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
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Left with bloodstains and bullet holes, Syria's Druze grieve loved ones
* Left with bloodstains and bullet holes, Syria's Druze grieve loved ones Survivors of sectarian killings still in shock * Syrian authorities pledge a probe * Reuters verified videos of killings, aftermath SWEIDA, Syria July 27 - Hatem Radwan stared at the bloodstained floor and cushions in the Al-Radwan guest house in Syria's Druze city of Sweida, still wondering how he survived the shooting spree more than a week ago that killed his relatives and friends. "I'm not sleeping. I wish I would have died; it would have been better for me," the 70-year-old told Reuters, saying two of his sons-in-law and his daughter's father-in-law were killed when armed men stormed into the guesthouse on July 16. Hundreds of people were killed in days of sectarian violence in Syria's Sweida province, where government forces were sent to quell clashes between Druze factions and Bedouin tribes. Syria's defence ministry on July 22 said it would investigate reports of an "unknown group" in military fatigues committing "shocking and gross violations" in Sweida, and hold the perpetrators accountable. The interior ministry condemned "the circulating videos showing field executions carried out by unidentified individuals in the city of Sweida," and also pledged to conduct a probe. Residents, monitoring groups and reporters in the province said the violence intensified after security forces deployed, reporting several cases of execution-style killings. One of the most gruesome was the Al-Radwan guesthouse. Radwan said armed men entered the guesthouse on July 15 as he was gathered there with Druze friends and relatives. The fighters smashed up the room, took the keys of a car that was parked outside and turned to leave. Radwan said he then heard one fighter say, "let's kill them so they don't recognise us." He collapsed onto the floor as the shooting started. GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO THE CHEST "I don't know whether it was a bullet or what that hit me, but I fell down. I thought, 'it's over, I'm going to die,'" he told Reuters. A video posted online and verified by Reuters as being in the Al-Radwan guest house showed more than a dozen bodies, several with gunshot wounds to the chest, slumped over one another. Reuters could not verify the date the video was filmed. Reuters reporters at the guest house on Friday saw bullet holes in the walls and bloodstains on red-striped cushions and on the concrete floor. Nearby, another family was still grieving their loss. Members of the Saraya family spoke in hushed tones in their home, its walls pockmarked by bullet holes. Older women dressed in black except for white headscarves sat in silence. Seven of their relatives were killed with an eighth friend in an execution-style killing in Tishreen Square after being taken from their homes last week by armed militants, according to relatives and friends. One of them, Hosam Saraya, was a 35-year-old Syrian-American citizen who had lived in Oklahoma. Videos verified by Reuters showed eight men in civilian clothes walking in a single file accompanied by armed militants. Reuters was able to identify the location as west of Tishreen Square, in the heart of Sweida, but could not independently verify the date the video was filmed. A separate video shows militants opening fire on the same unarmed men kneeling in the dirt of the roundabout in Tishreen Square. Reuters verified the video's location from the statue in the square. A friend of the family, Moatassem Jabahi, said the fate of the men was unknown until he received a phone call from someone who saw the bodies in the square. "We called everybody we know and went to Tishreen square and we saw them. Their bodies were torn with bullets. It was not a normal killing. It was a criminal killing," he told Reuters. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Deccan Herald
2 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Trump calls for Kamala Harris' prosecution over alleged paid celebrity endorsements
Harris was Trump's Democratic opponent during the 2024 presidential race, which the 79-year-old Republican leader eventually won, securing a second term in the White House.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Japan's big trade win with US on auto offers some cues for India, others
For India, the world's largest rice exporter, the recent US-Japan deal offers a somewhat cautionary tale on agri access in the context of its own negotiations with the Americans for a bilateral trade pact. At the same time, it is increasingly becoming clear that the Japanese negotiators managed to upstage their American counterparts by getting an immensely favourable deal on automobiles, even as they dangled the agri market access concessions offered by Japan and Tokyo's investment pledges as distraction the entire time. This could offer a template for others negotiating with the US for deals, including India. Under the US-Japan deal, which US President Donald Trump referred to as 'the biggest deal ever made', the Americans have agreed to impose 15 per cent reciprocal tariffs, compared to the 25 per cent the US had threatened earlier last week. While most of the focus of the US-Japan deal has been on how Washington DC managed to get market access for American agricultural products, including politically sensitive items such as rice, what the Japanese managed to wrangle out is the best possible deal for its auto sector in the given circumstances. According to the final deal, Japanese automakers would face a 15 per cent tariff now when entering the US market, much less than the global tariff on cars imposed by the US. The Big Three automakers in America – GM, Ford and Stellantis (essentially Chysler) – are now crying foul, because, as they see it, the Japanese now have a clear tariff advantage. After this deal, cars and car parts from Japan can get into the US after paying the 15 per cent tariff while American car makers, most of whom import a lot of cars and car parts fully assembled and manufactured in Canada and Mexico, are currently paying a 25 per cent tariff to import cars and parts into the US market from these two countries. For Japan, the country's automotive industry is a big contributor to its economy, representing about 10 per cent of the country's GDP and nearly 20 per cent of its manufacturing GDP. Automobiles are among Japan's biggest exports and the sector's performance is crucial for the country's overall economic health. And when it comes to Japan-US trade, where Tokyo has a substantial surplus, it is in the auto sector where Washington DC faces most of its trade deficit. The Japanese negotiators made some eight trips to Washington DC over the course of these last six months to get a deal that is favourable to them. While they did end up making a sizable commitment to investment in the US, alongside the concessions on the agri side involving rice and other farm products, the big prize really was auto. And that's where the Japanese negotiators have maxed out the outcomes, which could set the stage for more Toyotas and Hondas flowing into the American market. Interestingly, while the Americans have gone to town describing the deal as a big win, citing both the $550 billion investment pledge and agri market access as wins, the Japanese have maintained a studied silence in the aftermath of the deal, despite immense political pressure on the embattled Shigeru Ishiba government after the bruising electoral setback. Trump's tariff negotiations have largely been about leverage, given how the US President has used tariffs as a way of getting countries to the table on issues such as fentanyl inflows or how they deal with a military conflict. Revenue is yet another strong consideration for the Trump administration going forward, given that the six months that these tariffs have been in place, they have raised $100 billion so far, according to estimates attributed to the US Commerce department. The other stated objective is to bring manufacturing and jobs back to the US: how that plays out is entirely another story. What the Japan deal means goes beyond basic numbers, since there's a personal connotation here for Trump. For a man who is generally fickle with his views, tariffs are an issue where Trump's been uncharacteristically consistent. And Japan was at the centre of Trump's worldview in his early years when the American businessman was still formulating his views on policy matters such as trade. In 1987, long before he voiced any intention to run for public office, Trump took out a full-page newspaper ad warning that Japan was 'taking advantage' of the US, while pointing to the massive trade deficit between the two countries. Like most things with Trump, this was essentially a personal issue, which likely stemmed from the fact that the real estate developer had, just a few days prior to these ads, lost out on a bid for a grand piano in New York to the representative of a Japanese trading house. His views on tariffs have endured through these years, even though there is very little economic logic to the imposition of large scale tariffs by a country like America. Automakers from Japan, Trump said in that ad, were ripping America off. It's a full circle now, when, ironically, Japanese carmakers seem to be big beneficiaries under a new deal that Japan signed up for under Trump's watch. This is especially so, given the comparative advantage that the Japanese carmakers seem to have now. Over the last quarter of a century, the American cars industry has worked with policymakers to create an integrated supply chain with Canada and Mexico. Some parts of a car sold in the US are made in Canada, others in Mexico, and quite a lot are made in the US. A typical pickup truck made by the big three US auto majors – GM, Ford and Chrysler – moves back and forth across borders because of this integrated supply chain – sometimes up to seven times across the three borders. Now, with tariffs of 25 per cent on both countries, each time an auto part moves, it will get tariffed. The price for an F-150 pickup truck, according to industry estimates, could go up from $10,000-$12,000 for a car that retails at around $50,000. So, now, while the North American car industry will be at a disadvantage given the higher duties on Mexico and Canada, the Japanese car industry can bring in cars and car parts into the US at a much lower tariff. What's even more contradictory is the fact that it was Trump who replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement trade deal between the US, Canada, and Mexico with the new USMCA deal during his first term in 2018-19. Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canada and Mexico now flagrantly violate his own USMCA, and highlight his disregard for negotiated trade agreements. For New Delhi, which is currently engaged in extended negotiations with the US, the manner in which Japanese negotiators dangled multiple carrots, including the phased-out investment pledge and concessions on agri products, to win an evidently favourable deal on auto offers some lessons in negotiating. The India-UK trade deal too has some takeaways for the US deal. The UK deal showed that Indian negotiators are willing to offer concessions in areas such as agriculture and public procurement – contentious political issues where there is scope to give with factoring in some safeguards. With the US, talks have faced hurdles over agri products, with the Americans pushing for market access for genetically modified products such as soya and corn, along with broad-based access across sectors. The willingness to offer concessions on some issues that have traditionally heralded red-lines for India could mean more leeway to extract concessions on other areas of interest, like Japan managed for its auto sector. While the trade deal with the US is likely to be less focused on sectors and more focused on the headline number unlike the UK deal, India is likely to push for market access in labour-intensive sectors, while trying to ensure a significant tariff differential compared to its Asian peers. Now, if the final tariff deal offered to India by Washington DC is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, the tariff points offered to the UK and Japan, New Delhi should have reasons to be satisfied. The tariff advantage starts to diminish if the tariff goes over 15 per cent and inches up closer to 20 per cent, as was offered by the US to Vietnam. A transhipment clause, of the kind slapped on Vietnam, could be a problem for India, given that a lot of Indian exports have inputs and intermediate goods in sectors such as pharma, engineering goods and electronics coming in from outside, including China. Also, clarity on the final American duty offer on China is a number that negotiators will be looking at, given the implicit assumption in New Delhi that the Trump administration will maintain a tariff differential. For Indian negotiators, other tariffs, over and above the US baseline tariffs of 10 per cent and the sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminium, is an added complication. Sectoral tariffs such as the 50 per cent on steel, aluminium and copper are already impacting India's exports to the US, and Trump's threat of steep tariffs on BRICS countries over them buying Russian oil is a concern. India has shown some degree of realism in opening up segments of imports that are in areas where the country has been weak or those goods are needed as intermediate goods. That is being seen as a positive step, given India's tariff structure currently has rigidities that include high tariffs on inputs and intermediate goods, which acts as a disadvantage to domestic players. While mobility of workers, which had been a bone of contention as India sought improved access for its services sector amid heightened sensitivities in a post-Brexit UK, both countries committed to some concessions. That could be the case in the negotiations with the US too. While continuing to maintain some regulatory carve-outs, such as in legal services, taxation, and national security, Indian negotiators would do well to secure gains in this area. With the UK, commitments gained by India on professional mobility were largely limited in scope, if one were to leave out the positives of the Double Contributions Convention. Expectations from a US deal could be higher on the Indian side. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
