Last week, Florida rejected over 40% of math textbooks submitted for review, citing their incompatibility with state standards and the inclusion of “prohibited topics,” such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). In fact, nearly 75% of elementary school math submissions were disqualified for these reasons. While Florida has every right to establish and enforce its own educational standards, this decision has sparked heated debates over the alleged ideological underpinnings of SEL.
The Rise of Chris Rufo’s Influence
The controversy has also propelled Chris Rufo, a prominent conservative activist, into the spotlight. The New York Times described him as a key figure who has transformed CRT into a rallying cry for the political right, labeling him an “agitator of intolerance.” Beyond CRT, Rufo has drawn connections between SEL and what he describes as a broader ideological agenda, stating in a March interview that SEL may appear “positive and uncontroversial” but ultimately acts as “a delivery mechanism for radical pedagogies such as critical race theory and gender deconstructionism.”
According to Rufo, SEL’s goal is to manipulate children emotionally, reinterpret traditional behaviors as “repression,” “whiteness,” or “internalized racism,” and rewire their thinking to align with progressive ideology.
Separating SEL from CRT
It’s important to address this claim head-on: Social and Emotional Learning is not a disguised form of CRT, nor is it a Trojan horse for introducing radical ideologies into schools. The idea that SEL is covertly designed to indoctrinate students is not supported by evidence. Rather than assigning nefarious motives to its advocates, critics should evaluate SEL on its own merits and challenges.
SEL is intended to help students develop skills such as emotional regulation, empathy, and effective communication—qualities that are universally beneficial. While it’s true that some applications of SEL have strayed into ideologically charged territory, this is not inherent to the concept itself. Critics would be better served by engaging with the actual content of SEL programs rather than conflating them with unrelated frameworks like CRT.
A Balanced Critique of SEL
SEL, like any educational initiative, deserves scrutiny and critique. Some concerns, such as its tendency to overreach or its implementation as a one-size-fits-all solution, are legitimate. It is also fair to question whether SEL programs always respect the diverse values and priorities of parents and communities. These are worthwhile discussions that do not require invoking conspiracy theories or suggesting hidden agendas.
Chris Rufo has been instrumental in holding the education system accountable and challenging initiatives that appear disconnected from the concerns of parents and local communities. His advocacy has highlighted issues within an education establishment that often operates with little regard for public input. However, the attempt to link SEL with CRT undermines the credibility of these efforts and distracts from more substantive critiques.
Social and Emotional Learning is not a subversive vehicle for CRT or radical ideology. While it is essential to remain vigilant about the content and implementation of SEL programs, critics should avoid unnecessary conflation and focus on addressing specific concerns based on facts. By doing so, we can ensure that our education system remains transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of all students and their families.