"You ready for the fun to start?" one woman joked to her neighbor as people filed in and took their seats.
In school districts across the country, meetings about race and gender issues have devolved into chaos, with personal attacks, shouting matches and, in some cases, belligerent parents being removed by security.
Thankfully, none of that happened last Monday.
About 30 people spoke. The discussion was heated and emotional, but for the most part, commenters were cordial to each other. After two years of fiery debate over masks and vaccines, many expressed a sense of preemptive exhaustion about plunging the schools into yet another culture war.
The first proposal, concerning "Civics Education," would restrict district employees from teaching about critical race theory and ensure curricula are designed "without mandated politicization in the classroom." It would also prohibit the discussion of topics covered in the New York Times' 1619 Project, including "How to Be an Antiracist" and "Caste."
The proposal would prevent educators from asserting ideas such as:
- The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist
- An individual should feel guilt, anguish or other psychological distress because of their race or sex
- An individual, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive
- An individual, by virtue of their race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex
The vast majority of public commenters spoke against the two proposals. Many compared them to censorship and said they would harm teachers and students with marginalized identities.
"Much of this proposal is an attempt to suppress student voice, " said Alison Thompson, a teacher at Mount Spokane High School, to the board. "It demonstrates a lack of empathy for the human experience of figuring out where we are and where we fit."
The two proposals were introduced by School Board Director Michael Cannon, who tells the Inlander later in the week that he was surprised to see them stir such a response.
"I know that we have widespread support within our district, because I've talked to parents about this for months," Cannon says. "And then to see such a strong opposition, in many ways from an activist community outside of our district, that surprised me. I wasn't expecting that much controversy."
Cannon acknowledged that some of the people who spoke did come from within the district, but overall, he claims the comments weren't indicative of how the district feels. He cites conversations he's had with parents in recent months. Many of them watched critical race theory become a hot-button issue in other parts of the country, and are concerned about it being taught in Mead, he says.
IS CRITICAL RACE THEORY BEING TAUGHT IN MEAD SCHOOLS?
Nope.
Critical race theory — as an academic framework — is generally not taught in K-12 schools.
During the meeting, Troy Hughes, a principal at Northwood Middle School, said that while Mead schools do teach kids about racism, critical race theory has never been taught.
"It is intellectually lazy and uneducated to throw a CRT blanket over any conversation that has to do with race or might make us uncomfortable," Hughes said.
But when conservatives use the term critical race theory, they're generally not talking about the university level academic framework — they're often using the term in a broader sense to refer to concepts like "equity" and "social justice," which are sometimes taught in K-12 schools.
But it's hard to overcome that semantic gulf without concrete curriculum examples, which last week's meeting was largely free of.
One women asserted that her child had been taught critical race theory. She cited an incident where her child was made to read Howard Zinn in an honors math class. Zinn is a historian and philosopher who, while left-wing and antiracist, is generally not considered a critical race theorist. His most famous work, "A People's History of the United States," aims to tell the story of America from the perspective of marginalized people.
Several other commenters who support the proposals acknowledged that critical race theory isn't being taught in Mead schools, but still voiced concern about progressive, equity-focused curricula about race and gender. One said her children had several experiences that are causing a "disturbing pendulum swing." She referenced an incident where her son was made to read "Being a Man," a 1985 text by Paul Theroux about the stereotypical gender roles thrust on men.
Cannon says most of the concern he's heard from parents has been generalized, and not regarding specific incidents. Cannon says the proposed bans are mostly preventative and not necessarily in response to anything currently happening in schools.
At the same time, Cannon says there have been a few specific cases where the district had to deal with "something that's crossed the line in terms of what students are being exposed to."
Cannon pointed to the woman from Monday's meeting who said her child had been taught Howard Zinn as an example. Asked by the Inlander if he had verified the details of the incident, Cannon said he had more details but would not be sharing them. Cannon declined to go into specifics about any other incidents where students were exposed to something that "crossed the line."
A COPY-PASTE JOB?
Critical race theory exploded into the public consciousness in 2021. Much of its rise can be attributed to conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who led a publicity campaign to brand the topic as the "perfect villain."
"The CRT argument is dog whistle politics at its most insidious," Amy McColm, chair of the Spokane NAACP education committee, said at the school board meeting.
The critical race theory panic dominated conservative media in Spring and Summer of 2021, but Google Trends data shows that search interest has since waned, almost to what it was pre-2021.
With panic seemingly on the decline, some at Monday's meeting questioned why Cannon was choosing this particular moment to introduce a ban.
Cannon says there wasn't any particular reason; He'd been hearing concerns from parents and planning to introduce a policy for a while. The final push was an ad run by the Washington Education Association in support of "Honesty in Education," which referenced the whitewashing of history and said teachers should be trusted to make decisions about classroom curricula.
Cannon says the idea that parents were advocating for removing history from school is "absurd" and that the timing of the ad made his proposals more relevant.

Cannon says he's opposed to critical race theory because he doesn't think Black students should be taught that they are born into oppressive systems, or that White students should be taught that they are born into a class of oppressors.
The text of Cannon's critical race theory proposal is almost identical to Washington House Bill 1807, which was introduced by Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) in January and failed to make it out of committee. The text of that bill was similar to bills introduced in other state legislatures. Cannon says he originally started drafting the proposal himself, but came across Walsh's proposal and decided to copy it, which is not unusual.
Conservative special interest groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network have been involved in drafting legislation and pushing critical race theory bans in other states, but Cannon says his proposals were drafted entirely of his own accord without help or influence from outside organizations.
JUST THE FACTS?
Cannon's civics education proposal requires the teaching of "diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."
Many commenters were concerned about that line.
For example, if you're teaching the history of slavery, does that mean you have to give equal weight to the slave-owner's perspective?
No, Cannon says, slavery is obviously bad.
Cannon says that line is being misinterpreted, and that it just means teachers can't give deference to perspectives like critical race theory. He says he's okay with teaching the true, ugly facts of history, he just doesn't think those facts should be taught with preference to any particular perspective on history. Cannon describes critical race theory as just one of many lenses through which one can view history, and argues that history should not be taught with any lens or perspective. Just the facts.
Cannon's proposal lists several primary documents — like the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists" — that should "take priority over other curriculum and resources." It also says that emphasis should be placed on the "fundamental moral, political, intellectual foundations of the American experiment in self- government and Washington's role in that noble experiment."
Some historians would argue that it's impossible to teach anything without some sort of perspective, and that holding certain primary documents above others is an inherently ideological act. In his influential 1961 book "What is History?" historian Edward Hallett Carr rejects the idea of history as an empirical collection of "facts" and argues that history is an "unending dialogue between the past and present."
Cannon argues that history can be objective, and that teachers should stick to the facts.
"The problem with using lenses is that they're all up for interpretation and debate all the time," Cannon says.
One of the primary documents Cannon's proposal prioritizes is Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." The letter makes reference to "white power structure," "racial injustice" and the shortcomings of the "white moderate" — all ideas that some conservatives would put under the umbrella of critical race theory today. King even echoes the grounding principle of critical race theory when he writes that there are "instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application." (The academic concept of critical race theory was established in the '70s, several years after King's assassination.)
GENDER IDENTITY
The second proposal is an amendment to the district's library policy. It would ban materials that reference "gender identity, gender fluidity, the gender spectrum or gender-neutral ideology in any form" from district libraries.
As many would define it, "gender identity" simply refers to a person's internal conceptualization of their gender. Under that definition, everyone has some sort of gender identity — even kids. Your gender identity influences whether or not you gravitate towards the "Hardy Boys" or the "American Girl Doll" series as a child. Even if they don't explicitly mention the word, both those book series are informed by references to gender identity.
But Cannon says he wasn't trying to use "gender identity" under that definition. He says he just doesn't think its appropriate for elementary-aged kids to be exposed to "gender questioning or the ability to analyze one's own gender and choose whether or not they want to identify as a different gender." Cannon says he is open to revisions if there's a clearer way to phrase the policy.
Cannon says he doesn't have any problem with public libraries stocking those books, he just doesn't think young people should be accessing them in elementary school libraries. As far as he knows, Cannon says there aren't currently any books in Mead elementary school libraries that would violate the proposed policy.
Many speakers said they were concerned about the proposal erasing the identity of LGBTQIA+ children and running afoul of Washington's anti-discrimination laws. About 5 percent of young adults in America identify as transgender or nonbinary, according to data from the Pew Research Center. Does the proposal mean those people aren't allowed to be depicted in library books?
The Inlander asks Cannon if the policy would allow for a book where one of the adult characters is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns. The plot doesn't have anything to do with gender issues — the character just happens to be nonbinary.
Cannon says he'd have to see the book first, and claims there's a "social agenda to target kids with this information."
"What you just mentioned kinda proves my point that there is an activist nature behind all this — that we want to have this kind of stuff in children's books," Cannon says. "Why do we want to have that in children's books? Why at age five and six do we want to introduce children to the idea that your gender is up for discussion?"
But what if the book isn't about gender issues? The character just happens to be nonbinary the way a character might be male or female?
"But how do we know that character is non-binary?" Cannon says. "Are they making a point to prove that they're non-binary and want to highlight that? Or is it just a perception? I mean, that gets to what's the book all about? What is this character trying to do in the book? Why is it important that this character is non-binary?"
What if everyone just refers to them as "they" and it's not otherwise mentioned?
"I think you're grasping at some hypotheticals," Cannon says, "but that doesn't seem like it would be any kind of an issue, like it isn't today."
Overall, Cannon says his proposals have been misunderstood and blown out of proportion.
"The goal certainly is not to eliminate or marginalize anything or anyone," Cannon says.
Last week's meeting was the first reading of the two proposals. Cannon says he expects them to pass, but is open to further discussions and revisions.
Editor's Note: This story was updated Aug. 26, 2022 to correct the misspelling of Amy McColm's name.