Project 2025 calls for the federal government to abolish the Department of Education (ED), the agency tasked with enforcing civil rights in education, distributing federal funding, and administering programs to address inequities in educational access and participation.2 Dismantling the ED and reshuffling oversight of its programs to states and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Census Bureau, will severely undermine federal efforts to provide accessible, inclusive, and high-quality public education for all students—from early childhood to higher education—in safe learning environments that do not threaten their civil rights.
These policy proposals will destabilize the United States’ system of public education by:
Project 2025 calls for sweeping action to ensure that any guidance or regulation that interprets Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits federal funding recipients from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin—explicitly rejects the disparate impact theory of liability. Based on the erroneous assumption that permitting claims of discrimination based on disparate impact inverts the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it claims that “federal overreach has pushed many school leaders to prioritize the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline over student safety.”3 Eliminating the disparate impact theory of liability will hamstring the federal government’s ability to fulfill its legal obligations to protect students from all forms of discrimination, including in school discipline. This is particularly important in cases where schools or school districts have well-documented histories of disproportionately meting out punishment to Black students for allegedly violating facially neutral policies, proper enforcement of which requires the ability to bring claims based on disparate impact.
Numerous Supreme Court decisions and more than twenty-five federal agencies have previously upheld the disparate impact theory to find unlawful discrimination. In a joint guidance letter issued in 2014, the ED and the DOJ clarified, “Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.”4 This guidance, which Project 2025 denounces as “overreach in Title VI enforcement,” is vital to fostering safe, positive school climates and improving academic achievement, especially for Black students. An analysis of data conducted by the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in the 2015-16 school year revealed that Black students and other students of color were more likely to be suspended from school and therefore have less time learning in class.5 This finding is not unique: Black students have consistently experienced—and continue to experience—higher rates of discipline in schools for largely subjective reasons, such as “disruptive behavior,” and punishments meted out to Black students are often more severe than those given to their white peers for similar, or even the same, behaviors.6 The disproportionate frequency and severity of discipline for Black students in schools contributes not only to the overrepresentation of Black students in referrals to law enforcement, but also to the diversion of Black youth from schools to prisons.7 All students deserve a safe environment in schools, and to be protected from disproportionate punishment.
Black students are subject to discriminatory behavior by the individuals they should trust most at school—teachers and principals. Their actions may be based on more subtle, subconscious beliefs, commonly referred to as implicit bias.
Project 2025’s call to eliminate Head Start and “prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care”8 will compound racial achievement gaps. Head Start is a federally funded program that provides early childhood education, health, and family support services to low-income children to promote school readiness. The national Head Start program has served approximately thirty-nine million children and families since it started in 1965.9 Between 2021 and 2022, the program enrolled over 800,000 students and pregnant people, with Black participants composing the second-largest share of enrollees at about twenty-eight percent.10 Early childhood education programs like Head Start have clear benefits for Black children and offer a promising strategy to close racial achievement gaps, especially if policymakers prioritize universal preschool education.11 One study found that Black children who participated in preschool performed seventeen percentage points higher on a cognitive assessment compared to Black children who did not participate in preschool.12
Head Start services are delivered by over 1,700 public and private agencies throughout the United States. These agencies receive grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Grants are administered through the Office of Head Start (OHS), which is housed within HHS.
Early education programs not only benefit children’s learning outcomes but also foster healthy parenting dynamics and well-being. Caregivers who participated in Head Start programs were more emotionally supportive of their children and more engaged in their early learning than parents who did not.13 Interventions such as Head Start can also have positive intergenerational effects. The children of mothers exposed to the program exhibited long-term benefits, including increases in wages and educational attainment.14 Moreover, access to early education, Head Start, or universal childcare facilitates increased educational attainment and labor force engagement, particularly among Black parents.15 Although research illustrates that access to quality, federally supported early childhood education benefits both children and their families, Project 2025 will disrupt, rather than invest in, early childhood education programs.
Project 2025 strives to defund public education and eliminate any level of federal oversight that meaningfully protects the civil rights of all students. It proposes an educational system that redirects taxpayer dollars away from public schools in favor of expanding “school choice” policies. Through school vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), and “school choice” programs for “federal children” (i.e., those who are “connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes”), Project 2025 will privatize the public education system and thereby significantly divest from public education, heighten school segregation,16 and increase the resources available to wealthy families to attend private schools, effectively denying low-income families an equal opportunity or access to quality education.
“Vouchers are state-funded programs — often called scholarship programs — that allow students to use public monies to attend a private school. The state provides a set amount of money for private school tuition. This amount is typically based on the state’s per-pupil amount.”17
“Tax credit scholarship programs provide a tax credit to businesses and individual taxpayers for donating funds to scholarship granting organizations. Nonprofit organizations manage and distribute donated funds in the form of private school tuition scholarships to eligible students.”18
“Education Savings Accounts (ESA) are private savings accounts funded by a deposit from the state government and managed by a parent or guardian. The deposit amount varies from state-to-state and is typically based on the state’s per-pupil amount. To use an ESA, parents withdraw their child from the public school system and use their ESA funds to purchase specified educational services, like tutoring, online courses, or private school tuition.”19
Even though research demonstrates that voucher and ESA programs lack public accountability and transparency,20 Project 2025 proposes that academic assessments should not be required for private schools that enroll students using vouchers and ESAs.21 Academic assessments are crucial for tracking the quality of education received through vouchers.22 Notably, researchers have found that voucher students “perform no better—and in many cases worse—than their peers” in public schools.23 These evidence-based findings run contrary to Project 2025’s baseless claim that research shows “positive outcomes for students from education choice policies.”24 Moreover, experts point out that voucher programs have higher expulsion and dropout rates, leading to lowered educational quality for Black and other marginalized students.25
Voucher and ESA programs also lack fiscal transparency, obscuring how taxpayer dollars are spent.26 Some ESA programs have allowed parents and caretakers to keep the money to use on college tuition, consequently stripping public school students of resources while potentially funding wealthier students to attend college.27 Project 2025’s proposals are an extension of privatization efforts in states such as Florida,28 where lawmakers’ expansions of voucher and ESA programs without accountability measures have led to questionable purchases with public dollars (e.g., big screen televisions) by those who receive these funds regardless of need.29 Arizona has also embraced ESAs and vouchers, which take up nearly $1 billion of the state budget, draining resources from public schools.30
Furthermore, expanding voucher programs will worsen the racial isolation of Black students, who are more likely to remain in public schools.31 Since private and religious schools are not required to enroll all students—and have a history of rejecting students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ families—Black students will likely face discrimination during the admissions process.32 When students with more resources and networks of support leave public schools, students who are left behind lose out on the positive educational benefits from attending schools with more economic diversity.33 The resulting isolation, often along the lines of race, has been shown to have a negative relationship with learning outcomes.34
Overall, vouchers, ESAs, and other school privatization strategies are efforts to defund and cut resources for public schools, limiting their capacity to serve all students while increasing the financial revenues of private school operators. This will worsen existing school resource disparities: “African American students are twice as likely as white students to be in districts with funding below estimated adequate levels, and 3.5 times more likely to be in ‘chronically underfunded’ districts.”35
Chart: Thurgood Marshall Institute. Source: Education Data Initiative. Created with Datawrapper.
The most underfunded districts are found in ten states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Texas.36 Eight of these states (all aside from New Mexico and Texas) have adopted voucher policies.37 In Maryland, another state with school vouchers, Baltimore City Public Schools were underfunded by at least $342 million in 2017, not including the estimated more than $3 billion needed to renovate facilities.38 Project 2025’s call to double down on school privatization will heighten these racialized funding disparities.
Chart: Thurgood Marshall Institute. Source: Baker, Di Carlo, and Weber, 2024. Created with Datawrapper.
In addition to divesting from public schools, Project 2025 will force Black students in higher education to fall deeper into debt and block them from building wealth. Project 2025’s proposals will widen the racial wealth gap and greatly harm Black students, a majority of whom utilize federal loans to offset the costs of higher education. Project 2025 advocates for the federal government to turn over student lending to for-profit lenders and end all subsidies and loan forgiveness programs,39 which will limit public accountability and avenues for relief from student loans and leave Black students even more vulnerable to predatory lending practices.
A majority of Black students qualify for federal Pell Grants, a form of financial aid that helps undergraduate students who demonstrate exceptional needs to pay for college.40 During the 2020-21 academic year, ninety-seven percent of students who qualified for Pell Grants had family incomes at or below $60,000.41 As of the 2015-16 academic year, Black learners made up about seventy-two percent of Pell-eligible students.42 Nearly sixty percent of all Black students relied on Pell Grants.43 Across income groups, Black students take on more student loans.44 About one-third of Black men and more than forty percent of Black women who attended some college have student loan debt.45
Chart: Thurgood Marshall Institute. Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research. Created with Datawrapper.
Project 2025’s proposals to change student loan policies will greatly disadvantage Black graduates, who are more likely to have higher debt-to-wealth ratios than their peers.46 Although Black students hold more debt on average than their white peers, they are less likely to earn comparable yearly salaries.47 In 2018, the median annual income for Black women and men with bachelor’s degrees was $47,600 and $42,100, respectively, compared to $50,000 for white women and $62,000 for white men with the same level of education.48 Although most Black borrowers who responded to a 2021 survey (seventy-two percent) were enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans designed to lower the cost of monthly payments, many still struggled to afford savings accounts, food, and rent.49 IDR plans help make loan repayments more manageable by extending payment periods, but they also result in higher balances that may take decades to pay off or result in loan default.50
Reduced access to debt relief will also block Black college students and their families from building wealth because education debt remains a major obstacle to economic advancement and wealth accumulation.51 For example, disproportionate student loan burdens make it harder for Black people to achieve homeownership, which is a key pathway to economic advancement.52
Project 2025 seeks to expand the ongoing, coordinated attack on truth in schools and libraries, which will further deny our nation’s shameful legacy of racism. Many states have passed laws that ban or restrict what students can learn about history, with the intention of silencing dissent and punishing those who speak the truth to counter whitewashed falsehoods.53
Chart: Thurgood Marshall Institute. Source: EdWeek. Created with Datawrapper.
Mirroring Executive Order 1395054 and the 1776 Commission Report,55 Project 2025 will ban critical race theory as racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibit K-12 schools from teaching about race or gender as a violation of parental rights.56 It claims that incorporating teachings about systemic racism in school assignments, school activities, or teacher education violates the ideals of freedom and opportunity.57
Racially inclusive school curricula improve the academic performance of Black students, other students of color, and white students alike.58 Research shows that students who see positive representations of themselves in their curriculum have improved educational outcomes.59 For students of color, as well as white students, culturally responsive education decreases dropout rates and suspensions while increasing student participation, confidence, academic achievement, and graduation rates.60 Project 2025’s proposal also disregards research about cognitive development in children, who are naturally curious about race, racism, and other phenomena of fairness.61 Overall, the framing of racially inclusive school curricula as somehow harmful to the self-image of the nation is, like book-burning, a hallmark of authoritarian rule.62 A public education system that seeks to serve only some of its students threatens the existence of our multi-racial democracy.
Project 2025 proposes to close the ED and end federal enforcement of civil rights, deregulate and eliminate federal funding for educational programs, and restrict access to inclusive, accurate, and quality instruction. These proposals will jeopardize the education of Black students and all students who rely on our nation’s public schools.
Pernell v. Lamb charges that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First Amendment by imposing restrictions on speech and information in college classrooms, and is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also argues the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black educators and students.
This TMI brief examines how today’s attacks on truth are born out of a broader history where a small minority tries to use their power and privilege to eclipse racial justice progress through controlling the narratives told in children’s history textbooks, a practice dating back to the U.S. Civil War.
LDF has compiled answers to the most frequently asked questions about Critical Race Theory. Learn more about CRT, laws banning racial justice discourse, and how these fit into a larger effort to suppress the voices, history, and political participation of Black Americans.
LDF envisions a future in which all people, especially Black people, have access to high-quality, racially integrated educational opportunities, from preschool through higher education. Prior to and since LDF’s successful litigation of the historic U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, LDF has represented Black students in the fight to desegregate schools, particularly in the Deep South. LDF strives for safe and inclusive learning environments that equip all students with the critical thinking skills needed to realize the promise and constitutional ideals of a multi-racial democracy. In pursuit of this mission, LDF advocates for the equitable distribution of opportunities and resources, including college and career preparation, access to diverse and high-quality educators, and improved facilities. Furthermore, LDF relentlessly challenges laws and policies that seek to exclude historically marginalized communities’ histories, perspectives, and experiences from school initiatives and classroom instruction and materials. LDF utilizes legal advocacy, community organizing, storytelling, and policy reform to realize this vision.
1 Summary of Complaint: Cultural & Racial Equity for Every Dragon, Southlake Anti-Racism Coalition, et al. v. Carroll Independent School District, et al., Off. of C. R., Dep’t of Educ., https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-02-15-Southlake-Complaint-Summary-1.pdf.
2 Paul Dans & Steven Groves, eds., Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Heritage Found. at 319-363 (2023) [hereinafter Project 2025], https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf, (stating “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”).
3 Project 2025, supra 2, at 334
4 C.R. Dov., U.S. Dep’t of Just. & Off. for C.R., Dept of Educ., Letter Regarding Guidance to Administer Student Discipline (Jan.8, 2014), https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:f97fab94-7eba-481d-9b26-3dc27395d60c.
5 Daniel J. Losen & Paul Martinez, Lost Opportunities: How Disparate School Discipline Continues to Drive Differences in the Opportunity to Learn (Oct. 2020), https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/lost-opportunities-how-disparate-school-discipline-continues-to-drive-differences-in-the-opportunity-to-learn/Lost-Opportunities_EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY_v17.pdf.
6 Annie Ma & Cheyanne Mumphrey, Why Black Students Are Still Disciplined at Higher Rates: Takeaways from AP’s Report, AP News (Aug. 30, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/school-discipline-takeaways-ferguson-black-lives-matter-efabdb403d4e34e9c607f039c827d72a.
7 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Nationally, Black Girls Receive More Frequent and More Severe Discipline in School than Other Girls (2024), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106787.pdf; U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities (March 2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-258.pdf; Losen & Martinez, supra note 5.
8 Project 2025, supra note 2, at486
9 Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2022, Head Start: Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Ctr., https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/head-start-program-facts-fiscal-year-2022# (last updated Aug. 26, 2024).
10 Id.
11 Daphna Bassok, Do Black and Hispanic Children Benefit More From Preschool? Understanding Differences in Preschool Effects Across Racial Groups, 81 Child Dev. 1828 (2010), http://www.jstor.org/stable/40925302; See Myths and Facts About Vouchers, The Metro. Ctr. for Rsch. On Equity and the Transformation of Schs., https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/ejroc/myths-and-facts-about-vouchers
12 Id.
13 John M. Love, et al., The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs, 41 Developmental Psych. 885, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16351335/.; Alexander Gelber & Adam Isen, Children’s School and Parents’ Behavior: Evidence from the Head Start Impact Study, 101 J. of Pub. Econs. 25,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272713000339;
Amy E. Herble & Rachel Chazan-Cohen, Longitudinal and Reciprocal Relations Among Parent and Child Outcomes for Black Early Head Start Families, 34 Early Educ. and Dev. 387, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2045461.
14 Andrew Barr & Chloe R. Gibbs, Breaking the Cycle? Intergenerational Effects of an Antipoverty Program in Early Childhood, 130 J. of Pol. Econ. (Dec. 2022), https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/720764.
15 Terri J. Sabol, P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, The Influence of Low-Income Children’s Participation in the Head Start on Their Parents’ Education and Employment, 34 J. of Pol’y Analysis and Mgmt. 136 (Winter 2015), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43866090; Rasheed Malik, Effects of Universal Preschool in Washington, D.C.: Children’s Learning and Mother’s Earnings, Am. Progress (Sept.26, 2018), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/effects-universal-preschool-washington-d-c/.
16 No Entrepreneur Left Behind in Bettina L. Love, Chapter 4, Punished for Dreaming : How School Reform Harms Black Children and How We Heal (St. Martin’s Press, 2023), https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250280381/punishedfordreaming.)
17 50-State Comparisson : Private School Choice, Educ. Comm’n. Of the States (Jan.24, 2024), https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-private-school-choice-2024/.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 School Vouchers Lack Necessary Transparency and Accountability, Ariz. Ctr. for Econ. Progress (July 1, 2023), https://azeconcenter.org/school-vouchers-lack-necessary-transparency-and-accountability/.
21 Project 2025, supra note 2, at 347
22 Ariz. Ctr. for Econ. Progress, supra note 21.
23 Myths and Facts About Vouchers, supra note 12.
24 Project 2025, supra note 2, at 342
25 Myths and Facts About Vouchers, supra note 12.
26 Ariz. Ctr. for Econ. Progress, supra note 21.
27 Id.
28 Project 2025, supra note 2, at 348.
29 Norin Dollard, Florida Needs More Transparency and Accountability Around School Vouchers, Fla. Pol’y Inst. (June 10, 2024), https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/florida-needs-more-transparency-and-accountability-around-school-vouchers?42f82863
30 Governor Katie Hobbs Announces Plan for ESA Accountability and Transparency, Off. Governor Katie Hobbs (Jan. 2, 2024), https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2024/01/governor-katie-hobbs-announces-plan-esa-accountability-and; Do Education Savings Accounts Lead to Better Results for Families, Network for Pub. Educ.(Apr. 2021), https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Do-Education-Savings-Accounts-lead-to-better-results-for-families-.pdf.
31 Chris Ford, et al., The Racist Origins of Private School Vouchers, Am. Progress (July 12, 2017), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/racist-origins-private-school-vouchers/; Myths and Facts About School Vouchers, supra note 11; Emma E. Rowe & Christopher Lubienski, Shopping for Schools or Shopping for Peers: Public Schools and Catchment Area Segregation, 32 J. of Educ. Pol’y 340 (Dec. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1263363.
32 Private School Programs that are Subsidized with Taxpayer Funds Continue to Sanction Discrimination and Widen the Equity Gap in K-12 Education, GLSEN, https://www.glsen.org/activity/issue-brief-private-school-programs (last accessed Oct. 1, 2024); Julia Donheiser, Chalkbeat Explains: when Can Private Schools Discriminate Against Students, Chalkbeat (Aug. 10, 2017), https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/8/10/21107283/chalkbeat-explains-when-can-private-schools-discriminate-against-students/; Ford, supra note 32.
33 Circuits of Dispossession and Accumulation in a Nation of Swelling Inequality Gaps in Michael Fabricant & Michelle Fine, Changing Politics of Education: Privatization and the Dispossessed Lives Left Behind (Routledge, 2013), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635606.
34 Is Separate Still Unequal? New Evidence on School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps at 33 (CEPA Working Paper No.19-06) inStan. Ctr. for Educ. Pol’y Analysis (2022), http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp19-06.
35 Am. Fed’n of Teachers, New Report Finds Most States Have Deprived Schools of Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Since 2016 (Jan.17, 2024), https://www.aft.org/press-release/new-report-finds-most-states-have-deprived-schools-hundreds-billions-dollars-2016.
36 Melanie Hanson, U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics, Educ. Data Initiative (July 14, 2024), https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics.
37 Id.
38 Alaizah Koorji, A Right Without a Remedy?: Maryland Must Finally Ensure Baltimore City Schoolchildren Have the Funding Necessary to Obtain an Adequate Education, Legal Def. Fund (Nov. 8, 2023), https://www.naacpldf.org/a-right-without-a-remedy-baltimore-public-schools/..
39 Project 2025, supra note 2, at 353-354
40 Congressional Rsch. Serv., Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Primer (Jan. 24, 2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45418.
41 Id.
42 Pell Grant Statistics, Educ. Data Initiative, https://educationdata.org/pell-grant-statistics
43 Indicator 22: Financial Aid, Nat. Ctr. for Educ. Stats., https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rec.asp (Feb. 2019).
44 Ji Hye “Jane Kim et al., Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education 2024 Status Report (Am. Council on Educ., 2024), https://www.equityinhighered.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/REHE2024_Full_Report.pdf
45 Emma Curchin, Student Loan Debt is Common Across All Race and Gender Groups, Especially for Black Women, CEPR (Jan. 10, 2024), https://cepr.net/student-loan-debt-is-common-across-all-race-and-gender-groups-especially-for-black-women/.
46 Urvi Neelakantan, Black-White Differences in Student Loan Default Rates Among College Graduates, Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond (Br No. 23-12, Apr. 2013), https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2023/eb_23-12
47 Marisa Wright, How Student Loan Forgiveness Can Help Close the Racial Wealth Gap and Advance Economic Justice, Legal Def. Fund (Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.naacpldf.org/student-loans-racial-wealth-gap/.
48 Jalil B. Mustaffa & Janathan C.W. Davis, Jim Crow Debt: How Black Borrowers Experience Student Loans (The Educ. Trust, Oct. 20 2021), https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Jim-Crow-Debt_How-Black-Borrowers-Experience-Student-Loans_October-2021.pdf.
49 Id.
50 Marshall Steinbaum, The Student Debt Crisis is a Crisis of Non-Repayment, Phenomenal World (Nov. 18, 2020), https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/crisis-of-non-repayment/; id.
51 Wright, supra note 48.
52 Andre M. Perry et al., Student Loans, the Racial Wealth Divide, and Why We Need Full Student Debt Cancellation, Brookings (June 23, 2021), https://www.brookings.edu/research/student-loans-the-racial-wealth-divide-and-why-we-need-full-student-debt-cancellation/.
53 Sarah Schwartz, Map: Where Critical Race Theory is Under Attack, Ed. Week (June 11, 2021), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06 (last updated Aug. 28, 2024); Map, CRT Forward, https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu/map/;
Jakiyah Bradley, Whose History? How Textbooks Can Erase the Truth and Legacy of Racism, Thurgood Marshall Inst. Ed. Equity No.7 (Feb. 16, 2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4707885.
54 Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, Trump White House Archives (Sept. 22, 2020), https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/.
55 The President’s Advisory 1776 Comm’n, The 1776 Report (Jan. 2021), https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf.
56 Project 2025, supra note 2, at 342-346.
57 Id. at 342-343.
58 Christine E. Sleeter & Miguel Zavala, What the Research Says About Ethnic Studies at 8, 17, in Transformative Ethnic Studies in Schools: Curriculum Pedagogy, and Research (Teachers Coll. Press, 2020), https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/What%20the%20Research%20Says%20About%20Ethnic%20Studies.pdf.
59 Thomas Dee & Emily Penner, The Causal Effects of Cultural Relevance: Evidence from an Ethnic Studies Curriculum, 54 Am. Educ. Rsch. J. (CEPA Working Paper No.16-01, 2016), https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/causal-effects-cultural-relevance-evidence-ethnicstudies-curriculum;
Sleeter, supra note 59.
60 Dee & Penner, supra note 60.
61 J. Sullivan et al., Adults Delay Conversations About Race Because They Underestimate Children’s Processing of Race, 150 J. of Experimental Psych. 385, https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-xge0000851.pdf.
62 Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, in Jason Stanley, Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future (Atria/One Signal Publishers, Sept.10, 2024).
