Parenting & Family Quote by Marjorie Taylor Greene

A tidy moral syllogism, delivered with the blunt force of a slogan: if racism is treating people differently because of skin color, then any curriculum that foregrounds race can be framed as racist. Greene’s line works because it borrows the language of anti-racism while rerouting it toward an older, more politically convenient ideal: colorblindness as innocence.

The specific intent is less about child psychology than about delegitimizing how schools discuss history and power. By centering “children” twice, she positions the debate on the safest possible terrain, where motives can be presumed pure and disagreement can be cast as cruelty. “Teach” is the loaded verb here: it implies indoctrination, not inquiry. The result is a preemptive strike against lessons on structural racism, implicit bias, or uneven outcomes; if noticing difference is itself the sin, then naming inequity becomes suspect by definition.

The subtext is a demand for one-way neutrality: institutions should act as though race doesn’t matter, even when lived experience and historical record say otherwise. That move collapses the distinction between discrimination (unequal treatment that harms) and analysis (discussing how unequal treatment happens). It also reframes accountability as aggression: efforts to explain privilege can be recast as “treating other children differently.”

Context matters. Greene’s brand of politics thrives on turning cultural debates into litmus tests, especially around education, “CRT,” and parental rights. The line is engineered for viral clarity and plausible deniability: who wants to be pro-racism? Its power is rhetorical, not empirical, because it invites agreement on a definition while quietly narrowing what society is allowed to examine.