Mom in Va. who lived through Cultural Revolution addresses school board regarding Critical Race Theory

[Carrie12345]

17 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

You explicitly subordinated class to race. That's just playing Top Trumps. 

Intersectionality, properly understood, is non-hierarchical. 

 

16 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Bull crap it isn’t.  

Revisiting, because I’m just flabbergasted.

Do you think that my Black mom friends consider themselves to be just as privileged as me?
My Latina mom friends?
My Muslim mom friends?
The ones with the Black husbands driving the same commute as mine? With their 13 and 14yo little boys out playing like mine? With their young girls applying for jobs like mine?
Do you believe they have it as “made” as I do?

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

And yet, consistently elided. 

 

The wheel of privilege that has been referenced many times in this thread explicitly includes class.

[Sneezyone]

Yes, it’s wiki, it’s just a jumping off point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality it is inherently hierarchical as one considers the relative strength or weakness of each position.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Dmmetler]

4 minutes ago, Plum said:

So the kid and the mom made it up? 

Not necessarily, but I’ve heard my own teen take things to an extreme often enough  to know that it was entirely possible that a student making a claim that “white,cisgender, straight men are oppressors” turned into “everyone is out to get me” and “I’m the only oppressor in the class” by the time the kid got home, even if his classmate making the statement did not actually mentally include him in that group. Or that the teacher made a statement to the effect that some of the areas of oppression can be X,Y, and Z, and the kid ticked the boxes mentally and decided that it meant he was an oppressor. If the class was virtual, hopefully there was a recording which can straighten out what was said vs what the student heard. If the teacher did tell the kid that he, individually, was an oppressor due to his skin color, eye color, gender, sexual orientation, etc, and should feel guilt over it, then that was bad teaching. No question. But that does not mean that the class, as described on the website, is an inherently bad class, or that it isn’t an appropriate topic of discussion for high school seniors in a Democracy/Civics focused charter school. 
 

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

Revisiting, because I’m just flabbergasted.

Do you think that my Black mom friends consider themselves to be just as privileged as me?
My Latina mom friends?
My Muslim mom friends?
The ones with the Black husbands driving the same commute as mine? With their 13 and 14yo little boys out playing like mine? With their young girls applying for jobs like mine?
Do you believe they have it as “made” as I do?

Yes, I definitely think that wealth creates a magic racism shield. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

The wheel of privilege that has been referenced many times in this thread explicitly includes class.

Uh huh. 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, I definitely think that wealth creates a magic racism shield. 

 

 

Are you serious right now? 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/i-taught-my-black-kids-that-their-elite-upbringing-would-protect-them-from-discrimination-i-was-wrong/%3foutputType=amp

This man grew up among the black elite and participated in organizations like Jack and Jill (which, full disclosure, my family is also connected to). He famously promoted wealth and respectability politics in his book about the black elite and was, at the time, celebrated by conservatives in the US.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Are you serious right now? 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/i-taught-my-black-kids-that-their-elite-upbringing-would-protect-them-from-discrimination-i-was-wrong/%3foutputType=amp

Of course I'm not serious. Why would you think that? 

[Condessa]

37 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I'm still trying to figure out what is so bad about what they describe on their website? This is the quote, "We stand–unabashedly against racial profiling, police brutality, and any other form of racialized disparity in the criminal justice system. We will continue to engage in these painful but necessary conversations about structural inequity, community empowerment, and racial identity to prepare our scholars to be the next generation of changemakers. "

Which part of that are people against? Are they mad the school teaches that racial profiling is wrong? Do they want their children to be FOR police brutality and are mad the school is against it? What is the problem here? Community empowerment? A knowledge of structural inequality? That kids will discuss those things in the context of racial identity? What?

What was so bad was that they were failing a biracial student and denying him graduation for refusing to publicly outline the oppressor/oppressed elements of his heritage in class.  The school didn't alter their position on this until his mother made a huge public outcry over it.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Of course I'm not serious. Why would you think that? 

Maybe because you also accused me of being unfamiliar with intersectionality when I didn’t find mental health to be the primary challenge among my family members.

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Of course I'm not serious. Why would you think that? 

Because your communication style is difficult to follow with all the contradictions and attempted facetiousness. Or sarcasm. Or whatever that was supposed to be.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Because your communication style is difficult to follow with all the contradictions and attempted facetiousness. Or sarcasm. Or whatever that was supposed to be.

Sarcasm is all outright ad homs deserve. 

 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Sarcasm is all outright ad homs deserve. 

 

The sarcasm, if that’s what it was, came well before.

[Condessa]

36 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

You explicitly subordinated class to race. That's just playing Top Trumps. 

Intersectionality, properly understood, is non-hierarchical. 

Intersectionality, as I have had it explained to me here in the US, is absolutely understood to be hierarchical.  On the hierarchy are a number of categories such as race, class, gender/sexuality, religion, which seem to be accorded different weights, and different levels of "privilege" within each category.  Like the wheel someone demonstrated.  Where a minority group falls depends on the success that minority has achieved as a group overall, more than on historical disadvantages.  Thus Jewish people and Asians are deemed to be barely less privileged than white people.  

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Sarcasm is all outright ad homs deserve. 

 

Ooooooh, you felt attacked by my questions?  

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Maybe because you also accused me of being unfamiliar with intersectionality when I didn’t find mental health to be the primary challenge among my family members.

Look, I know you don't believe in class as oppression. It's you who has said in past conversations that white people who can't make it when they hold all the racial privilege just don't really deserve consideration. 

And that's fine. You don't have to be intersectional around class ( or sex). 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Intersectionality, as I have had it explained to me here in the US, is absolutely understood to be hierarchical.  On the hierarchy are a number of categories such as race, class, gender/sexuality, religion, which seem to be accorded different weights, and different levels of "privilege" within each category.  Like the wheel someone demonstrated.  Where a minority group falls depends on the success that minority has achieved as a group overall, more than on historical disadvantages.  Thus Jewish people and Asians are deemed to be barely less privileged than white people.  

That is insane. 

 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Seriously? 

The family had 5 demands.

1) Expunge his failing grade

2) Allow him to take an alternative course

3) Have the Principal personally deliver the report card to the student

4) Refrain from further "graded identity confession and labeling exercises

5) Declare such exercises are unlawful

 

They linked screenshots in the Nevada Current article. They recorded all of it and are holding onto it. They included socioeconomic class and religion into the lesson. 

 

ETA: It says it's supposed to be private, but it wasn't because he said he had to talk about it with the class. 

Again, if you think the allegations of teens are 100% accurate, well, I don’t know what to tell you. Yes, I’m serious. It’s entirely possible the teen blew the situation way out of proportion and he didn’t need to discuss anything that he was uncomfortable with. At the end of the day, the school is *still* teaching the class, the class is *still* required*, the student *did not* get a hand delivered diploma or public apology, and nothing was declared illegal. We live in a litigious country. All that glitters is not gold.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Look, I know you don't believe in class as oppression. It's you who has said in past conversations that white people who can't make it when they hold all the racial privilege just don't really deserve consideration. 

And that's fine. You don't have to be intersectional around class ( or sex). 

I have never in my life said such a thing but, sure, ok.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Ooooooh, you felt attacked by my questions?  

Do I feel you're piling on ? Yes. Not sure why that's a trick question. Most people do when there's a rapid fire quotation and mis-characterisation of them going on. Normal emotion. Peopl do get defensive in that situation, as I'm sure you do sometimes. 

You do you re personal animus. I can't stop you. I don't think it leads to justice, but I could be wrong. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I have never in my life said such a thing but, sure, ok.

It's an interesting dynamic, isn't it ? I don't remember the conversation you claim, but I accept it happened.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

It's an interesting dynamic, isn't it ? I don't remember the conversation you claim, but I accept it happened.

It was, literally, a month ago and I could quote but it’s not worth it. Carry on.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Who says all of these things are deliberate causes of distress tho. I think the vast majority of teachers have the best of intentions. I’m sure the teachers I had when we discussed Twain thought they were 100% neutral and kind. I still felt EXTREME distress and hate the author to this day. As I said upthread, the one highlight for me is that he, too, is now canceled. It brings me joy.

Wow, I’m really glad you posted this because I thought your previous post was completely sarcastic but now I see that you meant it.

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Do I feel you're piling on ? Yes. Not sure why that's a trick question. Most people do when there's a rapid fire quotation and mis-characterisation of them going on. Normal emotion. Peopl do get defensive in that situation, as I'm sure you do sometimes. 

You do you re personal animus. I can't stop you. I don't think it leads to justice, but I could be wrong. 

 

I’m not entirely sure why my responses to your posts would be considered “piling on”. I’ve re-read them several times now and don’t see where they might be construed as anything other than fair responses to questions and positions.  Nothing that would qualify as ad hominem.  If anything, you accused me of NOT saying the very things I did, which are all still there!

[Condessa]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Again, if you think the allegations of teens are 100% accurate, well, I don’t know what to tell you. Yes, I’m serious. It’s entirely possible the teen blew the situation way out of proportion and he didn’t need to discuss anything that he was uncomfortable with. At the end of the day, the school is *still* teaching the class, the class is *still* required*, the student *did not* get a hand delivered diploma or public apology, and nothing was declared illegal. We live in a litigious country. All that glitters is not gold.

But wouldn't the school have said he was lying?  Wouldn't they have made some public statement that the boy's report of it was incorrect, that the teacher never said that, that his failing grade was received for ____ reason, not what he thought?  

When one party says such-and-such happened, and the other party involved doesn't contradict them, even though it paints them in a bad light, why decide that the teen must be wrong, even though the school didn't disagree with him?  It seems like a real stretch.

Unless the school issued a statement of that kind that I missed.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Wow, I’m really glad you posted this because I thought your previous post was completely sarcastic but now I see that you meant it.

Yep, I totally meant it. I have NEVER been a fan.

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m not entirely sure why my responses to your posts would be considered “piling on”. I’ve re-read them several times now and don’t see where they might be construed as anything other than fair responses to questions and positions.  Nothing that would qualify as ad hominem.  If anything, you accused me of NOT saying the very things I did, which are all still there!

I think we are done here. 

The ignore button exists. 

Please consider using it. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Condessa said:

But wouldn't the school have said he was lying?  Wouldn't they have made some public statement that the boy's report of it was incorrect, that the teacher never said that, that his failing grade was received for ____ reason, not what he thought?  

When one party says such-and-such happened, and the other party involved doesn't contradict them, even though it paints them in a bad light, why decide that the teen must be wrong, even though the school didn't disagree with him?  It seems like a real stretch.

Unless the school issued a statement of that kind that I missed.

Why, why would they say anything? Especially if the claim was parent-driven. I think their silence was admirable. The boy can get on with his life. The school has clearly moved on with no changes. As a charter, they could have been admonished in some way by their chartering district but I don’t see that either. Even students who graduated with him haven’t come forward in support. IJS. I’m skeptical.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Why, why would they say anything? Especially if the claim was parent-driven. I think their silence was admirable. The boy can get on with his life. The school has clearly lived on with no changes. As a charter, they could have been admonished in some way by there chartering district but I don’t see that either. Even students who graduated with him haven’t come forward in support. IJS. I’m skeptical.

Well, if one of my kids comes to me upset saying a sibling did A, and the sibling essentially responds "I still think I was right to do it!"  I don't decide that what really happened was B.  I believe that A happened and then sort out whether or not A was the wrong thing to do.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Firstly, we introduce distressing CONTENT in an age appropriate way.

Secondly, we don't personalise that content by assigning agency and responsibility for those distressing topics to the students sitting in front of us, via a focus on their identity. 

 

Right.  

Content.  

Facts.

Truth.

All of the truth, in an age appropriate way.

Not—Ok, now identify yourself with this template for how we define you, and embrace and discuss it, or we will not let you graduate from high school.  That’s where the circling back to the Cultural Revolution comes in.  ‘Self Criticism’ in a fake way with criteria that may or may not even be accurate.  And inappropriate punishment for which there is almost no recourse.

Personalizing this in this fashion is not educational.  It’s indoctrination, and it’s going to be exceedingly counterproductive unless the true goal of those who espouse it is to indoctrinate the students and suppress any dissent.   In that case, the ‘productiveness’ of it is going to be unacceptable to many people of good will who genuinely work against systemic racism, in addition to getting the backs up of those who don’t and giving them some justification for that stance that frankly they don’t deserve.  Hence it is immensely foolish.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yep, I totally meant it. I have NEVER been a fan.

I had a similar experience viewing a classical painting in a major urban museum call The Rape of the Sabines.  I feel you.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Condessa said:

Well, if one of my kids comes to me upset saying a sibling did A, and the sibling essentially responds "I still think I was right to do it!"  I don't decide that what really happened was B.  I believe that A happened and then sort out whether or not A was the wrong thing to do.

This isn’t a parental dispute. There were multiple students in the class. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I had a similar experience viewing a classical painting in a major urban museum call The Rape of the Sabines.  I feel you.

I know the piece. We had to cover that in another of my (mandatory art credit) classes too.

[Condessa]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

This isn’t a parental dispute. There were multiple students in the class. 

One party says A happened.  The other party does not dispute that A happened, but does dispute whether what they did was wrong.  I don't see how it is logical to assume that B is actually what happened, when no party involved is claiming that B happened.

 

ETA: None of the other students have said that A didn't happen.  They haven't come forward in public support of the student's fight with the school, but neither the other students, the teacher, or the administration has claimed that it didn't happen.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Condessa

[Faith-manor]

4 minutes ago, Condessa said:

But wouldn't the school have said he was lying?  Wouldn't they have made some public statement that the boy's report of it was incorrect, that the teacher never said that, that his failing grade was received for ____ reason, not what he thought?  

When one party says such-and-such happened, and the other party involved doesn't contradict them, even though it paints them in a bad light, why decide that the teen must be wrong, even though the school didn't disagree with him?  It seems like a real stretch.

Unless the school issued a statement of that kind that I missed.

I don't know if they can. It is an issue because they are extremely limited due to privacy issues with minors. The local school district could not actually say that the reason that a former football player did not graduate was because he was convicted of domestic terrorism even though the whole county knew he was convicted of it, and because he was tried as an adult, it was in the newspaper here. But administrators and teachers could not actually say that. So when it was asked at a school board meeting if he would be given a diploma since he had enough credits to actually graduate, all they could say was no comment.

So many times they cannot comment on this stuff which makes it appear that the school or teacher or whatever is always guilty when in fact they might not be.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

One party says A happened.  The other party does not dispute that A happened, but does dispute whether what they did was wrong.  I don't see how it is logical to assume that B is actually what happened, when no party involved is claiming that B happened.

None of the facts have been established. NONE. There are allegations and there is a defense. That’s it at this point. To draw from that some kind of universal disquiet with the school or the course is a really big leap.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Plum said:

Why don't you believe him? A lawsuit isn't easy. 

 

 

Because there hasn’t been a single source or bit of publicly available info. that corroborates his allegations/version of events. As the claimant, the student has the burden of proof here. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

None of the facts have been established. NONE. There are allegations and there is a defense. That’s it at this point. To draw from that some kind of universal disquiet with the school or the course is a really big leap.

 

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Because there hasn’t been a single source or bit of publicly available info. that corroborates his allegations/version of events.

 

I'm not drawing universal disquiet from that.  I am saying that until/unless someone else with knowledge of the events suggests otherwise, there is no reason to call the boy a liar.  There hasn't been a single source or bit of publicly available info that contradicts his allegations/version of events.  

 

[Condessa]

8 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I don't know if they can. It is an issue because they are extremely limited due to privacy issues with minors. The local school district could not actually say that the reason that a former football player did not graduate was because he was convicted of domestic terrorism even though the whole county knew he was convicted of it, and because he was tried as an adult, it was in the newspaper here. But administrators and teachers could not actually say that. So when it was asked at a school board meeting if he would be given a diploma since he had enough credits to actually graduate, all they could say was no comment.

So many times they cannot comment on this stuff which makes it appear that the school or teacher or whatever is always guilty when in fact they might not be.

They may not be able to say what the other reason for failing him is, but legally speaking, they absolutely can say that he is incorrect.  

Edited June 15, 2021 by Condessa

[Carol in Cal.]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

None of the facts have been established. NONE. There are allegations and there is a defense. That’s it at this point. To draw from that some kind of universal disquiet with the school or the course is a really big leap.

I find the screen shots completely convincing.  They establish facts in my mind, for sure.

[Carol in Cal.]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Why don't you believe him? A lawsuit isn't easy. 

 

 

It’s not free, either.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Condessa said:

 

 

I'm not drawing universal disquiet from that.  I am saying that until/unless someone else with knowledge of the events suggests otherwise, there is no reason to call the boy a liar.  There hasn't been a single source or bit of publicly available info that contradicts his allegations/version of events.  

 

I’m not calling him a liar. Geeze, stop with the leaps. I’m saying it’s completely believable to me that the student heard an entirely different message than the other students and that his mother lept to his defense. The slides you posted do not say or support that the boy was forced to out/humiliate himself in class.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I find the screen shots completely convincing.  They establish facts in my mind, for sure.

Except the screenshots don’t say what was alleged, that he was forced to identify himself as an oppressor to the class.

[Carol in Cal.]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I know the piece. We had to cover that in another of my (mandatory art credit) classes too.

Yeah, it was quite a moment.  My stupid BF at the time laughed and said, “Getting fresh!” And I thought, OK, I’m implementing a private criteria for BFs from now on; namely, “If you think of getting raped by a woman, how does it seem to you?”  Years of testing that kind of question yielded only two guys out of a large field who did not say something utterly stupid along the lines of ‘where do I sign up?’ Ugh.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Except the screenshots don’t say what was alleged, that he was forced to identify himself as an oppressor to the class.

That was just part of the allegation.  The judge’s comments about ‘compelled speech’ are pretty telling.

Also, you’re awfully invested in not believing this kid, which I find interesting.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Carol in Cal.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Despite the defendants’ claims that the class and Clark’s punishment were legally unobjectionable, the school relented in early April, offering to expunge his grade and let him opt out of the course. Undoubtedly, this retreat was encouraged by a federal judge’s declaration at a February hearing that Clark was “likely to succeed on the merits” since the “speech is likely compelled.” The defendants, the judge said, would therefore have to “justify the curriculum under a strict scrutiny test,” the court’s most exacting level of review, which he said the class exercises probably could not survive.

Going forward, one might evaluate whether lawsuits like Clark’s are apt to succeed by asking what a court would say if the identities were reversed. That is, what if a teacher forced students to affirm a theory that held that being minority or female should inherently be associated with negative traits? (This is, of course, different from requiring students to acknowledge historical facts like the exclusion of women from the franchise or the existence of slavery and Jim Crow laws.) It’s hard to imagine a court saying that doing so would not violate the Constitution and civil-rights statutes. Of course, as William Clark learned, the nostrums of critical race theory and intersectionality forbid reversing those categories. But the nostrums of critical race theory and intersectionality are not the law.

Joshua Dunn is professor of political science and director of the Center for the Study of Government and the Individual at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs.

https://www.educationnext.org/critical-race-theory-collides-with-law/

That’s called cutting your legal expenses and moving on. This case wasn’t in fact, completely adjudicated. Might the school have lost, sure. Might they have won on strict scrutiny grounds? Maybe. Who knows.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

That was just part of the allegation.  The judge’s comments about ‘compelled speech’ are pretty telling.

True that. He’d have to find that the speech was, in fact, compelled as alleged tho. The case never got to that point.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

True that. He’d have to find that the speech was, in fact, compelled as alleged tho. The case never got to that point.

So, would you agree that that kind of compelled speech would be inappropriate in that setting?  

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Right.  

Content.  

Facts.

Truth.

All of the truth, in an age appropriate way.

Not—Ok, now identify yourself with this template for how we define you, and embrace and discuss it, or we will not let you graduate from high school.  That’s where the circling back to the Cultural Revolution comes in.  ‘Self Criticism’ in a fake way with criteria that may or may not even be accurate.  And inappropriate punishment for which there is almost no recourse.

Personalizing this in this fashion is not educational.  It’s indoctrination, and it’s going to be exceedingly counterproductive unless the true goal of those who espouse it is to indoctrinate the students and suppress any dissent.   In that case, the ‘productiveness’ of it is going to be unacceptable to many people of good will who genuinely work against systemic racism, in addition to getting the backs up of those who don’t and giving them some justification for that stance that frankly they don’t deserve.  Hence it is immensely foolish.

While I agree with you that if not handled correctly it could be indoctrination, that also seems to be the intent of the R legislator in one of the earlier linked articles. He couldn’t even come up with one concrete example of problematic curriculum he wanted banned, but he did want all students to learn that the US is the greatest country on earth.

[Condessa]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m not calling him a liar. Geeze, stop with the leaps. I’m saying it’s completely believable to me that the student heard an entirely different message than the other students and that his mother lept to his defense. The slides you posted do not say or support that the boy was forced to out/humiliate himself in class.

Excuse me.  Either a liar or otherwise misreporting what occurred--even though no one involved, anywhere, has made any claims to this effect.  

ETA: I didn't post the slides.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Condessa