Letters to the Editor: Jan. 29

One of the arguments against Critical Race Theory — or, for that matter, the mention in schools of any of the less than admirable aspects of American history — is that present-day students who played no part in past events might nevertheless be made to feel guilty for them. They might be persuaded that white Americans in general are guilty of racism, and therefore they should feel guilty as well. Can a person really be forced, or tricked, into feeling guilty against their will? Let’s examine that possibility.

What exactly is guilt and were does it come from? Stop and think for a moment: When you realize that you have done something which you wish you hadn’t, do you ask yourself “Should I feel guilty or not?” Do you weigh the evidence, and make the best possible choice between feeling guilty or refusing to? And if you conclude that guilt is warranted, do you consciously inflict it upon yourself? Of course not. Guilt isn’t something that comes about as a result of a conscious choice, no, it is something which our subconscious minds force upon us whether we like it or not. The software in our brains — operating without our conscious knowledge — determines that some punishment is needed to motivate us not to make an old mistake again, and that punishment is guilt. There’s no guarantee that the subconscious mind has drawn the correct conclusions, but that’s basically how guilt works.

I would argue that no one can be made to feel guilty against their will, because it is their own will—their subconscious will—that desires guilt. Nobody is forcing you to feel guilty, no, you subconsciously want to feel that way. Nobody else wrote your mental software. The problem is that your conscious mind didn’t really write your subconscious software either, so it can seem like something beyond control — or something that is being controlled by others. But we don’t become guilty in order to placate critics; we do it in a subconscious attempt to force ourselves to change, because we have become convinced that change is badly needed. Whether guilt works very well is debatable; the fact that we try so hard to avoid it suggests that it doesn’t. But don’t worry: If you don’t already feel you have done anything seriously wrong, you cannot be forced by someone else to feel guilty.

- Ron Rodenburg, Centerville

Teaching can be defined as “the engagement with learners to enable their understanding and application of knowledge, concepts and processes.” Public schools were founded to build competent citizens. Ohio House Bills 322 and 327 will hamper educators’ ability to develop citizens with an understanding and ability to apply knowledge, concepts, and processes to complex issues like race, slavery and sex. HB 322 and HB 327 are ill-conceived. There is no justification for either bill. These bills are legislation for a problem that does not exist. It appears the purpose of these two bills is to create distrust in our public schools and alarm parents. Both bills imply, with no supporting evidence, that CRT (a graduate level law theory) is being taught in our public schools. The legislation being proposed is open-ended and ambiguous. These bills do not take into account that curriculum taught in our public schools is determined by the Ohio State Board of Education for all subjects and all grade levels. Each school district is required to teach what is in the state adopted curriculum for each subject at each grade level. How it is taught and the materials used to teach the curriculum are determined by each school district and their teachers. Critical Race Theory is not in the Ohio State Education Curriculum. These bills do not recognize that school districts annually give parents lists of required reading for grade levels or that public schools are accountable to the public. Parents have always had and still have options to have their child not participate in an area of study. Making laws which state that divisive issues can not be taught creates a nightmare for educators and chaos in communities. What constitutes a divisive issue is divisive. These laws falsely assume that educators indoctrinate students. The role of a teacher is a facilitator. Teachers provide facts and create a safe environment that encourages student discussion and exploration. The goal is for students to become critical thinkers. How can a student become a critical thinker if they are restricted from learning facts and exploring issues? How will future citizens become competent, well-rounded productive members of society when certain complex issues have been restricted? Support a “no” vote on HB 322 and HB 327. A “no” vote on these two bills is a vote to protect the ability of our public schools to educate students.

- Andrea Bauer, Beavercreek

The guest column “We must not give up the fight to protect everyone’s right to vote” by LaTonia McCane and Dr. Edmund Moore was unbelievable. I can’t believe that anybody would want anyone to vote that can’t show proof of residence. I don’t think Martin Luther King would want an election where nobody is held accountable for the integrity of the vote. It’s a shame that this voting bill is all about cheating and not integrity. Democrats want you to show a drivers license, federal or state ID and vaccination card to eat in some cities, to fly domestic or to buy over-the-counter medicine, tobacco or alcohol. But to vote? No ID required.

- Chris Hill, Montgomery County