration-enforcement agency. Some 44% approve of Trump's handling of the economy and inflation. A similar share—45%—said Trump was bringing needed change to the country, while 51% agreed with the alternative statement that he was bringing chaos and dysfunction that would hurt the country. One outlier: Pam Bondi, the attorney general, who has been the public face of the Epstein investigation. Some 30% of voters view her favorably, with 47% holding an unfavorable view. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who didn't work on the Journal survey, said that Trump's 46% job approval rating was a mark of strength, even though a larger share, 52%, disapproves of his performance. Because Americans are so polarized, parties focus on driving their most ardent voters to the polls. That means that a president with strong support from his base—such as Trump—can mobilize enough support to win elections, he said. 'In today's politics, the mid-40s is the new 50%. In today's hyperpartisan environment, if Trump can maintain support in the high 40s, we'll have an incredibly competitive cycle in 2026,' McInturff said, referring to next year's midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted July 16-20 by landline phone and cellphone, with some respondents contacted by text and invited to take the survey online. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Write to Aaron Zitner at
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Democrats' ‘Autopsy' Flop
It's hard to know who is currently winning the contest for 2024 ostrichism: A Democratic Party conducting an election 'autopsy' that ignores Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, or the hooting media that ignores everything beyond the Biden/Harris campaign disaster. It is this echo chamber that elected Donald Trump twice, and the question is when the left will remember that voters are the ones who pick the president. The New York Times's revelation that the Democratic National Committee's 2024 campaign autopsy won't touch on Mr. Biden's decision to run again, his coronation of Ms. Harris, or her key decisions, is certainly worth a skewering. As is the news that the report will instead devote most of its attention to 'outside groups,' including the party's main SuperPAC, which apparently lost Democrats the whole kaboodle by misallocating advertising dollars. The Times story sent writers racing for the best comparison put-down. An autopsy that lacked Biden/Harris, said the Times, was like 'eating at a steakhouse and then reviewing the salad.' No, said the Nation, it was like 'a production of Hamlet that leaves out not just the Prince of Denmark but also Claudius, Gertrude, the Ghost, and Ophelia.' Actually, said a Republican consultant in the Hill, it was like 'doing John F. Kennedy's autopsy, and only examining his feet.' Fair enough, if obvious. Of course it mattered that the Biden inner circle chose to spend half of 2024 on a remake of 'Weekend at Bernie's.' Of course it mattered that Mr. Biden then anointed a woman who'd never won a single presidential primary vote, who'd become a liability as vice president, and who then ran a policy-free campaign centered on joy, media-avoidance and accusations of fascism. Obvious, too, because deflection and finger-pointing are now de rigeur in the Democratic Party. In 2017, Hillary Clinton blamed her humiliating loss on sabotage by Russia, sexism, Jim Comey and an insufficiently prostrate press corps. The party blamed its 2022 midterm House loss on the public's failure to understand the brilliance of Mr. Biden's spending and economic agenda. Yet the mainstream media's willful insistence that the loss must be put down solely to Biden/Harris is equally comedic. The coverage is almost desperate to insist that the left's only problem is the messenger—and the means of messaging. Which puts the media in the exact same spot as the 'autopsy' it ridicules, as that document is headed to a finding that the party needs someone who does a better job of 'connecting' and 'explaining,' and who doubles down on organizing. What both camps studiously ignore is the voter verdict. That is, the voters who last year decisively rejected the progressive agenda that defines today's Democratic Party. A real autopsy would focus almost entirely on the unpopularity of the ideas that animate the political left: open borders, unrestrained spending, union power, climate diktats, police-bashing, anti-Israel sentiment, identity politics. It would note not just the polls showing this rejection, but the proof in the form of recent, extraordinary demographic shifts that show a left losing its grip on whole categories of once reliable voter groups. A real autopsy would meditate on the disconnect between a nation that wants the freedom to build, grow and achieve, and a Democratic Party increasingly obsessed with locking up and redistributing a government-micromanaged ecosystem. It might even consider a case study of, say, San Francisco, for some evidence of how its policies fail in practice, and how voters respond on issues like crime or education. A few liberal policy wonks are feeling out a new direction—see the talk of an 'abundance' agenda—yet party leaders have so far resolutely refused to go there. An honest examination would drill in to the failure of eight years of lawfare, the party's decision to weaponize government for political gain. It would ask if the partisan ambitions that fuel the progressive left's calls to end the legislative filibuster, nationalize election laws, pack the Supreme Court or abolish the Electoral College are worth the distrust they sow among average voters who want stability. It would question what internal or cultural dysfunction allowed an entire Democratic establishment to salute a misguided leader, and worse, to excoriate those rare individuals (Dean Phillips) with the backbone to warn of a coming trainwreck. None of this will happen, for a simple reason. The progressive left remains a minority in the liberal movement, but its true believers nonetheless occupy all the positions of power, including the leadership of the DNC (and most Beltway press jobs). They won't criticize their basic world view. If change is to come to the Democratic Party—and it will—expect it to come in the form of a charismatic outsider who shows a new way, not via a pro forma autopsy by an insular claque that has no real regrets over the course that actually lost them an election. Write to kim@
