Brian Lozenski, a Macalester College professor and advocate of Critical Race Theory, faces backlash over past remarks calling for the U.S. to be “overthrown.” His appointment to Minnesota’s Department of Education by Governor Tim Walz, now a vice-presidential nominee, has sparked national controversy, raising questions about education policy and CRT’s role in schools.
Table of contents:
A Critical Appointment Under Fire
In a development that has ignited a nationwide controversy, Brian Lozenski, an associate professor at Macalester College and appointee to the Minnesota State Department of Education, has come under scrutiny for remarks calling for the United States to be “overthrown” and “deconstructed.” This revelation, tied to a video from 2022, has raised serious questions about Governor Tim Walz’s decision to place Lozenski in a key role shaping Minnesota’s ethnic studies framework. Walz, now the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, is facing backlash as the issue threatens to impact the ongoing presidential campaign.
Who Is Brian Lozenski?
Brian Lozenski, Ph.D., is an associate professor of urban and multicultural education at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. Known for his advocacy of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and liberated ethnic studies, Lozenski has affiliations with organizations such as the Education for Liberation Network and the Twin Cities Solidarity Committee. His work focuses on racial justice in education and has significantly influenced Minnesota’s education policies.
Lozenski’s controversial remarks surfaced in a panel discussion posted to YouTube in June 2022, where he described the U.S. as “irreversibly racist” and advocated for its deconstruction. While the video has since been removed, its contents have been widely circulated, sparking bipartisan outrage.
The Controversial Statements
In the video, Lozenski outlined his interpretation of Critical Race Theory, stating:
“The first tenet of critical race theory is that the United States, as constructed, is irreversibly racist. So, if the nation-state, as constructed, is irreversibly racist, then it must be done with. It must be overthrown.”
He continued to describe CRT as “insurgent” and “anti-state,” criticizing supporters who frame it as simply about diversity or storytelling. According to Lozenski, CRT is inherently revolutionary, aiming to dismantle systems of oppression embedded in the American structure.
The Political Implications
The controversy surrounding Lozenski has cast a shadow on Governor Walz’s vice-presidential campaign. Critics argue that Walz’s reliance on political activists like Lozenski to shape Minnesota’s education agenda reflects poorly on his judgment. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted concerns over the radical nature of Minnesota’s ethnic studies standards, which Lozenski helped design.
Conservatives, including Indiana Republican Rep. Jim Banks, have called for investigations into Lozenski’s appointment and its implications for Minnesota’s education system. Banks labeled Lozenski’s views as a call for “insurrection” and argued that such ideas should disqualify him from influencing public education.
Minnesota’s Ethnic Studies Framework: A Closer Look
Under Walz’s leadership, Minnesota became one of the first states to mandate ethnic studies in K–12 education. The framework, heavily influenced by Lozenski, incorporates radical concepts such as racial capitalism and fugitivity.
What Is Racial Capitalism?
- Coined by Cedric Robinson, racial capitalism argues that capitalism inherently produces racial inequality.
- In Lozenski’s view, teaching this concept in schools exposes systemic racism while challenging students to consider alternative economic systems.
Understanding Fugitivity
- Lozenski defines fugitivity as breaking rules to pursue justice within an unjust system. He links it to historical acts of resistance, such as slaves defying laws to educate themselves.
- In education, fugitivity encourages teachers to deviate from state-mandated curricula, particularly laws restricting CRT.
Critics argue these concepts promote anti-American sentiments and undermine respect for the law, further fueling the controversy surrounding Lozenski’s role.
The National Impact
The debate over Lozenski’s appointment has transcended Minnesota, becoming a flashpoint in the broader conversation about Critical Race Theory and “woke” education policies. Conservatives have long criticized CRT as divisive and un-American, while supporters argue it’s a necessary framework to address systemic inequalities.
As the Harris-Walz ticket campaigns across swing states, the Lozenski controversy could impact their ability to appeal to moderate and independent voters. A pro-Trump ad currently running in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin highlights Lozenski’s remarks, framing them as emblematic of the Democratic Party’s education agenda.
Potential Fallout
- Public trust: The controversy raises concerns about transparency and accountability in education policy.
- Campaign risks: The issue may damage Walz’s credibility as an education expert, undermining Harris’s ticket.
- Policy implications: The debate underscores the need for clarity and consensus on the role of CRT in public education.
What’s Next?
With the ethnic studies implementation framework due on October 31, the Minnesota Department of Education faces mounting pressure to release the document for public review. The lack of transparency has only fueled speculation about the radical nature of the standards, making the upcoming release a critical moment for the Walz administration.
In the meantime, the controversy surrounding Lozenski continues to dominate headlines, with both sides of the political spectrum using it to galvanize their base. As the election approaches, the issue serves as a stark reminder of the challenges and complexities of addressing systemic racism within the framework of public education.
The Brian Lozenski controversy highlights the growing tensions over education policy in America. While some view his appointment as a step toward greater equity, others see it as a dangerous experiment in radical ideology. As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the future of Minnesota’s education system — and perhaps the nation’s — hangs in the balance.
