New York Times Goes After GOP and Parental Rights in School Curriculum

littlenySTOCK /
littlenySTOCK /

The New York Times seized an opportunity to lash out at parents who voted based on their concerns over the right that they have to influence what is being taught to their children in public education.

The liberal news outlet criticized conservative voters and the conservative media saying that the Republican strength displayed on Tuesday night came because of the efforts to “galvanize crucial groups of voters around what the party calls ‘parental rights’ issues in public schools, a hodgepodge of conservative causes.”

The Times went after Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia governor-elect, indicating that he “stoked the resentment and fear of some white voters, who were alarmed by efforts to teach a more critical history of racism in America.”

They heaped even more criticism by writing that Terry McAuliffe, who was the Democratic nominee, along with allies from his party eagerly condemned the “ugly” attacks by their opponents.

They also took aim at the conservative media saying, “While the conservative news media and Republican candidates stirred the stew of anxieties and racial resentments that animate the party’s base — thundering about equity initiatives, books with sexual content and transgender students on sports teams …”

In their story, the Times referenced Katie Paris who is a party activist. She warned that there were outside forces that were coming for our schools and our communities. And they focused on Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change who said that Critical Race Theory wasn’t even being taught in the schools.

It was the New York Times that focused on the much-criticized 1619 Project. The news outlet claimed that it was an ongoing initiative that wanted to reframe the country’s history. This project placed the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national storyline.

Many historians have focused on questions regarding the accuracy of the 1619 Project. Some have said it is an attempt to undermine the salutary and historic effects of the founding of America.

James McPherson, a professor emeritus of history at Princeton University and the one who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Battle Cry of Freedom,” is well known for his authoritative account of the Civil War.

He wrote that he was disturbed by what looked like a “very unbalanced, one-sided account.” He said the 1619 program lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery and that it was “obviously” not an exclusively American institution, but it existed throughout history.

In contrast, Hannah-Jones wrote that anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. But MacPherson said that opposition to slavery, and opposition to racism, has also been an important theme in American history.

In direct response to Hannah-Jones saying that black Americans have fought back alone, he noted that from the Quakers in the 18th century right through to the abolitionists in the antebellum and onto the radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, there has been an anti-slavery/racism voice.

This was continued at the beginning of the NAACP, an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. There is a history of white people who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism. This has been true from the very beginning of American history.

Richard Carwardine, professor emeritus at Oxford University, the author of the Lincoln-award-winning biography “Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power,” also criticized the 1619 Project.

He wrote that he was troubled that this is designed to make its way into classrooms as the true story of the United States. Carwardine stated that it was not only partial but wrong in some fundamentals.