[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-602328-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-602328-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","the-discursive-tactics-of-perpetuating-white-normativity-in-public-education-a-critical-policy-discourse-analysis-of-anti-crt-policies-across-18-states-602328","The Discursive Tactics of Perpetuating White Normativity in Public Education - A Critical Policy Discourse Analysis of Anti-CRT Policies Across 18 States","","State policies banning “divisive concepts” have expanded as a coordinated strategy to weaken racial justice by casting critical race discussions as “indoctrination” and restricting curriculum and pedagogy. Using critical policy discourse analysis grounded in critical whiteness studies, the paper analyzes how 22 policy documents from 18 states shape race-related discourse in public education. Findings identify three discursive maneuvers that manipulate public perception and preempt dialogue about systemic racism.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-discursive-tactics-of-perpetuating-white-normativity-in-public-education-a-critical-policy-discourse-analysis-of-anti-crt-policies-across-18-states-602328/602328/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-discursive-tactics-of-perpetuating-white-normativity-in-public-education-a-critical-policy-discourse-analysis-of-anti-crt-policies-across-18-states-602328/602328.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"dawugda","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the central focus of the paper?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The paper examines how anti-CRT policies operate discursively to shape the boundaries of race-related discourse in public education across 18 states.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the study analyze the policy documents?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It uses critical policy discourse analysis informed by critical study of whiteness to examine how language functions to maintain racial hierarchies.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What three discursive maneuvers do the findings identify?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"They include constructing false equivalencies equating white discomfort with racial oppression, appealing to “universal” values to obscure systemic inequities, and controlling definitional boundaries to determine what qualifies as racism and racial harm.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},602328,1792122302,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},3985747870947,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","education policy analysis archives  \nA peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal  \nArizona State University  \n\n| Volume 33 Number 62 | September 30 , 2025 | ISSN 1068-2341 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n\nThe Discursive Tactics of Perpetuating White Normativity in Public Education: A Critical Policy Discourse Analysis of Anti-CRT Policies Across 18 States  \nAlison Wilson  \nUniversity of Houston  \nAlissa Blair  \nJason L. Endacott  \nChristopher Giller  \n&  \nChristian Z. Goering  \nUniversity of Arkansas  \nUnited States  \nCitation: Wilson, A., Blair, A., Endacott, J. L., Giller, C., & Goering, C. Z. (2025) . The discursive tactics of perpetuating white normativity in public education: A critical policy discourse analysis of anti-CRT policies across 18 states. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 33(62) .  \n[https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.9181](https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.9181)  \nAbstract: In recent years, state policies banning “divisive concepts” have proliferated as part of a coordinated effort to undermine racial justice by framing critical discussions of race as“indoctrination” and imposing ideological restrictions on curriculum and pedagogy. Using critical policy discourse analysis informed by a critical study of whiteness, this paper examineshow 22 policy documents from 18 states operate discursively to shape the parameters of race-  \nrelated discourse in public education. Our findings suggest that these policies employ three primary discursive maneuvers: (1) constructing false equivalencies that equate white discomfort with racial oppression, (2) appealing to “universal” values to obscure systemic inequities, and (3) controlling definitional boundaries to determine what qualifies as racism and racial harm. These discursive maneuvers not only shape public perception and discourse but also work to preemptively silence conversations related to systemic racism in schools. This study underscores the importance of examining policy as discourse, revealing how language itself operates as a mechanism for maintaining racial hierarchies while presenting itself as neutral. These tactics extend beyond K–12 education, shaping rhetoric and policy in higher education and other public institutions.  \nKeywords: critical policy discourse analysis; divisive concepts; educational policy; critical whiteness studies; critical race theory  \nLas tácticas discursivas de perpetuar la normatividad blanca en la educación pública: Un análisis crítico del discurso de políticas anti-CRT en 18 estados  \nResumen: En los últimos años, las políticas estatales que prohíben los “conceptos divisivos”se han multiplicado como parte de un esfuerzo coordinado por socavar la justicia racial, enmarcando las discusiones críticas sobre raza como “adoctrinamiento” e imponiendo restricciones ideológicas al currículo y la pedagogía. Utilizando el análisis crítico del discursode políticas, informado por los estudios críticos de la blancura, este artículo examina cómo 22 documentos de política de 18 estados operan discursivamente para moldear los parámetros del discurso relacionado con la raza en la educación pública. Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que estas políticas emplean tres maniobras discursivas principales: (1) construir falsas equivalencias que equiparan la incomodidad blanca con la opresión racial; (2) apelar a valores “universales” para oscurecer las inequidades sistémicas; y (3) controlar los límites definicionales para determinar qué califica como racismo y daño racial. Estas maniobras discursivas no solo configuran la percepción y el discurso público, sino que también trabajan para silenciar preventivamente las conversaciones relacionadas con el racismo sistémico en las escuelas. Este estudio subraya la importancia de examinar la política como discurso, revelando cómo el lenguaje mismo opera como un mecanismo para mantener jerarquías raciales mientras se presenta como neutral. Estas tácticas se extienden más allá de la educación básica (K–12), mold","cbCaibqjLCAqaLmn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibqjLCAqaLmn","pdf",579115,35,"English","# Abstract\n# Findings and discursive maneuvers\n## Constructing false equivalencies\n## Appealing to “universal” values\n## Controlling definitional boundaries\n# Implications for public education and beyond","[{\"question\":\"What is the central focus of the paper?\",\"answer\":\"The paper examines how anti-CRT policies operate discursively to shape the boundaries of race-related discourse in public education across 18 states.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the study analyze the policy documents?\",\"answer\":\"It uses critical policy discourse analysis informed by critical study of whiteness to examine how language functions to maintain racial hierarchies.\"},{\"question\":\"What three discursive maneuvers do the findings identify?\",\"answer\":\"They include constructing false equivalencies equating white discomfort with racial oppression, appealing to “universal” values to obscure systemic inequities, and controlling definitional boundaries to determine what qualifies as racism and racial harm.\"}]","The Discursive Tactics of Perpetuating White Normativity in Public Education - A Critical Policy Discourse Analysis of Anti-CRT Policies Across 18 States | PDF",1792094483,88]