Jump to content

Menu

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


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 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.

As far as I know they only settled half of it in an emergency injunction so the kid could get his diploma and start applying to colleges. The rest of the case is still being litigated. They aren't giving up on following through with the rest of their requests. 

Next time a kid claims discrimination, I'll be sure to remember this. 

Actually, since I went to the LV Democracy Prep website it looks like they changed the name of the course to Change the World for 2021-22. It might be just the LV school. Everywhere else has Sociology of Change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Condessa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 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 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.

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

 

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Condessa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

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. 

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/

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

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.

Ok now you are just spinning my wheels. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Condessa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Ok now you are just spinning my wheels. 

Maybe a little devil’s advocate. As I said before, I am philosophically opposed to using outliers to justify wholesale policy. I think it makes for bad policy. This kid is an outlier for many of the reasons dmmetler said. This is a charter school with a known focus that the parents SEEK OUT. Abandoning the focus because the student felt uncomfortable would also betray the other students who are there to be uncomfy and challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

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

If it were compelled, yes. I would have given anything to have an alternative assigned book and to be excused from the discussions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

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

No, memories and recollections are fallible. People often believe untruths/half-truths with genuine fervor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frances said:

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.

Not defending him, nor have I.  So this is kind of a straw man.

  Just talking about what things should be like as opposed to what this particular example showed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

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

As a Christian kid, sitting in that class....

Family - Reinforce racist/homophobic prejudices

Religion - Homophobic prejudices - Right vs. Wrong Judgements

 

[The lawyer] O’Brien says last summer he encountered “a lot of parents with cases (like the Clarks) but no lawyer. … This was an issue people were talking about but not doing anything about. I offered to help parents and that’s how the Clarks got in touch with me. There weren’t any lawyers willing to put their neck out on this issue.” Nevada Current

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Maybe a little devil’s advocate. As I said before, I am philosophically opposed to using outliers to justify wholesale policy. I think it makes for bad policy. This kid is an outlier for many of the reasons dmmetler said. This is a charter school with a known focus that the parents SEEK OUT. Abandoning the focus because the student felt uncomfortable would also betray the other students who are there to be uncomfy and challenged.

Agreed. I am tired of policy being legislated by the outliers thus tying everyone's hands to do good. And the thing is so don't know if this student's allegations are spot on or not. The point is no one knows because it was not adjudicated, there isn't any forth coming information from which I can form a conclusion at this time. Therefore it should not be test case/evidence of bad policy across the bad board, bad class, etc nor an indictment against CRT. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, people have been asking for actual examples, in this thread, and they have asked what to do instead, and then when they give actual documentation it’s dismissed as an outlier without any evidence for that, and when they say what to do instead it is completely ignored.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

As a Christian kid, sitting in that class....

Family - Reinforce racist/homophobic prejudices

Religion - Homophobic prejudices - Right vs. Wrong Judgements

 

[The lawyer] O’Brien says last summer he encountered “a lot of parents with cases (like the Clarks) but no lawyer. … This was an issue people were talking about but not doing anything about. I offered to help parents and that’s how the Clarks got in touch with me. There weren’t any lawyers willing to put their neck out on this issue.” Nevada Current

The Nevada current is a right wing rag, no different than the blue dog Arkansas Times. If you’re not finding serious treatment of the issue elsewhere, if the district/school itself isn’t caving, you need to ask yourself why. They may have lost this one on compelled speech grounds but the content of the class still stands. All in all, if students are still allowed to attend the school and engage with this convent as they wish, how is that not a win? The class is better. Student/family choice is preserved. Or is your desire to see this option for families eliminated altogether? Do you think parents should be denied the option to send their kids to that school?

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Well, people have been asking for actual examples, in this thread, and they have asked what to do instead, and then when they give actual documentation it’s dismissed as an outlier without any evidence for that, and when they say what to do instead it is completely ignored.

 

Outliers aren’t SOLUTIONS. Outliers don’t represent fixes. They represent problems. I haven’t seen a single complainant offer solutions. Even in that NV case, the parent wanted a ban on the class (ridiculous) and none of the other parents co-signed. Odd, no?

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Outliers aren’t SOLUTIONS. Outliers don’t represent fixes. They represent problems. I haven’t seen a single complainant offer solutions. Even in that NV case, the parent wanted a ban on the class (ridiculous) and none of the other parents co-signed. Odd, no?

Read back.  Several offered solutions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Read back.  Several offered solutions.  

I have read. All of it. None of it includes doing away with bans and much of it includes not discussing anything disconcerting. We have an active situation with bans in the US and the focus is on specific incidents. It’s like fighting a wildfire with a 5gal. bucket and a prayer.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I have read. All of it. None of it includes doing away with bans and much of it includes not discussing anything disconcerting. We have an active situation with bans in the US and the focus is on specific incidents. It’s like fighting a wildfire with a 5gal. bucket and a prayer.

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

Do you mean people on this thread or legislators instituting the bans? While it seems that many on this thread would be fine if it were done the right away, is that even possible in states with the bans? And given comments in some of the linked articles, it does seem that many in power do just want it to all go away.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You are completely wrong.

The question was, how do we teach this instead?  The accusation was, All people want to do is stop teaching about this, which several have indicated is not true.  And there were several substantive answers to that question of how to teach it well.

 

There has been no identification of what the ‘instead’ is. ‘Straight history’ isn’t a thing without race/racism. We are not in a place anymore where district by district or school by school solutions have meaning because 15 states have enacted statewide or regional bans on culturally responsive teaching. That’s the landscape. Blanket bans. The text and comments surrounding these bans, the public records in support, make clear that, yes, people really do not want these subjects discussed, not even in a high school senior capstone course. That issue hasn’t been addressed at all. Neither have the secondary effects on public knowledge and future policy making.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

That’s nice, thanks. I think I saw her interviewed once. Very ‘woo-woo’ but definitely something the tender hearted might appreciate.
 

I heard another woman interviewed a few months ago. I think she developed courses based on ‘calling-in’ vs. ‘’caling-out’. Unless I’m misremembering. Lemme search. This. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/55779/when-to-call-someone-out-or-call-them-in-over-racist-behavior
 

This isn’t permitted speech either but it is an alternative.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There has been no identification of what the ‘instead’ is. ‘Straight history’ isn’t a thing without race/racism. We are not in a place anymore where district by district or school by school solutions have meaning because 15 states have enacted statewide or regional bans on culturally responsive teaching. That’s the landscape. Blanket bans. The text and comments surrounding these bands, the public records make clear that, yes, people really do not want these subjects discussed, not even in a high school senior capstone course. That issue hasn’t been addressed at all. Neither have the secondary effects on public knowledge and future policy making.

This. I am all for different approaches, multi faceted approaches, age appropriate approaches, so let us get down to business and figure out how to teach and discuss these topics so we can make a difference for this generation of young people and work towards racial equality. But, when the actual topics are out right banned, then how the heck can anything be done to make this better?

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that being able to discuss privilege without undue harm is itself a privilege.

I hope you can see the difference between one person glibly listing off all her privileges (as many here have done), and another person being forced to focus on and discuss his lack of such privileges.

Maybe it's a useful exercise for people with tons of privilege.  Maybe not so much for everyone else.  It just so happens that most of the posters here are in the "tons of privilege" category.

Would anyone do this with educational aptitude?  "I have the advantages of a 140 IQ, great executive function skills, a high quality education, and high expectations."  vs. "I have a 95 IQ according to a test I took, struggle to read, never had a teacher who could explain math to me, and I'll be lucky to keep a low-wage job all my life."  Who or what is that really going to help?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I love Chloe Valdary’s work.  She’s great and her approach is more holistic that what is most popular in my area right now.  

I'd like to take her class some time. 

ETA for anyone reading along, there's financial aid for her classes for teens.

Edited by Melissa Louise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

That’s nice, thanks. I think I saw her interviewed once. Very ‘woo-woo’ but definitely something the tender hearted might appreciate.
 

I heard another woman interviewed a few months ago. I think she developed courses based on ‘calling-in’ vs. ‘’caling-out’. Unless I’m misremembering. Lemme search. This. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/55779/when-to-call-someone-out-or-call-them-in-over-racist-behavior
 

This isn’t permitted speech either but it is an alternative.

I think that the bans should get challenged on free speech grounds.  Since they are likely to only pass in conservative states, I’m not sure who would bring suit standing wise.  

I’m not very woo but I still think Chloe Valdary’s work is good.  It’s hard and I think more compelling to find a way to speak to people’s hearts.  Perhaps it appeals to me because I am pretty shitty at speaking to people’s hearts- my default is more of a slap people upside the heads style which I have to keep a check on because it’s just not effective.   Her approach is also more ideologically consistent with the principles of restorative justice.  


Tangentially, Professor Loretta Ross has interesting things to say on the topic of calling in:  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/style/loretta-ross-smith-college-cancel-culture.amp.html

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...