So, how do those who are beating the drum of critical race theory as being an accurate teaching of history look at something like this? How to you square this with rhetoric of sensitivity and inclusivity? How does intersectionality jive with this?
Removing To Kill a Mockingbird from curriculum because of forty uses of the word "nigger?" Well, that's how people talked in that setting. Isn't the refusal to let students read that language kinda forcing kids to look at our history through rose colored glasses?
Removing it because of a "white savior?" Well, if you're referring to Scout, I don't know what you're really talking about. If you're talking about Atticus, well, he didn't save Tom Robinson and, again, it would have been historically inaccurate to show a black lawyer in the South at that time.
People have been trying to get To Kill a Mockingbird out of curriculum for years because it shows a white woman lying about rape. That happened back then. A lot of supporters of CRT have been passing around the same image of Emmett Till that I did which claims that CRT is the way to talk honestly about his lynching. Till was lynched because a white woman claimed that he was "cat calling" her.
Yes, this specific story is happening in the UK; but, a great many American news outlets have released opinion pieces calling for the cancellation of To Kill a Mockingbird. This is becoming a common idea among school districts.
So, which is it? Which way are you gonna go?