The unintended consequences of using crisis discourse in school board deliberation to ban Critical Race Theory

This study examines how a Southern California school board employed crisis rhetoric to justify banning Critical Race Theory despite lacking a clear understanding of CRT’s content or implementation. Through discourse analysis of three board meetings, we found that while crisis framing initially mobilized support for a hardline anti-CRT resolution, it ultimately backfired when board members couldn’t define CRT or address enforcement challenges. Legal counsel’s interventions exposed contradictions in the crisis narrative, forcing the board to abandon their specific CRT definition and pass a watered-down resolution resembling standard nondiscrimination policy. The findings demonstrate how crisis discourse can undermine its own objectives when subjected to institutional scrutiny.