The Placentia-Yorba Linda School Board was well into a study session Wednesday night, fine tuning a proposed resolution to ban the teaching of critical race theory and some elements of America’s racial history in district schools, when the board’s attorney asked a question:

“What’s the overall intent of the resolution?”

Specifically, the attorney, Todd Robbins, wanted to know what would happen if a parent or student complained that a teacher had contradicted the principles in the proposed resolution by speaking of a banned topic, such as systemic racism.

Trustee Marilyn Anderson replied: “That’s a question for HR.”

Trustee Shawn Youngblood suggested: “It’ll have to go through the administration.”

But Robbins insisted that the board should think about that process before putting it on the district.

“It’s a critical question for the board to consider.”

Robbins went on to suggest that the proposed resolution — with six items that constitute what some on the board view as critical race theory — was vague and could be found to be unconstitutional if challenged in court. Robbins also noted that the proposal was not in line with the definition of critical race theory that’s offered in the state’s Ethnic Studies Model curriculum.

“The board,” he said, “would be out on a limb with its definition.”

Board members agreed to make changes and dropped their six bullet points. But three of the five trustees also said they want to move ahead next month with the revised resolution that, if enacted, would ban the teaching of some elements of American racial history that they deem to be critical race theory. Trustees also indicated they might consider, at attorney Robbins’ urging, creating a new policy similar to what other districts have to address controversial issues in the classroom.

Technically, critical race theory — or “CRT” — is a college-level area of study, typically associated with law school courses, that looks at how racism is embedded in American institutions and systems and woven into laws and public policies. Supporters say it’s important to look at the role of race and racism in society, but most say the graduate-level concepts are not taught in K-12 schools.

In recent years, the once obscure phrase has gained currency with many parents and others who now use critical race theory as a stand-in for the teaching of American racial history and current race relations in ways that portray White Americans in a negative light.

Critics insist that their version of CRT is being taught in K-12 schools and has created divisiveness, leading some White students to think of themselves as oppressors and some minority students as oppressed. Over the past year, a number of state Legislatures have banned it.

In the Placentia-Yorba Linda school district, where discussion of a ban first surfaced last fall, the topic brought about 100 community members to the March 23 study session.  As with earlier Placentia-Yorba Linda school meetings, when face masks or vaccine mandates came up, some community members wore green to signify that they are against the resolution and others wore red to signify their support.

At the beginning of the session, 41 speakers addressed the board, most detailing why they oppose the proposed resolution.

“This resolution doesn’t define critical race theory correctly. This resolution bans an irrelevant, nonsensical political boogeyman. And it does so at our children’s expense,” said parent Josh Schroeder.

Others suggested a ban on teaching about the full scope of racial history in America is an aggressive act.

“If my kids are old enough to experience racism, then your kids are old enough to learn about it,” said Brooke Harper, a Black mother of two elementary-aged children in the district.

“Banning the teaching of systemic racism is actually a perfect example of systemic racism.”

Several students told the board that they fear the resolution will lead to censorship in the classroom and the potential loss of their Advance Placement courses, which in turn would affect their grades, college applications and future college course credits. The College Board, which runs the AP program, stated earlier this month that it will remove AP designations from classes that do away with some required topics. (A College Board spokesman did not answer questions this week on whether the district’s resolution could lead to the stripping away of any  AP course designation.)

RELATED: Effort to ban critical race theory could jeopardize AP classes in Placentia-Yorba Linda schools

“The gravity of this ban will hurt grade point averages and academic performance,” said Magdalena Aparicio, a junior at Yorba Linda High.

“I am scared of a domino effect of censorship; of my people’s historical struggle to be erased. I am scared I won’t be as safe on campus with a ban,” she added.

An early draft of the board’s proposed resolution outlined six teaching concepts to be banned, including “any theory or framework that espouses or teaches that the United States is fundamentally or systemically racist.” Other teaching concepts to be banned included the idea that “a person’s race determines their moral character and makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race…” and that “meritocracy or traits such as a work ethic or devotion to duty and obligations are inherently racist.”

Trustees Carrie Buck and Karin Freeman questioned where the language came from.

“I have never seen anywhere in CRT where it says or even alluded to where a person’s race determines their moral character,” Buck said.

Anderson, a trustee who introduced a number of suggestions Wednesday and helped craft the resolution, said it came from a number of sources, including, she said, the Smithsonian Museum.

But a look at former President Donald Trump’s executive order from September 2020 on “combating race and sex stereotyping” finds similar language to the board’s definition of CRT.  In his order, Trump describes “divisive concepts” to include that “the United States is fundamentally racist”; “an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race”; “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist…” Trump’s order was rescinded by the Biden administration.

The board’s original resolution also included language that would ban any teaching that suggests “Our race is inherently or intentionally racist and/or responsible for the stereotyping, scapegoating, and/or oppression of another race, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

Use of the term “our race” sparked some debate when the language became public earlier this week, with many people noting it suggested a White viewpoint. Trustee Anderson said the word was a typo and that it should have been “One race.”

But Trustee Shawn Youngblood questioned why it would be “one race.”

“Is there any other race we’ve been talking about other than the White race?” Youngblood asked.

After some discussion, the board eventually agreed on language to ban the teaching that “one’s race is inherently or intentionally racist.” 

Anderson is viewed by many as the board’s potential swing vote, with Blades and Youngblood favoring the resolution and Buck and Freeman against it. But throughout the meeting, Anderson demonstrated support for the document as she presented suggested changes.

“Racism is a human issue. It’s not an American issue,” she said.

When and how and if racism could be taught in classes was discussed repeatedly.

Blades, like others who support the resolution, said she doesn’t want to see teachers use their post to “stand there and say that whole White race (is) racist.

“If you have a teacher who says there’s a White supremacist in the White House or ‘check your White privilege at the door’… that’s racist conduct,” she said.

Freeman said the resolution is unclear on what would be allowed, or not allowed, and would make it difficult for teachers to answer questions and engage with students on a number of topics.

Robbins offered input as the district’s attorney and as a former high school history teacher. He asked how a history teacher, for example, would discuss the “three-fifths compromise” from 1787, when Black slaves in the United States were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining the number of state legislative seats, without violating the board’s proposed resolution.

Robbins again asked the board to clarify its intent. Earlier, he stated his concern is about “laws that are vague,” noting that the U.S. Supreme Court previously has found vague legislation “unconstitutional on 14th amendment due process grounds.”

There was also some confusion when Anderson said she wanted to introduce into the resolution the definition of critical race theory as defined by the California Ethnic Studies model curriculum.

Robbins said that was “more of the definition of critical race theory that I’m familiar with.”

In the end, the board scrapped its original six bullet points and added the state’s definition of CRT – listing the state’s definition as an item to be banned from being taught in district schools.

In the view of parent Priya Shah, an adjunct professor at Cal State Fullerton who has taught CRT concepts, the proposed resolution went from bad to worse.

“Everything in that definition is accurate. What they want to ban now is accurate scholarship,” Shah said after the meeting.

“They don’t fully understand what CRT is and isn’t,” she said. Teachers cannot teach about race if the concept of systemic racism is banned, Shah said.

The resolution, as redrawn Wednesday night, comes before the board for a vote on April 5.