Is critical race theory (CRT) making a comeback in classrooms?

Banned in several red states, CRT is often described by those holding more progressive worldviews as an academic framework meant to examine “systemic racism.” Critics, however, would classify it as an ideological agenda that promotes racism — hence why many Republican-led states have taken steps to keep it out of their school curricula. Yet, a new report from the conservative Foundation for Freedom Online (FF) warns that CRT is quietly sneaking its way back in through the “media literacy” campaign.

According to FFO, Media Literacy Now (MLN) is the nonprofit in question, and it “advocates for media & digital literacy lessons” in K-12 schools with one primary goal: to train children on what sources are trustworthy and which spout “disinformation.” The problem, opponents argue, is that this nonprofit predominantly classifies conservative outlets as “unreliable” while lifting progressive ones. According to analysis from the Media Research Center, Ad Fontes Media flagged 64% of left-leaning outlets as reliable while only stating the same for 32% of conservative outlets. Notably, Ad Fontes’s CEO and president is on MLN’s board.

FFO described MLN as “arguably the most influential such nonprofit in the U.S., with paid advocacy leaders in 23 states, including Arizona, Indiana, Texas, Tennessee, Montana, North Carolina, and Utah.”

It turns out MLN was funded in part by grants from the Biden administration and a number of government agencies. For example, FFO noted that “the nonprofit was directly funded by the State Department to promote media literacy overseas” — with MLN receiving a $30,000 grant from the department to promote its objectives in Germany. Domestically, the Biden administration supported MLN’s material through the federal government’s “information literacy taskforce,” which included the following federal agencies:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Institute of Museum and Library Services
• Library of Congress
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• National Institutes of Health
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration
• Social Security Administration
• Department of Education
• Department of State
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Veterans Affairs

This web of agencies reveals how deeply embedded MLN is within the federal government. The CDC, for one, “cited MLN’s media-literacy resources in publications released as part of its $1.5 million taxpayer-funded initiative to promote media literacy,” FFO highlighted. In 2022, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced the Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act, which quoted MLN in the text and was ultimately endorsed by MLN. Even though it ultimately failed to pass, it included a request for a $20 million slush fund for the Department of Education to fuel this so-called “media literacy” training in schools across the country.

So, what exactly does MLN’s “anti-disinformation” curriculum entail? Delving into its partnerships and affiliates is telling. As stated, MLN works alongside Ad Fontes, an organization known for producing “media bias” charts that have deemed outlets like Fox News and the New York Post as “hyper-partisan” and “unreliable.” An op-ed published by the head of MLN’s New Jersey chapter accused the Daily Caller, a mainstream conservative outlet, of “traffic[king] in lies and conspiracy theories.” Meanwhile, the National Review had received a nod of approval.

Moreover, one Pennsylvania-based MLN researcher, R. Alan Berry, argued that the “fight for media literacy” directly correlates with “the fight for critical race theory in schools.” In a chapter included in an academic book, Berry claimed that mainstream outlets, allegedly guilty of “misinformation and fake news… [fail] to connect news media and race.” And his solution? “[T]he creation of a media education program that will create an intersection between critical race theory, news literacy, and fake news.”

Even more troubling are MLN’s ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In fact, MLN’s curricula are often penned by the SPLC, which is infamous for branding conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups.” Family Research Council, for example, was listed on SPLC’s “hate map” in 2010, which prompted a gunman to enter the FRC headquarters two years later with the intent to kill as many employees as possible.

Ultimately, FFO’s report landed on this consensus: “MLN has become a de facto government-adjacent speech-adjudication partner — but targeted not at adults, platforms, or foreign populations, but at American children inside the K-12 system.” It cautioned that “media literacy is not inherently problematic. But when ‘media literacy’ is operationalized as a tool for political gatekeeping, backed by federal agencies, and implemented through nonprofit networks with explicit ideological alignments, the risk becomes clear: The classroom becomes an extension of the government’s preferred information narratives.”

In response to FFO’s findings, Joseph Backholm, FRC’s senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, offered an insightful perspective in a comment to The Washington Stand. He explained that the “ideologically-slanted” information “being placed in schools … [is] unavoidable.” While “it is possible to present information objectively so that you’re honestly representing both sides of an issue … neutrality doesn’t exist. Even the idea that objectivity is desirable is a biased position that comes from certain beliefs about what is preferable and what isn’t.”

That said, Backholm continued, “Public schools have always presented ‘biased’ information, but the bias from generations ago came from the perspective that America is good and worth protecting. Increasingly, the bias in public schools today is that America is something to be apologized for and torn down.” Is it inherently problematic for a nonprofit organization to include slanted “media literacy” in school curricula? According to Backholm, the answer is no, simply “because all curriculum is ‘slanted.’” The problem, he added, is when the bias that is encouraged promotes a worldview “that is destructive to western civilization and ultimately is harmful to human flourishing.”

Proper education “requires students to be able to engage in critical thinking.” Ultimately, Backholm argued, “There are progressive liars, and there are conservative liars. Clear thinkers need to be aware of both possibilities and not agree with someone just because they said it.” As for how issues of “media literacy” and related fields are handled in the classroom, he noted how “we should stop efforts to educate children in ways that are harmful to them. But the challenge is, we don’t agree anymore about what’s harmful.” As such, “the one-size-fits-all approach to education that the government system represents will continue to be a battleground. The only way we have peace is to give every family the ability to educate their child in the way they think is best.”

As Backholm went on to note, the trust Americans have “in institutions of all kinds is at a record low, which means young people are increasingly likely to disbelieve everything.” And yet, “the truth exists, even if everyone is trying to obscure it in their own way.” He concluded by acknowledging how “distrust of institutions is reasonable given how often people have been misled.” Even so, “we need to train the next generation to care about the truth anyway and continue looking for it despite all the efforts to hide it.”