Legislating Whiteness: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Policymaker Rhetoric

• In Event: Unforgetting in an Era of Erasure: Resisting Anti-Justice Attacks and Envisioning Futures for Higher Education

Abstract

Recent scholarship on anti–Critical Race Theory (anti-CRT) legislation shows that these policymaking efforts are fueled by racialized emotions—white resentment, fear, and defensiveness (Mutua, 2023; Pollock et al., 2022; Palomar et al., 2022; Tichavakunda, 2023; Vue et al., 2024). Such emotions shape the discursive strategies policymakers employ to frame CRT as divisive and to delegitimize broader social justice efforts in higher education. Faculty often bear the brunt of these attacks, facing constraints on how they teach histories of race and racism and navigating fear-driven environments where discussing such topics risks censure or punishment (Briscoe & Jones, 2024; Jayakumar, 2022; López et al., 2021; Ward, 2022). Understanding how CRT is vilified in state policy discourse is critical, as these legislative bans are frequently intertwined with efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across college campuses. By conflating CRT with DEI, opponents have shifted from targeting curriculum control to undermining equity-based practices more broadly in higher education, escalating an ongoing ideological battle.
This study uses a sociocognitive critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach (van Dijk, 2016) to examine 66 anti-CRT legislative documents across 42 states. We identify how policymakers’ language reflects and reinforces racist ideologies, particularly whiteness, conceptualized as both a property interest and a mechanism of dominance that protects those with racial and legal privilege (Gillborn, 2014; Harris, 1993). Our findings reveal three key patterns: (1) appeals to emotion as a means of protecting whiteness; (2) a preference for race-neutral norms over race-conscious approaches; and (3) the use of dominant norms to frame curricular benefits as the rightful domain of white individuals.
In today’s political climate—marked by resistance to CRT, DEI, and LGBTQIA+ inclusion—these findings underscore how policymakers deploy discourse as a tool of racial domination. They also highlight the urgent need for higher education leaders to resist external pressures and safeguard core academic values, including academic freedom and epistemological diversity.

Authors

• Veronica Adele Jones, University of North Texas

• Kaleb L. Briscoe, University of Oklahoma