EXCLUSIVE: Red state suing school district for illegally teaching critical race theory
Critical race theory – also known by its acronym "CRT" – is a concept that teaches racial bias is inherent in parts of society and that discrimination is systematically embedded in certain aspects of law and policy.
Paxton's office said that the suit was launched in response to a video showing Coppell Independent School District Director of Curriculum Evan Whitfield discussing how the district had "gotten around" prohibitions on the use of CRT in state policies and curricula.
According to the suit, which was filed today in the District Court of Dallas County, Whitfield further stated that "despite what our state standards say," Coppell ISD does "what's right."
Teaching CRT violates a Texas law that prohibits educators from kindergarten through twelfth grade from teaching that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive."
The same law also stipulates that no educator in the state can require an understanding of the "1619 Project," a historical study founded by New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones that attempts to reframe American history as being founded and rooted in slavery. The project has been marred with credible accusations of historical distortions and inaccuracies.
Texas law stipulates that an educator cannot teach that any person, because of their race or sex, bears responsibility, blame, or guilt for actions committed in the past.
The law also prohibits teachers from imposing the idea that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or that the advent of slavery in America constituted the true founding of the United States, concepts commonly associated with the 1619 Project.
According to the suit, Whitfield "unequivocally stated that the policy of Coppell Independent School District is to teach curricula in violation of state law and direction, using funds and other resources of the district to develop and distribute for teaching CRT curricula."
The suit further alleges that Whitfield responded to a question on whether the district would be in trouble for violating the law by saying, "We've gotten around it by saying we're not teaching it."
The lawsuit alleges that "when asked if the teacher can just close the door and teach 'what's right,' Defendant Whitfield responded, 'Shh, that's what we do.'"
Paxton is seeking to have the court issue a permanent injunction keeping Coppell ISD officials from teaching CRT and using tax dollar funds to distribute CRT materials. Instead, Paxton says Coppell ISD must implement a "color blind" curriculum in line with Texas law.
This is not the first time Coppell ISD has been sued for illegally teaching CRT.
The Texas Scorecard, a Texas-based conservative outlet, reported in 2023 that a North Texas family sued Coppell ISD after their 10th-grade son who was a student at New Tech High School in Coppell ISD, was given a CRT-based assignment by his chemistry teacher. According to the Texas Scorecard the teacher stipulated that students "research and write about diverse atomic theory scientists" and they could not choose an "old, dead, white guy."
Commenting on his lawsuit, Paxton said that "Texas children deserve to receive the best education in the world, not have woke ideology forced upon them."
"Liberal administrators who want to ignore state law and unlawfully push divisive and racist CRT curriculum in classrooms will be held responsible for their actions," said Paxton. "My lawsuit aims to put an immediate end to this illegal and hateful curriculum and immediately stop the blatant refusal to follow state law by certain officials at Coppell ISD."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
a few seconds ago
- Politico
Crypto cash threatens Sherrod Brown's comeback campaign
Fairshake — which is funded primarily by the crypto firms Coinbase and Ripple and the venture capital group Andreessen Horowitz — spent more money on his Ohio race than any other contest it targeted. The PAC plastered ads across the state boosting Republican Bernie Moreno, a crypto enthusiast and car dealer who successfully defeated Brown and now sits on the Banking panel himself. It is unclear if Brown would return as the Banking Committee's Democratic leader if he won, replacing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Senate Democrats' rules state that 'the seniority of a Member with interrupted service or service in another Party does not date from that Member's initial entrance into the Senate' — meaning he would not be entitled to count his prior service. But Democratic leaders could seek to change those rules or grant an exception to Brown, their top recruit for the Ohio race. Regardless, crypto lobbyists worry that Brown could pose problems for them if he returns — especially given the brute-force tactics the industry used to try to take him out. And his opponent, Republican incumbent Jon Husted, has been a reliably industry-friendly vote. Husted, who was tapped to fill the vacancy created when JD Vance became vice president, hasn't been vocal about crypto issues during his short time in the Senate, but he has voted in favor of industry-backed bills on the floor and supported its goals when he served as Ohio's lieutenant governor. Husted campaign spokesperson Tyson Shepard said in a statement that if Brown enters the race, 'he will be starting in the biggest hole of his political career,' dubbing him Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's 'handpicked candidate.' 'He has never faced a candidate like Jon Husted,' he said. 'Brown's slogans will ring hollow as his coalition walks away, tired of the radical policies he's forced to support to appease his coastal bosses in California and New York.' Despite losing by more than three percentage points to Moreno, Brown is seen as Democrats' best chance to win back the Ohio seat in 2026. He outran former Vice President Kamala Harris by more than seven points in the state, even as the crypto money contributed to a barrage of outside money that helped Republicans outspend Democrats in the race. Ohio Democrats hope a more favorable national environment will help propel Brown next year. 'Crypto can come in again and do whatever they're going to do,' said Jerry Austin, a longtime Democratic strategist in the state. 'I think they've shot their wad. And if they want to come back and do it again, I think a lot of things have happened between the last election and now, and that is what Trump's been doing in Ohio and the rest of the country.'
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Another State Looks To Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has said his state may block the purchase of unhealthy foods using SNAP benefits. Newsweek has contacted Reeves' office for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters So far in 2025, a slew of states have either barred or are in the process of restricting what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries can buy using their benefits. Advocates for restricting SNAP purchases argue that cutting unhealthy foods from the program will improve public health, with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement leading the charge. Opponents counter that such limits dictate the diets of low-income Americans while overlooking deeper problems related to accessing affordable, nutritious food. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Mississippi, some 384,800 people collect SNAP benefits, representing 13 percent of the state's population. What To Know Reeves, a Republican, said of restricting SNAP benefits, "It is on my radar," SuperTalk Mississippi Media reported on Wednesday. According to the outlet, he also discussed the idea with Health and Human Services Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spearheaded the MAHA movement, at the National Governors Association summer meeting. "I spent some time with my fellow governors a week or two ago," Reeves said. "We also had meetings with Secretary Kennedy while we were at the conference, very productive meetings, and that is something we are looking into." Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Brandon Bell/GETTY SNAP Changes Across the U.S. So far this year, 12 states have approved plans to restrict SNAP benefits. While the program is administered by states, it is overseen and largely paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). To make amendments to SNAP, states are required to send waiver requests to the federal agency for approval. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all had their waiver requests approved. Tennessee and South Carolina have indicated that they are in the process of making similar requests to the USDA. Beginning in 2026, the approved waivers are set to prohibit certain foods from being purchased with electronic benefit transfer cards, which are reloaded monthly for use at participating grocery stores nationwide. Not all the new restrictions are the same. For example, in Colorado, Utah and West Virginia, only soft drinks and/or soda would no longer be purchasable with SNAP. In numerous other states, the restriction also extends to candy. What People Are Saying USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in an August 4 news release regarding states with approved waivers: "It is incredible to see so many states take action at this critical moment in our nation's history and do something to begin to address chronic health problems. President Trump has changed the status quo, and the entire cabinet is taking action to Make America Healthy Again. At USDA, we play a key role in supporting Americans who fall on hard times, and that commitment does not change. Rather, these state waivers promote healthier options for families in need." Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the news release: "For years, SNAP has used taxpayer dollars to fund soda and candy—products that fuel America's diabetes and chronic disease epidemics. These waivers help put real food back at the center of the program and empower states to lead the charge in protecting public health. I thank these governors who have stepped up to request waivers, and I encourage others to follow their lead. This is how we Make America Healthy Again." Valerie Imbruce, the director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods. Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry." What Happens Next Reeves' comments suggest that Mississippi has not formally requested a waiver from the USDA. It remains to be seen whether the state will do so.
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
It's not just DC: Republicans seem happy to let Trump do whatever he wants
For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about President Trump's invasion of an American city. I'm starting to wonder when our government's checks and balances will kick in – or if they will at all. On Monday, Aug. 11, President Donald Trump announced he would be deploying the National Guard in Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police force "to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The troops began showing up on Tuesday evening. According to Trump, violent crime is up in the nation's capital, and he's the only one who can rescue the city from societal collapse. It's a convenient narrative, one that feeds into MAGA's perception of him. For the rest of us, it's a terrifying move that shows he is willing to test the limits of presidential oversight. But while Trump's hostile takeover of DC public safety is concerning on its own, it's more alarming that Republicans in Congress are letting him do this with seemingly no regard for what is ethical. Even if this deployment is legal, there are certain lines that presidents should not cross. This is one of them. And I have to ask. Would Republicans be sitting on their hands if a Democratic president were doing everything that Trump is doing? I would hope not, but here we are. Of course, Trump is lying about crime in DC Trump seems to have called in the military after an assault on a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer on Aug. 3. While it's horrible that a government employee was attacked, Trump's declaration that Washington is crime-infested and dangerous doesn't align with reality. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime is down 26% compared with last year. In fact, 2024 marked a 30-year low for violent crime in Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Per a New York Times analysis, the homicide rate in 2023 was 40.4 per 100,000 people, the highest rate in 20 years. But that rate declined in 2024, down to 26.6 per 100,000 people. And homicides in the city continue to decline in 2025. While Trump is correct in saying this rate is higher than those of Mexico City and Bogotá, Colombia, it doesn't paint the full picture. A federal takeover is an extreme reaction. It doesn't matter, of course, that violent crime in the city is down overall this year. That wouldn't fit in with the Trumpian narrative, the one where he's the hero saving tourists and locals alike from violent crime. Are you worried about crime? Do you feel safe where you live? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Who even asked for this? It wasn't DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. All of this is happening to the dismay of Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser, who noted on the Aug. 12 edition of 'The Breakfast Club' that the militarization of the city will instill fear in its residents. '(Trump) wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way,' Bowser said on the radio show. Bowser is right, this is an escalation. It's Trump's way of showing everyone in Democratic parts of the country that he has the final say and that he isn't afraid to use the military to his advantage. Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run. | Opinion Will Republicans hold Trump accountable for anything? For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about Trump's invasion of an American city. In fact, it seems that many are supportive of the move. If a Democratic president were to try to do this, the Republican Party would decry authoritarianism's arrival in the United States. But because it's Trump, there has been zero pushback. Just like his tariff plan that's costing everyday Americans, the failed Elon Musk overhaul of the federal government, the deployment of soldiers against citizens in Los Angeles and his ruthless immigration agenda that includes trying to erase due process, the GOP is letting him get away with all of it. Republicans may even be happy about it. Imagine if Joe Biden did any of that? The Republican pearl-clutching would be generational. But this is fine because it's their king. Trump is considering extending the troop deployment beyond 30 days, something he will need congressional approval for. This seems entirely plausible, even likely, because of the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. I'm hesitant to throw the F-word – fascism – around, but if the Trump administration continues down this path, I worry that the rights we have as Americans will slip away. Who's stopping the president from deploying troops to other cities in the United States? It certainly isn't going to be Congress. There's some hope for the Supreme Court, but it has a 6-3 conservative majority. All of this is happening within the first year of Trump's return to the White House. There's no telling what the next three years will bring if this is how he's starting out. There should be firm lines that presidents do not cross – there are some things that are not appropriate or reasonable for a president to do. Yet that line keeps getting moved by Republicans, who don't seem to care as long as their conservative agenda is being implemented. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
