Page 1 of 1

A Teacher’s Guide to the

Montana Attorney General’s Opinion on Critical Race Theory and Indian Education for All

1. Is it legal to teach curriculum that explores racism, discrimination, and colonialism?

Yes. Montana’s state social studies standards require that students be able to accomplish the following, all of which will

entail studying and understanding the history of racism, discrimination, and colonialism:

• “Analyze perspectives of American Indians in US history” (SS.H.9-12.10);

• “Identify ways in which people and groups exercise agency in difficult historical, contemporary, and tribal contexts”

(SS.H.9-12.3);

• “Evaluate citizens’ and institutions’ effectiveness in ensuring civil rights at the local, state, tribal, national, and

international levels” (SS.CG.9-12.12); and

• “Analyze how, since European contact, historical events and policies have mutually impacted American Indian and

European societies.” (SS.H.6-8.3)

2. Can educators continue to teach the Seven Essential Understandings Regarding Montana Indians using curriculum

from OPI, the Montana Historical Society, or other state agencies?

Yes. The Seven Essential Understandings Regarding Montana Indians are integrated throughout the Montana

Accreditation and Content Standards that guide instruction for all schools. Educators have a constitutional and legal

obligation to implement Indian Education for All in a culturally responsive manner.

3. Is it legal to teach Critical Race Theory?

Yes, although generally Critical Race Theory—the study of how views on race have shaped public policy and the legal

system—is only taught in college level classes. The Attorney General’s opinion states that “There are legitimate

pedagogical uses for elements of the CRT/antiracism curricula that do not violate state or federal laws.... This opinion,

therefore, should not be construed to limit a school or government entity’s ability to use, present, or discuss these

materials, where appropriate.” (Knudsen, p. 19)

4. Is it legal to teach the 1619 Project or any other curriculum relating to the history of slavery?

Yes. While calling the 1619 curriculum “inadvisable,” the Attorney General specifically states that it is “protected by the

First Amendment and it is reserved for policymakers to decide if it belongs in classrooms.” (Knudsen, p. 22)

5. Are academic freedom and student political speech still protected?

Yes. “Nothing in this opinion shall be construed to restrict any expressive activities protected under the U.S.

Constitution, including academic freedom or student political speech.” (Knudsen, pp. 22-23). Student political speech

should take place in accordance with any relevant district or school policies.

6. What practices or activities are prohibited under the Attorney General’s opinion?

The opinion lists discriminatory practices that are illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Montana Human

Rights Act. Schools and educators may not “classify students or other Montanans by race,” “treat individuals differently

on the basis of race,” “create a hostile environment,” or “engage in racial stereotyping” or “racial scapegoating.” “The

law will not tolerate schools, other government entities, or employers implementing ... programming in a way that treats

individuals differently on the basis of race or that creates a hostile environment.” (Knudsen, pp. 18-19) In general, it is

O.K. to teach about racism, discrimination, and other topics so long as no adverse or discriminatory actions are taken

against any students as a part of the lesson, curricula, or learning activity.

Created by the Montana Historical Society. All quotations are from Montana Attorney General’s Opinion 1, Vol. 58, Op. 1

May 27, 2021. This document should not be construed as legal advice, and Montana teachers are encouraged to read

the AG’s opinion in its entirety.