Christopher F. Rufo  ⚔️

I read David's piece, took away from it he was acknowledging legislative power over curricula and that Title VI (and I'd add Title VII) may be answers to the worst aspects, but that current legislation is ill-fitting. And then everyone said he was arguing something else.

The central debate isn't about federal law, it's about state law.

Right. But I keep seeing David characterized as saying states can’t control curricula (not so much from you) and that’s not what he argued. But he can speak for himself here. I just found it bewildering.

The reason why my essay swept beyond public K-12 is that the new right legal tactics have swept beyond public K-12. The Trump EO, for example. Proposals targeting colleges. All with similar provisions. But your characterization of my K-12 position as “surrender” was just wrong.

But my point is that state-level action against k-12 is a completely different topic that we should not conflate with those other things - on which I mostly agree with you. We can and should control the content of k-12 education through the political process.

And if you’d read my work more broadly you’d see that I grant that but urge a completely different course from bad panic-bills. You mischaracterized my position as “surrender” when it’s “adopt better curriculum and vigorously use existing civil rights laws to stop abuse.”

But federal civil rights laws do not reach nearly far enough. They are a blunter instrument than state legislation, & leave a lot of falsehood & extremism unaddressed.