(There follows two A4 sides of supplementary material in support of my deputation - Adrian Hart et al deputation to CYPS committee 14^th June).

Footnote (i) The council’s schools Strategy can be viewed here: https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s156944/Anti-racist%20schools.pdf. The reluctance of the council to give me sight of the schools training materials currently in use means the extent that a “CRT approach” permeates these materials is unclear. As with the mandatory anti-racism training given to BHCC employees and voluntary training offered to councillors, the term ‘Critical Race Theory’ is invariably not used. Indeed, many of those who promote ideas of a structural or systemic racism (rooted in white privilege/supremacy/whiteness) deliberately avoid the label of CRT (R DiAngelo does this but is no less an exponent of CRT). The “CRT approach” is the description of schools training the council uses here: https://www.beem.org.uk/Event/128270 and tallies with the approach outlined in the Strategy (which references self-described critical race theorists such as David Gillborn and Vini Lander). My purpose is not to object to CRT itself (but I do regard it as a pernicious racialising ideology). I object to your use of it and seek CYPS agreement that it is wrong for CRT be taught as fact in our city’s state maintained schools.    

The CRT approach is dogma.                                                                                          Although it describes itself as a scholarly field CRT disqualifies itself from accepted academic norms. Like the broader field of critical social justice (‘intersectionality’ being its core concept), CRTs claim of an omnipotent, largely invisible, often unconscious racism cannot be falsified by facts, evidence or reason. The tools to do so, asserts CRT, are integral to oppressive dominant discourses and therefore invalid. With the existence of ‘white systemic racism’ presented as a given, CRT is closer to a religion in that it demands we embrace its interpretations (of ‘lived experience’, of ‘microaggression’) as equal to evidence of racism; we must accept that racism is the survival strategy of whiteness, that this social condition is ordinary and ubiquitous (it needs no proof; its manifestations are proof of their root cause). Whereas an academic discipline invites falsification, CRT presents an article of faith – it merely invites conversion to the task of dismantling racism in ways prescribed by CRT. Our failure to see ‘the truth’ is, therefore, a failure to break free of social conditioning, tat wake up to reality (to be ‘woke’) and to see what CRT sees. Today, in public-life, fear of being accused of racism is palpable. My ardent hope is that BHCC councillors (CRT ‘true believers’, those fearful, those for whom the implications of this are only just dawning) will at least unite in recognising that love it or loath it the CRT faith cannot justifiably be taught as fact in schools. In fairness to CRT, I have summarised an explanation of CRT in the words of Prof Gillborn and others; it can be found here: http://www.adrianhart.com/critical-race-theory-in-its-own-words/ )

Colour-blindness = racism blindness: The caricature of CRTs critics.

Pre-empting those who would deflect from my argument that teaching CRT is unsuitable for schools I add this: Many exponents and critics of CRT accuse one another of caricaturing what each has to say. Both camps include commentators left and right who battle to attack or defend CRT (one of Britain’s most vociferous critics of CRT in education is well known to some at BHCC – the Marxist academic Dave Hill was a councillor in Brighton/East Sussex across the 1970s and 80s. Hill ran as a Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidate for Kemptown in 2010s parliamentary elections). His various exchanges with Britain’s pre-eminent CRT scholar David Gillborn are well known to educationalists). In the minds of many conservative academics CRT is itself a product of Marxism (they deduce this from CRTs lineage to the 1920s Frankfurt School). However, CRT proponents and classical liberal critics agree on one thing: the concept of ‘race’ as applied to skin-colour is a social construct without any scientific basis. Critical race theorists, however, reinstate a colour-coded view of ‘race’. They insist racism is ingrained into whiteness, endemic in the culture, imprinted on the consciousness of every individual (thus, challenging individual instances of prejudice is futile - the entire social hierarchy must be overturned. So long as we fail to see endemic racism as CRT sees it, our liberal universalist dreams of a colour-blind future – like those of Martin Luther King – are at best naïve and at worst a refusal to see colour at all and, as such, the hallmark of a racism-denier. This YouTube clip offers a succinct illustration of the issue raised by my deputation and one example of how its caricatured: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSqnbe0JMWA.

This exchange between a headteacher and the CEO of think-tank ‘Race on the Agenda’ (ROTA) followed a controversial speech by equalities minister Kemi Badenoch. Badenoch makes a similar point to mine albeit with a sharper emphasis on how teaching CRT as fact is against the law. In response to the headteacher (who agrees with Badenoch), the ROTA CEO simply assumes any objection to CRT (and by extension Black Lives Matter who adopt the CRT outlook) must represent a denial of the existence of racism. In a crude, simplified form, CRT is imagined as a mere observation of this obvious reality. Objecting to the teaching of CRT in schools as fact is, therefore, absurd because the existence of racism is a fact. Has CYPS – poorly advised by officers - taken the same superficial view of CRT?

Footnote (ii) Emailed reply from Cllr Clare, May 11. Don’t Divide Us, responding to an article I wrote (https://dontdivideus.com/race-in-the-city-an-anti-democratic-anti-educational-practice/), sent a letter to BHCC May 6: https://dontdivideus.com/letter-re-crt-based-anti-racism-in-brighton-hove-schools/. Cllr Clare replies: ‘[the Strategy] references and makes use of critical race theory, but this is just one approach to responding to and preventing racism in Brighton & Hove schools’. Footnote (iii)Because violations of s406/7 are frequently ignored and the law unenforced, BHCC lawyers perhaps felt no obligation to mention this to CYPS. Moreover, while some analysis of Badenoch’s claims view the matter as a storm in a teacup (because teachers always strive for ‘balance’ in what they educate see: TES Can what you teach land you in trouble with the law?) this unlikely to apply to training. BHCC propose teacher/pupil/parents be trained in CRT worldviews from nursery up (these are not education topics investigating CRT alongside other views but rather the inculcation of CRT as an articulating principle for all that takes place in schools). As such, the breach of these laws is serious and actionable although, thankfully, given teachers are being compelled, they are not directly subject to s406/7 (teaching unions would do well to take a stand though). Footnote (iv) ‘Racial Literacy’ will antagonise friendships between white and non-white children as notions of white privilege and black/brown victimhood foster division. BHCC would do well to look into liberal-universalist schools workshops (Debating Matters, The Equiano Project are just a few of the groups offering this and my own film resource is free online – see below). Footnote (v) See p218 https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s156944/Anti-racist%20schools.pdf

Footnote (vi) The Nov 9 officer report states that members of BHECC and a consultant devised the strategy. Self-selecting and like-minded over CRT, they cannot, democratically, speak for the whole city. Moreover, if BHCC claim the strategy is BAME-led then educators ‘of colour’ excludes ‘white other’ minority ethnic residents. The council is elected to represent all citizens, including the majority of parents white or non-white (they were not consulted). TECC July 29 2020 minutes (16.1) indicates that “moving fast” and avoiding compounding “harm” (harm caused by asking?) meant “no consultation was needed”.

About me:I am the author of books and articles on ‘race’ and the deficiencies of top-down ‘official’ anti-racism. I am a veteran of left-wing anti-racism campaigns (East London Workers Against Racism), a former London FE teacher and a community filmmaker who, in 2006, made an anti-racism video resource for Essex schools – watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqyXS5wp6ls. I write about this film Only Human, last year’s Channel 4 CRT in schools doc here: http://www.adrianhart.com/keep-critical-race-theory-out-of-the-classroom/. I have lived in Brighton for 19 years, worked in its schools, stood as a councillor (my son was born in Brighton and currently educated here) and is studying for A-Levels. I am a supporter of the group Don’t Divide Us: https://dontdivideus.com/