Jump to content

Menu

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


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The difference is the force of law, backed by the threat of government sanctions. One is a perceived threat, individual in nature, the other has been realized and is government sanctioned. I fear armed people of all kinds. I am especially fearful of armed LEOs who carry the force of law. Their power to hurt me is exponentially greater and there are fewer opportunities for redress.

So are you saying that de facto discrimination doesn't matter much?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

So are you saying that de facto discrimination doesn't matter much?

No, I’m not. I’m saying disfavored views are free to be advanced, discarded, or ignored in a FREE marketplace of ideas between individuals. Political preference/ideology isn’t a protected classification. No matter what conservatives say, they aren’t a persecuted minority. They’re literally wielding significant power to ban speech in K-12 and higher ed, and endanger student lives. When the government puts its thumb on the scales and says you must admit or hire X number of people who think Y or else we’re gonna yank your funding, that’s a horse of a different color. We’re not in discrimination territory, we’re in government-mandated beliefs territory.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

I live in the south.  Yes, yes they do.
 

  ETA: 

Especially the ones who swear they aren’t racist because they are friends with one black person. But they don’t want too many black kids in their schools, their neighborhoods, their churches.  They start talking about moving when the grocery store starts having too many.  
 

It’s not a”change your social circle” issue either because it’s prevalent in all of the social circles.  I don’t hear it as much now that I’ve”come out” as a *gasp* liberal. They save it for when they think everyone around agrees with them.
 

 What someone said up thread about the subtly is dead on.  It’s usually subtle, able to deny that they meant “that”.  They didn’t mean that they want to move because 2 black families have moved in on the street, only that the character of the neighborhood had changed and they’re worried about property values. 
 

Im honestly surprised white people are saying they don’t hear this.  

I live in the south as well and this is not my experience at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Sure, that sounds great to me. Totally agreed. 

I have to say that I can see why there was the focus on math and reading, because they ARE essential. I don't really know what one is supposed to do if most kids can't do basic math and can't read 😕 . I don't have solutions for that problem. Any thoughts, as someone with more experience? 

And one of my main issues with a lot of the math instruction is the insistence on forcing writing about math. I liked math and I would have hated writing about why I chose a certain way to do a problem or other such garbage.  I think it turns off children who do like math naturally.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would help the discussion if everyone would admit that all races have been subjected to violence by all races (an not just in ancient history).  The idea that fear is only ever understandable if your skin is a certain shade is honestly ridiculous.  Such bias diminishes credibility of the writer/speaker to the point where a productive conversation is impossible.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

I live in the south.  Yes, yes they do.
 

  ETA: 

Especially the ones who swear they aren’t racist because they are friends with one black person. But they don’t want too many black kids in their schools, their neighborhoods, their churches.  They start talking about moving when the grocery store starts having too many.  
 

It’s not a”change your social circle” issue either because it’s prevalent in all of the social circles.  I don’t hear it as much now that I’ve”come out” as a *gasp* liberal. They save it for when they think everyone around agrees with them.
 

 What someone said up thread about the subtly is dead on.  It’s usually subtle, able to deny that they meant “that”.  They didn’t mean that they want to move because 2 black families have moved in on the street, only that the character of the neighborhood had changed and they’re worried about property values. 
 

Im honestly surprised white people are saying they don’t hear this.  

I live here, too.    When I hear that kind of talk, I say something.   I also know to avoid those people.    If you (general 'you')  are hearing those things frequently, then those people who are saying them think that's something that's safe to say around you.   Hardly no one talks like that around me and the one person who has tried to now 'noticeably' watches his mouth when I'm around.    It's killing him not to say what he wants to, and I love it.   But he knows if he wants any semblance of peace, he better shut it.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No, I’m not. I’m saying disfavored views are free to be advanced, discarded, or ignored in a FREE marketplace of ideas between individuals. Political preference/ideology isn’t a protected classification. No matter what conservatives say, they aren’t a persecuted minority. They’re literally wielding significant power to ban speech in K-12 and higher ed, and endanger student lives. When the government puts its thumb on the scales and says you must admit or hire X number of people who think Y or else we’re gonna yank your funding, that’s a horse of a different color.

In some environments, yes they are.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Then they should be working to advance laws to protect or support those groups, not stifle or endanger other people’s kids.

Why do you assume the same people being subjected to A are also doing B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fritz said:

I live in the south as well and this is not my experience at all.

One of the ones that sticks most clearly in my mind was the "high ability counselor" at the cover school who cautioned me against letting L take classes at the local CC because the "wrong kind of people" go to the CC, and suggested a couple of private colleges instead. 

 

I'm sure she will swear up and down that she's not racist. But it's hard to view that any other way, given that the CC is about 85% Black, and the private schools suggested are about 90% White. 

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dmmetler said:

One of the ones that sticks most clearly in my mind was the "high ability counselor" at the cover school who cautioned me against letting L take classes at the local CC because the "wrong kind of people" go to the CC, and suggested a couple of private colleges instead. 

 

I'm sure she will swear up and down that she's not racist. But it's hard to view that any other way, given that the CC is about 85% Black, and the private schools suggested are about 90% White. 

 

 

I’ve even heard in, from a classist perspective, from RE agents who wanted to be sure I preferred a certain zip code. I don’t ask RE agents for recommendations anymore. I tell them where I want to live and not to show me properties anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Because the same names show up in both places, repeatedly.

The phenomenon of conservatives being discriminated against in higher education is extremely widespread, has been for decades, and most of the victims do not have a public voice.  How would they, even if they wanted to?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

The phenomenon of conservatives being discriminated against in higher education is extremely widespread, has been for decades, and most of the victims do not have a public voice.  How would they, even if they wanted to?

They do what everyone else does, contact Sean or Tuckums and complain. These folks know plenty of folks who’d love to tell their stories with as much sensationalism as they can muster and a whole ecosystem of people ready to believe every word.


If they were interested in being more productive, which I doubt, they would work with affected groups to craft legislation or regulations making tenure a more objective process.

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

17 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And one of my main issues with a lot of the math instruction is the insistence on forcing writing about math. I liked math and I would have hated writing about why I chose a certain way to do a problem or other such garbage.  I think it turns off children who do like math naturally.

I think explanations are a valuable part of math. Do they need to be in writing? No. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Anyway, I'm sure whether the parents are happy about it will depend on the specific implementation in the school. And the parents to ask would be the parents of the kids in the specific school, not people blogging online. 

I don't think the happiness of the parents will depend primarily on the implementation. I think it will have more to do with the views of the parents themselves. You could have a really well done program, but there is a LARGE segment of parents who are going to be upset if the program is mentioning any racial injustices as having happened at the hands of white people, and especially any suggestion that it is still happening today.

58 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I cannot see it as a free speech violation to not allow outsiders access to a campus that should be a safe place, particularly not when in the past, it has proven not to be. And as a mom who is sending a kid to a residential college next year, I really, really hope campus is a safe place for the students. 

I'm guessing it's easier for parents of kids unlikely to be targeted by any such groups to think campus should be open for anyone and everyone to be given a platform for whatever hate speech they want to spout. I expect there are scenarios I could set up that would suddenly give parents pause, if they thought their kid would be at risk. As a parent of a kid in a targeted group, this thread has given me new things to worry about next year.

22 minutes ago, Fritz said:

I once had an apartment upstairs from some black males. The floors were apparently thin and I often heard them and their friends saying things that started with, "White people....blah, blah, blah" Is that racist? I think so.

This post makes me regret ever even questioning OS's post about "all white people say racist things when they think no one is listening." I still don't think it's true that all white people do that, as I'm very sensitive to that and notice it when it does happen (which is not infrequent), but I also think some of the biggest offenders are likely those who don't think it's true, who wouldn't know it if they saw it and are actively participating in it themselves.

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think it would help the discussion if everyone would admit that all races have been subjected to violence by all races (an not just in ancient history).  The idea that fear is only ever understandable if your skin is a certain shade is honestly ridiculous.  Such bias diminishes credibility of the writer/speaker to the point where a productive conversation is impossible.

I think this post in an illustration of why CRT specifically has a place to be taught at some point. To not have an understanding that violence and fear really hasn't been equal for all races is kind of the point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I don't think the happiness of the parents will depend primarily on the implementation. I think it will have more to do with the views of the parents themselves. You could have a really well done program, but there is a LARGE segment of parents who are going to be upset if the program is mentioning any racial injustices as having happened at the hands of white people, and especially any suggestion that it is still happening today.

I do think minority voices are FAR more important in that conversation. I would be pretty uninterested in the kinds of perspective you're talking about, even though you're right that they'd be depressingly common. 

 

1 minute ago, KSera said:

This post makes me regret ever even questioning OS's post about "all white people say racist things when they think no one is listening." I still don't think it's true that all white people do that, as I'm very sensitive to that and notice it when it does happen (which is not infrequent), but I also think some of the biggest offenders are likely those who don't think it's true, who wouldn't know it if they saw it and are actively participating in it themselves.

This. 

 

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I think this post in an illustration of why CRT specifically has a place to be taught at some point. To not have an understanding that violence and fear really hasn't been equal for all races is kind of the point.

I think it's fair to say that all races have been subjected to racism since time immemorial, but that has zero to do with what the experience looks like in the US right NOW. 

Dominant groups often serve as oppressors. The dominant groups do change, but in the US, the dominant groups have been relatively consistent (with some additions). 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KSera said:

I actually totally don’t know what you’re referring to. In your experience, do most white people say racist things when they think no one is listening?

I don;t.   In fact, I keep bringing in example

 

3 hours ago, Plum said:

Coming off of George W Bush? Yes he was! What I wouldn’t give for an articulate president that can string together several coherent sentences in a row. 

I have been. I’ve posted about the perspectives of a few communities right here in this thread. 

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt there. Homeschooling is not for everyone, just as online school isn’t for everyone nor is public school for everyone. We need alternatives. A lot more people could homeschool and I mean homeschool really well than think they can. They haven’t had enough of a reason to do so. 

Surprisingly, the city just north of me opened up a pandemic virtual microschool and is planning on keeping it open because they saw so much improvement through the pandemic. The city doesn’t want to run its own charter school, but they cannot deny the results. These were all kids that had extremely low test scores. The key was small classes of 20 kids max, personalized online school with support from a teacher. I like what works. 
 

How is this different from the daily worries among conservative professors and other university staff that they may be targeted, held back in their careers or even fired for their beliefs? Conservative professors have been forced to stay quiet or get cancelled. Or conservative students that get cancelled/ lose their student body position because of their politics? How is this different than states requiring private business to have a determined level of diversity on their boards or what % more the CEO can make than its employees or be fined? Why in the world has it become necessary to create a political diversity policy in universities when the country is split 50/50? 

 

And the forced hiring is ridiculous.  The NBA has mostly black players-- should we force them to have the right proportion of whites???????

My dh is a PhD physicist now working as a Senior Systems Engineer- he says, and I have seen the facts about this, they can't hire PhD physicists who are Black because everyone wants to hire the very few who graduate.  (It is something like 1 a year).  

And lets talk about something not racial- how about equal amounts of males and females in places-  you just aren't going to get that in a lot of professions.  Teaching in schools is primarily females.  Auto mechanics are primarily male.  Am I against any female doing auto mechanics? No.  Nor against males being teachers.  

But I totally agree with you, Plum.  A lot of the problem is education and the rotten public schools that many attend.  Also, another giant issue is the lack of married couples raising the black children.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The difference is the force of law, backed by the threat of government sanctions. One is a perceived threat, individual in nature, the other has been realized and is government sanctioned. I fear armed people of all kinds. I am especially fearful of armed LEOs who carry the force of law. Their power to hurt me is exponentially greater and there are fewer opportunities for redress.
 

It’s especially chilling when the state has a designated HBCU that was founded when black students could not attend its other universities. The student and academic staff there is, by choice and self-selection, unlikely to meet as yet undefined diversity tests. What happened to Nikole Hannah Jones is TAME compared to what Republicans could do to the top-rated public HBCU in the nation. Their hostility is out, open, and obvious. They are using the power of the state to require these institutions to allow white supremacists to incite violence on campus. It’s dangerous.

President Trump made funding for HBCU colleges permanent,  HBCU colleges were often started by Republicans, way back.  There is no Republican plan to destroy HBCUs.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

So would I, but free speech isn’t impacted by the CA law, freedom of assembly perhaps, but not speech. I don’t want any tiki-torch bearing thugs threatening my child where they live but maybe that’s just me too.

I agree and I don't care if the mob is from the right or from the left-

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

President Trump made funding for HBCU colleges permanent,  HBCU colleges were often started by Republicans, way back.  There is no Republican plan to destroy HBCUs.  

Please don’t. Really. You’re making the point for me about the need for more/better history. Yesterday’s Republicans are today’s Democrats and HBCUs are owed billions, with a B. President Trump was a flash in the pan. I didn’t say there was a plan to destroy them all. Many are private institutions. I said I believe there’s a plan to destroy the public ones for short term political gain. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/03/24/maryland-hbcus-lawsuit-settlement/%3foutputType=amp
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996617532/behind-the-underfunding-of-hbcus

 

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

My dh is a PhD physicist now working as a Senior Systems Engineer- he says, and I have seen the facts about this, they can't hire PhD physicists who are Black because everyone wants to hire the very few who graduate.  (It is something like 1 a year).  

Yes, math has the same issue with minorities and with women. There are constantly strict instructions to "increase diversity," but you really can't increase diversity at that level -- there are genuinely very few qualified people! The way you'd increase diversity is way earlier down the pipeline. 

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

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yeah and it's interesting how much I hear from people who claim to be "cancelled." 

The so-called discrimination against conservatives in college isn't much of a real thing. There's the claim that most college professors are liberals or democrats. But does that prove discrimination? Or is it that well educated people tend to be Democrats? 

The Narrative of Discrimination against Conservatives in Higher Ed is Overblown

My part of the state is very well educated- super high amounts of people with PhDs (like the 1st or 2nd highest proportion of PhDs in given city/area in the country) and we are a Republican area.  What is true is that many Republicans decide not to go into academia-  and that includes both my husband and me.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She's not even an American. 

This is the horseshoe thing. I'm so left that I voted for Trump. 

 

That's kinda gross, btw.   I doubt you meant that as it it sounds, but we all (worldwide) are trying to figure this stuff out and frankly, I want to hear other voices from outside the US because I personally don't think us Americans have figured out a whole hell of a lot.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She's not even an American. 

This is the horseshoe thing. I'm so left that I voted for Trump. 

 

I know but I still find it amusing. I cannot imagine investing so much time/energy in advancing spurious parallels between the the US and South Africa, for example, without so much as residing there for a single year. Our politics and history aren’t the same.

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

11 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

That's kinda gross, btw.   I doubt you meant that as it it sounds, but we all (worldwide) are trying to figure this stuff out and frankly, I want to hear other voices from outside the US because I personally don't think us Americans have figured out a whole hell of a lot.    

I would be interested in reading about how other countries are handling these issues given *their own* histories and political winds. This thread was specifically about a term that’s being defined in very specific ways by certain political groups here. Pervasive gun access and open carry on campus is probably not a thing in other countries. I believe I’ve heard that the kinds of extremist rallies now allowed on campuses in the US are prohibited in other countries. These things complicate and change our respective perceptions of risk. A separate thread expounding upon overseas understandings of these concepts would be great reading. It’s not something I’d feel comfy leaping into with both feet but I’d happily read along.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

My part of the state is very well educated- super high amounts of people with PhDs (like the 1st or 2nd highest proportion of PhDs in given city/area in the country) and we are a Republican area.  What is true is that many Republicans decide not to go into academia-  and that includes both my husband and me.  

Of course there are both Republicans with PhDs and Democrats with PhDs. And lots of people of all political persuasions with advanced degrees choose not to go into academia or leave academia which includes both myself and my husband. 
 

In general though, there is an educational divide among the parties that has changed over time. Whites without college degrees are more likely to be Republican or leaning and those with college degrees are more likely to be Democrat or leaning. The divide is even stronger when you look at the those with more than a bachelor’s degree (around 60% D vs 30% R).

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

Isn't that a bit like saying you can teach kids about the Boston Tea Party but you can't mention the part about the Tea Act or say "Taxation Without Representation" because that makes it seem like the government is complicit and that's too inflammatory? 

Not at all.

Quoting myself:

“Critical race theory posits that all social institutions, formal and informal, are racist, in the sense that they are created to favor one race, the race with the most power. The dominant more powerful race sets up and controls society, to favor them. The dominant race is privileged bc that is the way society is set up.”

So I’d think in the BTP situation, it would be more like critical theory, with the British being the dominant, more powerful class (political power). And the BTP can be explained w/o the idea that it was only about GB exerting their political control and power over the colonists.

So you’d still mention the Tea Act and taxation w/o representation but instead of it being about power and domination, an explanation might be that Parliament in GB was set up that all members represented all people whereas in the colonies, elected positions were specific to certain peoples and areas. GB thought that “of course you colonists have representation!” So a different understanding between what representation meant.

or you could frame it as...the Tea Act was to save the East India co from going bankrupt. So a monetary or financial issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

Of course there are both Republicans with PhDs and Democrats with PhDs. And lots of people of all political persuasions with advanced degrees choose not to go into academia or leave academia which includes both myself and my husband. 
 

In general though, there is an educational divide among the parties that has changed over time. Whites without college degrees are more likely to be Republican or leaning and those with college degrees are more likely to be Democrat or leaning. The divide is even stronger when you look at the those with more than a bachelor’s degree (around 60% D vs 30% R).

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/

I don’t think we can discount the sorting that happens in academia either.  There is a whole system of Christian or church aligned colleges that draw the conservative people who are interested in teaching at that level.  There is not a whole separate system for liberals or left wing people, leaving a situation where public college professors are more likely to lean left because the right leaning professors opted for the other system.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yeah and it's interesting how much I hear from people who claim to be "cancelled." 

The so-called discrimination against conservatives in college isn't much of a real thing. There's the claim that most college professors are liberals or democrats. But does that prove discrimination? Or is it that well educated people tend to be Democrats? 

The Narrative of Discrimination against Conservatives in Higher Ed is Overblown

Well if you have to write stuff that pleases tenured liberals in order to get your PhD, then you're more likely to choose a different path if you don't believe in that stuff.

How you define "well educated" might skew this part of the discussion.  The people I know who stayed in academia don't tend to be the most intelligent or knowledgeable or wise people I know.  Some of them are an absolute mess, and these are some of the people teaching the next generation of "educated people."

But yes, this conversation is dripping in bias, so I think I need to get back to focusing on my work.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well if you have to write stuff that pleases tenured liberals in order to get your PhD, then you're more likely to choose a different path if you don't believe in that stuff.

How you define "well educated" might skew this part of the discussion.  The people I know who stayed in academia don't tend to be the most intelligent or knowledgeable or wise people I know.  Some of them are an absolute mess, and these are some of the people teaching the next generation of "educated people."

But yes, this conversation is dripping in bias, so I think I need to get back to focusing on my work.

So, out of curiosity, why do you think conservative, academia-inclined people AREN’T vociferously advocating alternative paths or criteria for tenure? The media platforms are there. The desire to amplify their voices is there. Why aren’t they doing that?

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

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

So, out of curiosity, why do you think conservative, academia-inclined people AREN’T vociferously advocating alternative paths or criteria for tenure? The media platforms are there. The desire to amplify their voices is there. Why aren’t they doing that?

Or they can get Ph.D.s from a Christian College and write to please that crowd.   They don’t have to please tenured liberal professors at those places.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

So, out of curiosity, why do you think conservative, academia-inclined people AREN’T vociferously advocating alternative paths or criteria for tenure? The media platforms are there. The desire to amplify their voices is there. Why aren’t they doing that?

Which media platforms are you referring to?  The ones that are not respected by intelligent people of any persuasion?  The ones that almost nobody reads/hears?  Or some third category?

Not everyone with academic interests desires sensational publicity.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Or they can get Ph.D.s from a Christian College and write to please that crowd.   They don’t have to please tenured liberal professors at those places.  

So they get to choose between two bubbles?  That doesn't sound likely to improve the world much.

Of course not all conservatives are Christian.  And not all Christians colleges are conservative.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Which media platforms are you referring to?  The ones that are not respected by intelligent people any persuasion?  The ones that almost nobody reads/hears?  Or some third category?

Not everyone with academic interests desires sensational publicity.

Any of them. The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox, any number of outfits would be receptive to this message. If the goal is to prevent discrimination, the problem is pervasive, and something needs to happen…why not do what you can to make that change? Why target other people’s kids for abuse? Why force them to learn lies? How does that aid the cause of academic freedom?

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Any of them. The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox, any number of outfits would be receptive to this message. If the goal is to prevent discrimination, the problem is pervasive, and something needs to happen…why not do what you can to make that change? Why target other people’s kids for abuse? Why force them to learn lies? How does that aid the cause of academic freedom?

You apparently have a really extreme view of conservatives.  This is no longer a conversation, so bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

You apparently have a really extreme view of conservatives.  This is no longer a conversation, so bye.

Huh? The laws conservatives have passed have done exactly what I said. The FL state rep sponsoring the legislation said the law opened the campus to any/all groups and, during the legislation’s debate, extremist groups were identified as a beneficiary of the law. Objectively, they are targeting other people’s kids for abuse by opening their campuses to extremist groups. The Texas laws require teachers to teach the ‘evils’ (hardly an objective standard) of communism and socialism. It requires teachers to lie about the systemic nature of some of our economic disparities. It’s a legit question about why there hasn’t been an effort to overhaul or make less partisan or what have you the tenure process if, indeed, it’s systematically discriminating against conservative voices. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Huh? The laws conservatives have passed have done exactly what I said. The FL state rep sponsoring the legislation said the law opened the campus to any/all groups and, during the legislation’s debate, extremist groups were a known beneficiary of the law. Objectively, they are targeting other people’s kids for abuse by opening their campuses to extremist groups. The Texas laws require teachers to teach the ‘evils’ (hardly an objective standard) of communism and socialism. It requires teachers to lie about the systemic nature of some of our economic disparities. It’s a legit question about why there hasn’t been an effort to overhaul or make less partisan or what have you the tenure process if, indeed, it’s systematically discriminating against conservative voices. 🤷🏽‍♀️

I certainly believe in the evils of communism.  Socialism is a different matter because you can even say that parts of our country are socialistic- public schools, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I certainly believe in the evils of communism.  Socialism is a different matter because you can even say that parts of our country are socialistic- public schools, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.

Evil is a value judgment, a religious construct at that, not an objective one. I thought the conservative goal was to remove any supposed value judgments from the classroom WRT racism/race. It’s inconsistent. What makes ‘communism is evil’ ok and ‘systemic racism exists’ different? I mean, I know what I think but how do conservatives justify this when there’s objective evidence of the latter without any value judgment at all.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Pennsylvania's new bill, rolled out in response to "CRT" and covering any secondary or post-secondary institution that receives *ANY* amount of public funding (see definition of terms, lines 3-5 on page 1).

It bans (pp 3-4, lines 3-29 to 4-2) any teacher from requiring

Quote

...a student to read, view or listen to abook, article, video presentation, digital presentation or other learning material that espouses, advocates or promotes a racist or sexist concept.

(IANAL) I believe @pinball 's analysis above is correct, in that certain difficult incidents in our history, such as the Tea Party or PA's own Homestead Strike * , could still be taught through an emphasis on forms of hierarchy, such as colonialism or other forms of economic subjugation rather than the now-banned hierarchies  (defined, lines 6-7 on p 1, as "one race or sex is inherently superior to another).

Other historical episodes, like Dred Scott, or the Tusla Race Massacre, or Saly Demings, or the 3/5 clause in the Constitution itself -- any book or article or other learning material that references any factual historical incident that ARE based upon a "racist concept" such as slavery manifestly was -- would be banned.  Even at the university level. Any university that received *any* amount public funding, which is pretty much all of them, not just Penn State or the cc system.

Which would seem to be the point.

 

Missouri's new bill, (after a nearly identical prologue of defined terms reflecting the totally organic grass roots origins of these bills sweeping the nation), gets even more succinctly to what's banned (lines 29-31, p 2):

Quote

It shall be the policy of the state board of education not to promote or allow divisive concepts in public school curricula or instruction.

Got that?  No Divisive Concepts.

 

Even the most disingenuous Rufo-whipped Tuckermanic whackadoodle legislators driving this drivel through know, perfectly well, that this language will not stand SCOTUS scrutiny.

Which suggests to me that the bills themselves... just like the Rufo-whipped CRT performance art and the "concerning" videos collected and curated by newly-sprung astroturf advocacy groups like FAIR, are not, at all, the point.

 

 

 

(* though Homestead's use of *black scab workers* to break the strike of the union that had earlier refused them membership... or how very very common that race-based tactic was used by American businesses to suppress unions, or how that divide-and-conquer based on racial resentment tactic continues up to today to inform our inequality problem... would NOT be allowed under the ban...

... and perhaps that too IS a secondary point.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Evil is a value judgment, a religious construct at that, not an objective one. I thought the conservative goal was to remove any supposed value judgments from the classroom WRT racism/race. It’s inconsistent. What makes ‘communism is evil’ ok and ‘systemic racism exists’ different? I mean, I know what I think but how do conservatives justify this when there’s objective evidence of the latter without any value judgment at all.

Agreed. What it is, is that groups - in particular, religious groups - want the sole rights to determine what is and is not wrong and then judge everyone by those standards which they would prefer are encoded in secular law. That does not work in a pluralistic society thus creating everything from tremendous tension, to human rights violations, to violence. One of the main strengths that could emerge if America ever got its head out of its colonialist behind, is embracing pluralism so that the country becomes by in large a decent place for humankind as a whole. But that requires rejecting certain religious ideals about the causes of evil/wickedness/sin/deity displeasure etc. and the development of right and wrong, basic human and civil rights, and changing responses to conflict. In order to achieve it, it requires that the majority get very comfortable with being very uncomfortable for a time because the societal changes that have to occur need to be, as the saying goes, a tough row to hoe. We started on the path in the 60's but then never finished the job, rested on our heels, got complacent, tuned out those whose lived experiences demonstrated that the job was far from done, buried our collective heads in the sand, and here we are.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Here is Pennsylvania's new bill, rolled out in response to "CRT" and covering any secondary or post-secondary institution that receives *ANY* amount of public funding (see definition of terms, lines 3-5 on page 1).

It bans (pp 3-4, lines 3-29 to 4-2) any teacher from requiring

(IANAL) I believe @pinball 's analysis above is correct, in that certain difficult incidents in our history, such as the Tea Party or PA's own Homestead Strike * , could still be taught through an emphasis on forms of hierarchy, such as colonialism or other forms of economic subjugation rather than the now-banned hierarchies  (defined, lines 6-7 on p 1, as "one race or sex is inherently superior to another).

Other historical episodes, like Dred Scott, or the Tusla Race Massacre, or Saly Demings, or the 3/5 clause in the Constitution itself -- any book or article or other learning material that references any factual historical incident that ARE based upon a "racist concept" such as slavery manifestly was -- would be banned.  Even at the university level. Any university that received *any* amount public funding, which is pretty much all of them, not just Penn State or the cc system.

Which would seem to be the point.

 

Missouri's new bill, (after a nearly identical prologue of defined terms reflecting the totally organic grass roots origins of these bills sweeping the nation), gets even more succinctly to what's banned (lines 29-31, p 2):

Got that?  No Divisive Concepts.

 

Even the most disingenuous Rufo-whipped Tuckermanic whackadoodle legislators driving this drivel through know, perfectly well, that this language will not stand SCOTUS scrutiny.

Which suggests to me that the bills themselves... just like the Rufo-whipped CRT performance art and the "concerning" videos collected and curated by newly-sprung astroturf advocacy groups like FAIR, are not, at all, the point.

 

 

 

(* though Homestead's use of *black scab workers* to break the strike of the union that had earlier refused them membership... or how very very common that race-based tactic was used by American businesses to suppress unions, or how that divide-and-conquer based on racial resentment tactic continues up to today to inform our inequality problem... would NOT be allowed under the ban...

... and perhaps that too IS a secondary point.)

In my senior year of high school in Arkansas, I had an elective called Film. It was only open to seniors (parental permission required) and it consisted of sitting on comfy couches, watching movies with snacks, and critiquing them from a variety of angles. We watched Deliverance, Imitation of Life, Clockwork Orange, a bunch of stuff. That would be impossible today, I guess. It was one of my most memorable and interesting classes. 

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

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Evil is a value judgment, a religious construct at that, not an objective one. I thought the conservative goal was to remove any supposed value judgments from the classroom WRT racism/race. It’s inconsistent. What makes ‘communism is evil’ ok and ‘systemic racism exists’ different? I mean, I know what I think but how do conservatives justify this when there’s objective evidence of the latter without any value judgment at all.

 

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

Here is Pennsylvania's new bill, rolled out in response to "CRT" and covering any secondary or post-secondary institution that receives *ANY* amount of public funding (see definition of terms, lines 3-5 on page 1).

It bans (pp 3-4, lines 3-29 to 4-2) any teacher from requiring

(IANAL) I believe @pinball 's analysis above is correct, in that certain difficult incidents in our history, such as the Tea Party or PA's own Homestead Strike * , could still be taught through an emphasis on forms of hierarchy, such as colonialism or other forms of economic subjugation rather than the now-banned hierarchies  (defined, lines 6-7 on p 1, as "one race or sex is inherently superior to another).

Other historical episodes, like Dred Scott, or the Tusla Race Massacre, or Saly Demings, or the 3/5 clause in the Constitution itself -- any book or article or other learning material that references any factual historical incident that ARE based upon a "racist concept" such as slavery manifestly was -- would be banned.  Even at the university level. Any university that received *any* amount public funding, which is pretty much all of them, not just Penn State or the cc system.

Which would seem to be the point.

 

Missouri's new bill, (after a nearly identical prologue of defined terms reflecting the totally organic grass roots origins of these bills sweeping the nation), gets even more succinctly to what's banned (lines 29-31, p 2):

Got that?  No Divisive Concepts.

 

Even the most disingenuous Rufo-whipped Tuckermanic whackadoodle legislators driving this drivel through know, perfectly well, that this language will not stand SCOTUS scrutiny.

Which suggests to me that the bills themselves... just like the Rufo-whipped CRT performance art and the "concerning" videos collected and curated by newly-sprung astroturf advocacy groups like FAIR, are not, at all, the point.

 

 

 

(* though Homestead's use of *black scab workers* to break the strike of the union that had earlier refused them membership... or how very very common that race-based tactic was used by American businesses to suppress unions, or how that divide-and-conquer based on racial resentment tactic continues up to today to inform our inequality problem... would NOT be allowed under the ban...

... and perhaps that too IS a secondary point.)

NO, Those things like Tulsa Massacre discussions do not advocate racism.  d

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Evil is a value judgment, a religious construct at that, not an objective one. I thought the conservative goal was to remove any supposed value judgments from the classroom WRT racism/race. It’s inconsistent. What makes ‘communism is evil’ ok and ‘systemic racism exists’ different? I mean, I know what I think but how do conservatives justify this when there’s objective evidence of the latter without any value judgment at all.

It’s more philosophical than religious, and deserves an airing.

Besides, I don’t think conservatives here would argue that ‘communism is evil’ should be taught in the classroom.  I think that they would argue that the results of communism should be taught along with the ideals that fostered it.

I don’t think anyone is arguing here that ‘systemic racism exists’ shouldn’t be taught in the classroom.  What is being argued against is doing so by the personalizing of oppressor and oppressed, applied to young students, instead of objectively teaching how systemic racism (and sexism, for that matter) can play out, without demonizing students or forcing them to identify into groups.  

You keep going meta and setting up these straw figures and by and large they are inaccurate.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

It’s more philosophical than religious, and deserves an airing.

Besides, I don’t think conservatives here would argue that ‘communism is evil’ should be taught in the classroom.  I think that they would argue that the results of communism should be taught along with the ideals that fostered it.

I don’t think anyone is arguing here that ‘systemic racism exists’ shouldn’t be taught in the classroom.  What is being argued against is doing so by the personalizing of oppressor and oppressed, applied to young students, instead of objectively teaching how systemic racism (and sexism, for that matter) can play out, without demonizing students or forcing them to identify into groups.  

You keep going meta and setting up these straw figures and by and large they are inaccurate.  

Actually, I’m going big picture because the big picture is frightening and ACTUALLY happening. Laws are being passed that do these really bad things like attempt to ban any discussion of racism and allow extremist groups unfettered access to college campuses. The examples of micro situations shared here have largely been debunked and/or disputed by people involved in those cases so why argue something shouldn’t happen that isn’t actually happening?

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I don’t think anyone is arguing here that ‘systemic racism exists’ shouldn’t be taught in the classroom.  What is being argued against is doing so by the personalizing of oppressor and oppressed, applied to young students, instead of objectively teaching how systemic racism (and sexism, for that matter) can play out, without demonizing students or forcing them to identify into groups.  

But all the bans being brought up and enacted in response to the amplified stories of personalizing oppressor and oppressed (which I think the majority agree are not helpful or appropriate) are acting on the much wider scale of prohibiting all kinds of discussions about racism and definitely about ongoing systemic racism. The focus on the specific most egregious cases is to distract from the actual goal. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Actually, I’m going big picture because the big picture is frightening and ACTUALLY happening. Laws are being passed that do these really bad things like attempt to ban any discussion of racism and allow extremist groups unfettered access to college campuses. The examples of micro situations shared here have largely been debunked and/or disputed by people involved in those cases so why argue something shouldn’t happen that isn’t actually happening?

The examples here are numerous and have not remotely been convincingly debunked.  Two of them are local to me, and I can vouch for their ‘reasonableness’ in context.  Neither of them is focussed on WASPish conservatives.  

If you’re going to advocate for doing something in education, I think it would be best to advocate for doing it well.  That’s not what people are seeing, and that fact is what is engendering a backlash even in liberal circles.  

You have not, in my recollection, anywhere in this thread indicated that what you keep putting down as ‘micro situations’ (unconvincingly) would be wrong / misguided / unacceptable.  Seems like that’s indicative that you think that they would be just fine.  That doesn’t argue well for viewing your POV as principled.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re classroom discussions that "advocate racism," vs actual historical events that in their time "advocated racism"

8 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

NO, Those things like Tulsa Massacre discussions do not advocate racism.  d

Discussions of such difficult historical events do not in and of themselves "advocate racism."  The events themselves, in their own time, were ALL ABOUT the advocacy of racism and the maintenance of white supremacy: the 3/5 clause, the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision, the fused poll taxes/grandfather clause and Black Code/convict labor structures that arose following the Civil War, the Tulsa Race Massacre, orchestrated and LE-sanctioned lynching, Jim Crow... and more ... every one of these factual events and structures *themselves* advocated that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another."

That is what these events and structures are ABOUT.  There is no way to cover them -- to "discuss" them -- without reference to the "concept" that "one race... is inherently superior to another."  That "concept" is inextricable from the events and structures themselves, so banning discussion of advocacy-of-racism necessarily proscribes discussion of events and structures that were, themselves, advocating white supremacy.

(Which is why the events and structures themselves cause "discomfort.")
 

(And also why such whacked out language can't sustain judicial scrutiny. But that isn't the point here.)

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
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...