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

[Faith-manor]

9 hours ago, Condessa said:

In the county where I used to live, towns of about 1500 or more had a polling place.  Because of geography, these were all clustered on one edge of the county, with smaller towns and communities scattered deep into the mountains up the rivers through the rest of the county.  There were a few small towns that were two hours’ or more drive from polling places, and a tiny town that can only be accessed by a several hours boat ride.

 

Oy! And this is why we have severe problems with "free elections" in this country. If there is "voting fraud", the issue is one of politicians denying the voters a reasonable opportunity to vote, not what a certain group claims is the problem. This stuff is wrong, very very wrong!

[Danae]

16 minutes ago, Plum said:

Right. So why should that give them an oppressor/oppressed/privileged label?

Remember the self-esteem fad? Everyone is supposed to feel good about themselves? This is inverse to that. The pendulum of education fads is swinging the other way. 

I don't see why you are conflating "oppressor" a thing that people do, with "privileged," which is completely outside the person's control.  An intact family of origin gives children a leg up at the beginning of their lives that will have effects in many areas.  Labeling that as privilege is just recognizing that fact.  Is it the word that you have an issue with, or the recognition itself? 

[Faith-manor]

8 minutes ago, Danae said:

I don't see why you are conflating "oppressor" a thing that people do, with "privileged," which is completely outside the person's control.  An intact family of origin gives children a leg up at the beginning of their lives that will have effects in many areas.  Labeling that as privilege is just recognizing that fact.  Is it the word that you have an issue with, or the recognition itself? 

Thank you! You said it better than so could which is why I did not respond to Plum. The poor oppressor wording was her attempt to put words into my mouth. I never said anything like it or even hinted at it. 

[HeartString]

I wonder if benefits would feel better than privilege, since privilege has been weaponized.  I benefit in our society from my white skin and middle class income.  I benefited from my parents and grandparents choosing to stay married.  I’m bestowing that benefit on my children. I benefited from a good education, which was a benefit of my parents education and income.  
 

Not everyone has the same benefits.  Some have more, some have less.  

Edited June 14, 2021 by HeartString

[Sneezyone]

On a silly note, we don’t have to worry about kids reading Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer anymore, at least not in states with bans. 🤣

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[HeartString]

25 minutes ago, Plum said:

30 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

 

Sorry! I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m thinking of all of these lessons I’ve seen that ask elementary age kids to use those words which I think is wrong. It’s one thing to talk about it within your family. It’s another thing to have people outside your family talk to your kid about it. 

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone agree that children should learn they are oppressors.  I firmly believe in the idea of privilege and would still be uncomfortable with kids being told they are oppressors.  I’m sure there’s a better way to do it.  I dont think saying it’s 100% up to parents is good either.  I’d like the kids who are getting misogynistic or racist messages at home to see a different view presented somehow.  
 

I also think that CRT as a lense could be applied without this language or the crazy programs.

Edited June 14, 2021 by HeartString

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone agree that children should learn they are oppressors.  I firmly believe in the idea of privilege and would still be uncomfortable with kids being told they are oppressors.  I’m sure there’s a better way to do it.  I do t think saying it’s 100% up to parents is good either.  I’d like the kids who are getting misogynistic or races messages at home to see a different view presented somehow.  
 

I also think that CRT as a lense could be applied without this language or the crazy programs.

I see that, but at the end of day, the best equalizing measure would be providing everyone with a good education. Burdening schools with these initiatives isn’t the way to make this happen.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I see that, but at the end of day, the best equalizing measure would be providing everyone with a good education. Burdening schools with these initiatives isn’t the way to make this happen.

You don’t get a good education by banning any and all discussion of things that may cause discomfort.

[HeartString]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I see that, but at the end of day, the best equalizing measure would be providing everyone with a good education. Burdening schools with these initiatives isn’t the way to make this happen.

I guess it depends on what is meant by “these initiatives” because all kinds of things are being lumped together.  In some places it’s simply an effort not to completely whitewash history or recognize the achievements of POC in math or science.  I think those are good things. The oppressor wheels and naming your privilege out loud in class, not so good.  

Edited June 14, 2021 by HeartString

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You don’t get a good education by banning any and all discussion of things that may cause discomfort.

I'm not supporting banning it. I'm just musing about what should actually go on. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not supporting banning it. I'm just musing about what should actually go on. 

Well, what’s actually going on is bans.

[Not_a_Number]

I guess, from my perspective: taking a good honest look at history is good, not whitewashing things is good, spending time on explicitly-mandated time on this is bad, and spending time dismantling math as a tool of white supremacy is bad 😛 . 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Well, what’s actually going on is bans.

That's one of the things that's going on. I don't think everyone is talking about the same thing in this thread. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That's one of the things that's going on. I don't think everyone is talking about the same thing in this thread. 

Yes. We have some people expressing displeasure and no solutions, expressing no knowledge of systemic biases in American governance and life and others saying yep, there are some problems, let’s fix them. Instead, what we’re getting is blanket bans on culturally responsive teaching of any kind. In 15 states, students will be lied to about the history of the nation because it might cause discomfort. It’s easy to focus on specific incidents and miss the forest here.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes. We have some people expressing displeasure and no solutions, expressing no knowledge of systemic biases in American governance and life and others saying yep, there are some problems, let’s fix them. Instead, what we’re getting is blanket bans on culturally responsive teaching of any kind. In 15 states, students will be lied to about the history of the nation because it might cause discomfort. It’s easy to focus on specific incidents and miss the forest here.  

Right. The blanket bans are ridiculous. I'm not arguing there. 

[Sneezyone]

What they’re creating is a permanent underclass of ignorant people. It’s not gonna help matters as far as respectful national dialogue to have even more people who don’t actually know anything. It’s know nothingism and it’s gonna bite us all in the butt. Meh, I’m not gonna worry about it much anymore. My peeps will be fine. At the university level, at a minimum, it’s unlikely to pass constitutional muster. It has made me take a second look at DDs college list tho.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

I fail to see how this is not another way to ban discussion. 

Critical race theorist Ibram X Kendi, a historian at Boston University, argues that there is no such thing as being a ‘non-racist’. In Kendi’s influential opinion, you are either actively antiracist or you are a racist. To him, to question antiracist theory, is to risk being labelled a racist.

It’s not written into law now is it? Have we missed where that happened?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

I do think there will be some serious unintended consequences from these laws tho. The way the laws are written, the state may even be challenged on the existence of Columbus Day and Lee-Jackson day. Teaching about these holidays and individuals would cause discomfort. Can you even discuss the civil war without making children feel bad that their ancestors enslaved/were enslaved by others? Maybe but brace yourself for complaints and efforts to excise that whole shameful time period from history courses.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

You don't see how someone who is a Critical Race Theorist and teaches CRT at Boston U could have any influence on the CRT framework in K-12? It says right in the quote that he has an influential opinion. His book has already been linked in this thread. 

Of course he can have influence, so can you, so can I, that’s how ideas work in a democracy. Neither your ideas/influence nor mine, nor his, carry the force of law.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Plum said:

I can have influence. He does have influence. The groups that are creating the curriculum for the schools aren't going to listen to me. They didn't listen to the CA Jewish Caucus and tens of thousands of Californians. They would listen to him. 

I agree. Ubiquity is working against CRT. 

Do you support these legislative bans?

[Pam in CT]

re de facto barriers to exercising Constitutional right to vote

10 hours ago, Condessa said:

In the county where I used to live, towns of about 1500 or more had a polling place.  Because of geography, these were all clustered on one edge of the county, with smaller towns and communities scattered deep into the mountains up the rivers through the rest of the county.  There were a few small towns that were two hours’ or more drive from polling places, and a tiny town that can only be accessed by a several hours boat ride.

This is a great example of de facto barriers to voting; and a compelling rationale for voting by mail.  For all voters, obviously; but it serves a particularly crucial role for eligible voters who face limitations in their geography (your example), mobility (seniors, people without a car, caretakers of someone at home needing 24/7 care), or time (long & inflexible hours, long commutes). 

Some of these constraints could be met with extended days of early voting, but others  -- including your example -- cannot (and many states including mine do not have *any* days of early voting. We're working on it but because of how our Constitution micromanages certain types of legislative measures, it will be 4 years before we have even a shot at getting there.)

 

 

re language of "privilege" v "blessings"

10 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding privelege, but my experience, staying together in marriage and deciding to be present/active parents is a choice. My parents could easily have split up when Dad came back from Vietnam. They chose to stick it out. And they chose to emphasize that choice to me and my brother and to let us know that the hard work and sacrifice of staying together was worth it. So while it wasn't a choice that I made myself, it wasn't a random coincidence of fortune/privilege either. 

There is scope for differences in how people parse the difference between the two terms.  As you note yourself, while your stable and financially secure home resulted from particular choices and sacrifices your parents made... those choices weren't made by you (any more than the choices made by markedly less stable / loving / steady parents are made by their less-fortunate children).  That it was you, and not some other kid, lucky enough to be born into your parents' union and stability IS a random coincidence; your good fortune in the birth lottery is just as random and "unearned" by you as the more difficult circumstances of kids who don't fare as well in the birth lottery is "unearned" by them.

That said, I wholly agree that

8 hours ago, SKL said:

There's no question that the word "privilege" has been weaponized.

I see two separate aspects to this weaponization. 

The first piece, to my mind, is the old, legacy connotations of the word -- when I was growing up, the term "underprivileged" was commonly used to refer to disadvantages of wealth and income (which had an obvious overlap with race, but also encompassed coal miners' daughters and declining industrial towns and agricultural workers etc).... while its opposite, "privileged," also principally connoted trappings of wealth and income -- private schools and colleges, expensive vacations, second homes etc. 

And starting ~10 years ago, analysts really did start to use the term differently, to describe an arguably related but not-the-same thing.  And whenever language morphs, it takes time for the new usage to settle. If you've always associated the word "privilege" with the likes of Daisy Buchanan... and your own circumstances are a zillion miles away from hers (as virtually all IRL people's are!!!) ... it's hard to re-orient when the term starts being used a different way.

The second part -- the part that I would see as actual "weaponization" beyond ordinary bumpiness with evolving language usage -- is  not so much around the term as the actual content of the new usage: that there are sufficiently substantive differences in Shopping While Black , or Driving While Black , or Hailing a Taxi While Black, or Walking While Black , or Passing Through Security While Serving as a Black Senator , or any number of other ordinary daily life activities in which the lived experience of black people is measurably different than those same activities, white.

This observation, itself, disorients many of us white people. And for some of us, it triggers / tweaks defensiveness / angers.  It is likely that it *particularly* sets off those of us who have held to the Colorblind Doctrine, that we already live in a post-racial society where race makes no difference and everyone is solely judged by the content of their character, just the individuals. 

But -- as the very evidence some of us really really don't want to gather, or collate, or look at, demonstrates -- we have not yet arrived in that happy place.

And so I see the weaponization of the term "privilege" -- the outraged Fox squawking about the WORD, fused to a refusal to look at or listen to the SUBSTANCE of what black people -- who really are the subject matter experts in the lived experience of walking around black in America -- report... as one and the same phenomenon, as the discussion we're having right now, here, today, about "CRT." Which is similarly being whipped and weaponized in very similar ways:

 

So while I understand the struggle in adapting to how a term that once had a meaning largely associated with wealth/income is now being used to refer to a broader range of (similarly "unearned") divergences in life experiences...

at the end of the day...

3 hours ago, Harpymom said:

I'm sorry you said this.  Did you really mean to?

Privilege and blessings are so different.  Gratitude is for blessings.  Privilege is being able to get pulled over for a burned out tail light and not get shot to death.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/georgia-trooper-charged-murder-traffic-stop-shooting-72382237

https://qz.com/725618/another-black-man-was-fatally-shot-at-a-traffic-stop-in-the-us-his-girlfriend-broadcast-the-aftermath-on-facebook-live/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/09/398615265/s-c-dash-cam-video-a-broken-tail-light-a-routine-traffic-stop-a-fleeing-man

This is what is being parsed, now, today. This is what the term refers to, in today's context.

The meaning has evolved.  Dwelling over-long on what the term once meant, is a choice.  Railing against that evolution in its usage is a choice.

And, First Amendment, if that's the arena where folks really want to dig in and cling fast to, what does "privilege" even mean... carry on.

But the real issues -- the ethical issues, the political stability issues, the issues framing our future as a nation -- are around the SUBSTANCE of privilege, not the language.

 

 

 

[Fritz]

13 hours ago, Frances said:

I was also very confused by the post and actually went back and reread both articles.

In general I’m not sure either the right or the left is great about adhering to basic principles, likely at least in part due to the diversity within each group. But one could also argue some conservatives aren’t sticking to the free speech principles they tout when criticizing removal of college speakers and banning individuals who repeatedly lie or incite hate/violence from some social media platforms. Now some want to implement very broad, very vague bans on teachers and curriculum.

The big difference I see here is this, the speakers on college campuses and the posts on social media are optional. You can choose to attend or follow those events/posts. Teachers and curriculums are not optional.

Those students, professors and outsiders that show up at these on campus events to protest speakers in an effort (usually successfully) to shut down free speech have the option to just not attend the event. Students in classrooms that are presented with a curriculum can not opt out. As we have seen in some of these cases the curriculum is being hidden from parents. That in particular raises red flags for me.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Fritz

[Pen]

3 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

 

I get what you all are saying, but I still don't think of being in an intact family as a privilege in the sense that we sometimes need to "check our privilege". It's not something like sex or skin color that nobody else has any control over either. If you (general you) are concerned about what kind of world your kids are growing up in, you do have the power to give them an intact family. You can't change racist people's minds, you can't always get yourself out of poverty, you can't make the whole world safe for women, etc. But you can give them the gift of an intact family. It's a gift consciously chosen by someone's parents, not a randomly bestowed societal privilege, which in my opinion is a huge difference in thinking which can empower the family, as opposed to making them feel helpless because they somehow lost the privilege roll of the dice.

Not being from an “intact family” has huge societal stigma in many cases. 
 

There is a great deal of “privilege” for people from intact families — some merely in unconscious positive attitudes, some in opportunities and invitations, some in actually having two parents in the home especially if the parental marriage is basically functional. 
 

If you are in an intact family, do you socialize frequently with non intact families? You may, but many people do not. 

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Do you support these legislative bans?

Quoting myself because, as is often the case, disingenuousness undergirds much of the opposition and it’s readily apparent here too. It’s not about ensuring children aren’t told that they’re oppressors or oppressed, it’s about making sure they aren’t told anything about how our country developed, an effort to erase any/all unpleasantness. If it were otherwise, there would be proposals and efforts to work together to develop something that is better. Those proposals/efforts don’t exist.

[HeartString]

55 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I guess, from my perspective: taking a good honest look at history is good, not whitewashing things is good, spending time on explicitly-mandated time on this is bad, and spending time dismantling math as a tool of white supremacy is bad 😛 . 

See…I agree with that completely. 

[HeartString]

36 minutes ago, Plum said:

I fail to see how this is not another way to ban discussion. 

Critical race theorist Ibram X Kendi, a historian at Boston University, argues that there is no such thing as being a ‘non-racist’. In Kendi’s influential opinion, you are either actively antiracist or you are a racist. To him, to question antiracist theory, is to risk being labelled a racist.

That is one man’s opinion.  There are people that want homeschooling to be banned too, and yet here we are.  

[Condessa]

22 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re de facto barriers to exercising Constitutional right to vote

This is a great example of de facto barriers to voting; and a compelling rationale for voting by mail.  For all voters, obviously; but it serves a particularly crucial role for eligible voters who face limitations in their geography (your example), mobility (seniors, people without a car, caretakers of someone at home needing 24/7 care), or time (long & inflexible hours, long commutes). 

Some of these constraints could be met with extended days of early voting, but others  -- including your example -- cannot (and many states including mine do not have *any* days of early voting. We're working on it but because of how our Constitution micromanages certain types of legislative measures, it will be 4 years before we have even a shot at getting there.)

100% agreement.  I think the arguments against mail-in voting are ridiculous.  Clearly, if we can find a way to pay taxes securely by mail, we can also find a way to make voting by mail secure against fraud.  

[Dmmetler]

L took a CRT class a couple of years back-an honors college sociology course on Race, Class and Gender. Yes, it did involve the students becoming aware of where they had areas of relative and lesser privilege, but not in the sense of "L, you're a middle class, intellectually gifted, White, homeschooled kid from an intact, college educated family, therefore you should feel bad because you're not Black and coming from an academically weak high school like J. J, you're male, so you should feel bad because you're not a Latinx Lesbian like T, and T, you're so much better off than M, who is transgender, Biracial and poor."

 

Rather, it was a chance for all of the above to share what parts of their stories they were comfortable sharing, learn how it fit into the historic framework, and most importantly, find ways to support and understand each other. Many of the students taking it were history majors, most planning to teach and those planning to go into social work.  

 

L considers it the single most valuable DE class taken, because it made so much in other classes make sense. 

 

I don't think that it would be a good thing to do with elementary kids,but I definitely don't think it is a case of "making kids feel bad for being an oppressor". If it had been, my kid was probably the most privileged. What it did do was make everyone aware of the different influences that different people deal with. It added a valuable context that every student was missing part of. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Dmmetler

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

That doesn’t really address the other purpose(s) of voting by mail though.  I mean, my polling place uses the same parking lot as the post office.  It might solve a specific date issue for some people.  Timing, perhaps not. My post office hours are a lot shorter than polling hours.  My PO even closes for lunch, lol.

[Faith-manor]

34 minutes ago, Pen said:

Not being from an “intact family” has huge societal stigma in many cases. 
 

There is a great deal of “privilege” for people from intact families — some merely in unconscious positive attitudes, some in opportunities and invitations, some in actually having two parents in the home especially if the parental marriage is basically functional. 
 

If you are in an intact family, do you socialize frequently with non intact families? You may, but many people do not. 

This is especially true due to evangelical Christian influence with its "God hates divorce" preaching, and the fundamentalist view "God visits the sins of the fathers on the children for generations" preaching. Combined, it has fromed  a lethal combo that has created serious social stigma. So again, the price of this stigma falls on the heads of those who had exactly zero choice in the matter, not unlike any other privilege/advantage.

[Condessa]

I know it’s just semantics and not really important, but the part of me that loves precise language really dislikes this use of the term “privilege”.  I understand what is meant by it and why it is used, but in my mind, a child receiving support from its parents, not being abused, basic medical care, sufficient food, receiving a decent basic education, etc. in this country is a right, not a privilege.  The child who doesn’t receive these things, whose deadbeat dad walks out on them, or is abused or neglected, whose caregivers are too drugged out to notice they’re hungry or to take them in for the free food assistance or free medical care offered for vulnerable kids—these kids, my foster girls, they weren’t just lacking a privilege.  They were robbed of something that was theirs by right.  

Most (but not all) of the “privileges” we’ve been discussing seem to fall under this category.  (Like the unfair, discriminatory lending practices—those people weren’t just disallowed something extra.  They were robbed of what should have been theirs by right.) Some others, such as generational wealth or a family history of higher education, do actually seem to fall under the category of privileges that some are able to obtain on behalf of their children.
 

I know it’s not really relevant to the underlying message, but I just wish a different term had been settled upon for this purpose.  For most of these, it feels much more accurate to say something like “injustices” or “disadvantages” for those who lack them, than “privileges” for those who don’t.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Condessa

[Not_a_Number]

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I know it’s not really relevant to the underlying message, but I just wish a different term had been settled upon for this purpose.  For most of these, it feels much more accurate to say something like “injustices” or “disadvantages” for those who lack them, than “privileges” for those who don’t.

But sometimes "privilege" just means something like "white skin," and you wouldn't really want to describe a lack of this as an injustice or a disadvantage. 

I personally don't think there was any way to describe this concept to not make people bristle. People get defensive and angry when you imply they don't deserve their good fortune. Thus it is now, thus it always has been. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

Simply because they were received doesn’t mean they could be used. My state has all mail in voting (although there are options for in person) with manual signature verification. Our last Secretary of State, who unfortunately died in office, was a very conservative Republican. He strongly defended the integrity of the system. A recent twenty year review of the system found very, very little fraud. No system is going to be perfect, but this comes pretty darn close for access and integrity.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

[Lady Florida.]

This thread moves so fast that by the time I get a chance to read new replies I just end up liking a bunch of them. I'm going to stop reading for now and reply to a few.

20 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Singapore Math was a disaster for my math-challenged daughter. It would also be a

 

18 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Repetitively pounding on some basics day after day did help. 

The problem is that some students, particularly in the elementary years - esp if they have LDs or challenges, get completely lost because they are still literal thinkers. My son sailed through 6 years of SM. LOVED it. My daughter understood / learned *nothing* from it. Couldn't understand it at all, found it very frustrating. Tried it twice - once in first, once in 4th...didn't work at all either time.

 

I thought Singapore Math would help my kid with ADHD because of the repetitiveness. People with ADHD have trouble with working memory so I hoped the constant repeating of the basics would help with that. He hated it and it became a battle every day to get him to do math, even with me sitting next to him the entire time. Fortunately homeschooling allows you to throw a method aside and try something different. We eventually settled on Right Start. He'll always have trouble with working memory but RS was a better fit for him with his particular challenges (plus it kept his hands busy, allowing his mind to focus more).

 

16 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The practical effect of state bans...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-critical-race-theory-20210612-xrvywkxwejczrmzisfouxnb74m-story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

 

15 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I absolutely don’t support banning CRT from schools.  I think that critics should be focusing on improvements and alternatives that address racism and cross cultural education they can support vs. legislative bans.  If they can’t articulate a plan for what they want to be taught and instead can only say what they don’t want taught, it’s fair to say they have ulterior motives.  

The WaPo article was behind a paywall but I read the first link. Just last week as this thread was going strong, the Florida State Board of Education banned any type of CRT from public schools. You can bet there are ulterior motives there. Sigh.

 

15 hours ago, Plum said:

Russell Brand always surprises me. 

Not me. He gets dismissed because of his brash ways and his shock comedy and his brief marriage to Katy Perry. He is however, quite intelligent and thoughtful. If people would actually listen to him more they'd realize that. I get the side-eye even from my very progressive friends for defending him but I wish more people would listen to what he has to say.

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

Simply because they were received doesn’t mean they could be used. My state has all mail in voting (although there are options for in person) with manual signature verification. Our last Secretary of State, who unfortunately died in office, was a very conservative Republican. He strongly defended the integrity of the system. A recent twenty year review of the system found very, very little fraud. No system is going to be perfect, but this comes pretty darn close for access and integrity.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

The states that do mail only voting also keep better updated voter rolls so there are fewer issues to start with. There’s no real reason to need to do big voter purges if it’s kept up all the time.  When you file a death certificate or a change of address form the county should be able to update voter information at the same time. 

[LucyStoner]

10 minutes ago, Frances said:

Simply because they were received doesn’t mean they could be used. My state has all mail in voting (although there are options for in person) with manual signature verification. Our last Secretary of State, who unfortunately died in office, was a very conservative Republican. He strongly defended the integrity of the system. A recent twenty year review of the system found very, very little fraud. No system is going to be perfect, but this comes pretty darn close for access and integrity.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

We have 100% mail in voting here, a GOP Secretary of State and no issues with fraud.  I have no clue why they don’t just go to mail in everywhere.  Standing in line to vote sounds like a stupid joke to someone who has always enjoyed a mail-in ballot. I vote at my kitchen table.  I have always voted by mail.  It’s great. Everyone should join us- you’ll never have to worry about who allowed to do what and when near a polling place ever again.  The idea of standing in line to vote long enough that I need a sandwich and hydration makes me angry TBH.  It’s 2021.  Polling lines are only a problem if we accept the absurdity that there’s no secure way to vote except cueing up to vote in a high school gymnasium or church basement.  Again, the year is 2021.  We can do better.  

Edited June 14, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Carol in Cal.]

16 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

We have 100% mail in voting here, a GOP Secretary of State and no issues with fraud.  I have no clue why they don’t just go to mail in everywhere.  Standing in line to vote sounds like a stupid joke to someone who has always enjoyed a mail-in ballot. I vote at my kitchen table.  I have always voted by mail.  It’s great. Everyone should join us- you’ll never have to worry about who allowed to do what and when near a polling place ever again.  The idea of standing in line to vote long enough that I need a sandwich and hydration makes me angry TBH.  It’s 2021.  Polling lines are only a problem if we accept the absurdity that there’s no secure way to vote except cueing up to vote in a high school gymnasium or church basement.  Again, the year is 2021.  We can do better.  

I’ve been a permanent mail in voter for years, but I always take my ballot to a polling place.  I like that combination because I can vote anywhere, not just (or very much most easily) at the polling place I am assigned to, which changes every single year, annoyingly.  This also avoids the requirement to mail them back early enough to arrive by Election Day, which bothers me as there is often some late information that effects my decision making, particularly for propositions here in CA.

I think what people were suspicious of is the states that suddenly decided to mail out ballots to every voter and extended the return date beyond voting day.  And there are in fact some problems with that.  Although I dislike the ‘return by election day’ requirement, I think that it is important.  The system falters a great deal when there is uncertainty for weeks on end, and having an actual Election Day requirement is helpful in minimizing that, although it does not eliminate it completely in close/contested races.  And sending ballots by mail to people who have not requested them is a recipe for weird stuff happening—people not being able to figure out how to vote, people not really understanding that they have the actual ballot rather than a sample in hand, or people still figuring they should be able to find a polling place and vote on Election Day, which may or may not be true.  

The states that have transitioned to voting by mail entirely had to do some educating before getting there.  That’s wise and prudent.

I think that the bulk of votes should be counted with live observers present and all at once.  That is one of the reasons our system is more or less trusted.  If we are going to move toward mail in ballots, there has to be pre-implementation education, some kind of chain of custody control that is widely understood, and a rapid counting system with observers, to ensure the legitimacy of the results in people’s minds.

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

 That is one of the reasons our system is more or less trusted.

I think the reason our system is more or less trusted is that until recently, it was important to everyone that it be trusted. People don't trust things for "reasons." People trust things because it's part of their culture. 

I'm worried about what happens now that this isn't something there is bipartisan agreement on, I have to say. 

[Carol in Cal.]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, it varies widely but it's not true to claim that they are nothing like each other. 

There are plenty of examples of racism in California. 

California's history of anti-Blackness hides beneath its progressive education

California Once Tried to Ban Black People

I don't understand the fear of acknowledging our racial prejudice. That's what Kendi is getting at. We're either racist or anti-racist. Anti-racist being that we acknowledge our racism and try to overcome it. It doesn't mean that someone is evil or a member of the Klan. 

 

There are more recent examples actually.  There were sunset laws in a neighboring town up through the mid 1900s.  There was fairly active police driven de facto segregation in the East Bay Area pretty late in the 1900s, maybe in the 1970s or so—see for reference “Not A Genuine Black Man”, an excellent read and an even better one person play if you ever have a chance to see it.

Still, CA is where at least two of the Little Rock Nine fled to in fear for their lives, and the palpable relief of not having to worry about physical torture/death was noteworthy in the memoirs of one of them.

Also, Kendi goes far further than what you say above, and that is why I don’t like the adulation that his work commonly receives in corporate and educational settings.  He calls anything that reduces the effects of prior systematic racism anti-racist, and anyone who opposes anything like that as racist.  That means that the only lens to look through in decision making should be whether it reduces the effects of prior racism—not morals, not law, not anything else.  One lens to rule them all.  And that means that he broadly defines as racist anyone who objects to anything that could be construed as intended to reduce racially differentiated outcomes.  That’s counterproductive at best, and immoral at worse.  It goes far beyond ‘acknowledging our racism and trying to overcome it’.

[ktgrok]

On 6/11/2021 at 11:57 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

The presidency is less likely than the rest of it. But even if a democratic president is elected his/her power will be limited by a Republican congress. Look at what's happening in states with Democratic governors. 

And I don't think this is because of core conservatives believing in the "evils" of CRT. It's much more likely based on ordinary moderate people becoming concerned about CRT and the illiberalism of the Left. 

Yeah, but what if they can't vote because their name is stricken from the voter rolls or they don't have an ID or whatever? 

And even if they do get out and vote, what difference will it make if their votes are gerrymandered away? The majority of votes already go to Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates but the Democrats do not always control congress. 

My and my DH's ballots are being "audited" by a bunch of crazy people looking for bamboo fibers. That doesn't make me feel very confident in the democratic process. Our county went for Biden but there's been relentless attacks on the integrity of the vote since November. 

So would you tell an African American man in 1900 to "get out and vote" and organize to end Jim Crow? That might get him killed. 

And there was more to the Civil Rights movement than non-violence. 

 

How 'Crazy Negroes' With Guns Helped Kill Jim Crow

I quoted just to say, I wish we could hang out 🙂  We could talk about progressive Christianity and all sorts of theological stuff, and this stuff, and whatever else. I really wish I had a local friend like you. Locally, almost all my friends are full on athiest, and I adore them, or hard core Catholic, but none who are really open minded progressive religious. And so, although this time has been hard for you, because I imagine decontructing is always hard, I see you and admire you. And that post reminded me of that again. 

On 6/12/2021 at 6:34 AM, Harpymom said:

construct of White is legally favored by law, health care policy, education practices, policing and voting, commercial banking, real estate and lending, non-profit organization, environmental policies, and every other social scaffold.  To confine teaching about race to history is to miss the entire point.

 

Yes. To ignore this is to promote ignorance. As they say, you can't change things until you know there is a need for change - and if we avoid teaching kids that we do them a terrible disservice. Age appropriate ways, sure, but even young kids can understand the basics. 

This does NOT mean demonizing white people. Nor does it mean making them oppressors. I teach my kids that people tend to want people who are like them around them. So they may naturally favor people of their own race, gender, background, culture, accent, etc. People of ALL backgrounds/races/etc do that. But...when one particular race has held the power to hire people in a company for a long time, that means that by default they hire people "like them". So it is important to come up with ways to control for this, either by having more diverse hiring committees, or actively seeking to diversify with new employees, etc etc. 

And we talk about other priviledges, like having two parents at home, having a mom who can stay home with them, ability to go to the doctor when we want, internet access, etc. 

None of it is about making them out to be the bad guy. 

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:32 AM, Fritz said:

Paraphrasing from the video, "If you believe in kids and teach them to believe in themselves they will rise to the occasion and succeed." IMO, that's the secret sauce no matter gender, race, or sex! This starts at home with the parents. I realize not every kid gets that from their parents. Having the schools do a better job of this rather than studying the wheel of privileges' or focusing on our perceived differences based on race seems likely to bring about a better outcome for all kids. 

Having kids raised to not know about the systemic issues favoring men, favoring white people, etc is to raise them ignorant of the world they live in. 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:33 AM, Sneezyone said:

 

Maybe so, but there’s no question in my mind that the intersection of wealth is a major issue in some of these communities. The assignments being highlighted aren’t even all about race. Plum posted one that didn’t even mention race at all. It’s as if the very notion of introspection is taboo. That’s ridiculous on it’s face.

True! 

[ktgrok]

The idea that some teachers teach this badly so we shouldn't do it seems odd to me. Some teacher teach math badly...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach math in school. 

[Danae]

2 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

. . . I think what people were suspicious of is the states that suddenly decided to mail out ballots to every voter . . .

 

Did any states actually do that?  I thought those accusations all turned out to be false and the states were mailing a ballot request form to every voter.  

[Faith-manor]

8 minutes ago, Danae said:

Did any states actually do that?  I thought those accusations all turned out to be false and the states were mailing a ballot request form to every voter.  

This. My state was accused of this and it was a flat out LIE from a certain party. Since townships expected an epidemic request of absentee ballots due to the pandemic, they requested the S.O.S. send ballot applications to each registered voter. Those had to be filled out and signed, then mailed. Only then did the voter receive an actual ballot in the mail.

For the record, Michigan did not mail ballots to every.single.eligible.voter. They sent out applications for absentee ballots. And those were reviewed against voter rolls and required signatures as well. My state approved "no reason" mail in voting by WIDE margins and bipartisan approval long before the presidential election. We have whole areas that get ice and snow, bad ice and snow by November and sometimes roads and weather are hideous when we vote on local issues or for the primaries in March. I would like people to stop and consider what it means to stand outside a building waiting to get in to vote when it is 15 degrees, wind hills below that, snowing and sometimes freezing rain. Infreakingsane to expect it of anyone much less the disabled and elderly!

[KSera]

 

7 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/should-black-lives-matter-agenda-be-taught-school/618277/

This is a thoughtful article; thanks for sharing. I think there are many people who think examples like the leading one in this story about the “Not my Idea” book are what most schools are doing, and it’s understandable there would be some major issues with that. That doesn’t seem to be  the case though. Those are just the ones that get attention, and they are the ones that should be addressed.  As the article says (but not until a good way into the piece, which means I expect a lot of people miss it because these Atlantic articles are always long):

 “And that influence shows in Evanston, where, starting in the spring of 2019, the District 65 Educators’ Council––the local teachers’ union––proposed to work with administrators to develop a local BLM at School curriculum. By autumn, the school board had approved a week of lessons. The curriculum—which district leaders say aligns with Illinois social-studies standards and guidelines—draws on the materials and guiding principles of the national initiative while also adding texts such as Not My Idea, which doesn’t appear on the national BLM at School’s current list of recommended books.” (Bolding mine)

 

6 hours ago, Plum said:

I put medical records in there because it seems like a no-brainer, right?

Dr. David Reich, Professor from Harvard and Mt. Sinai says there's no race gene. Race doesn't exist. Any differences come from lifestyle and circumstance which of course caused a bunch of other scientists to disagree and post a public letter. 

https://scijust.ucsc.edu/2019/05/30/developing-debate-on-race-and-genomics/

I'm a little confused. With covid we saw the differences between race. Was that all purely mistrust of medicine, lack of access, lifestyle and circumstance? 

 

There are certainly medical issues that affect certain groups disproportionately due to genetics. Which is different than saying there is a race gene. There are genes that are more prevalent in certain ethnic groups. Sickle cell anemia, for example. I don't think we can say yet how much of the difference with Covid is due to circumstances and how much is genetics. It would be interesting to see how the outcomes for minorities differ depending on their living situations, and if their outcomes were more similar to other people of their race, or of other people living in the same areas in equivalent living circumstances.

4 hours ago, Plum said:

You don't see how someone who is a Critical Race Theorist and teaches CRT at Boston U could have any influence on the CRT framework in K-12? It says right in the quote that he has an influential opinion. His book has already been linked in this thread. 

As mentioned in several links, including this particularly helpful one Sneezyone posted Accusations about teaching ‘critical race theory’ in Connecticut often lack evidence, used as a vehicle for broader attacks on equity and inclusion, K-12 schools aren’t actually trying to implement CRT. 
 

Quote

 

But many of those arguments, educators say, are long on hyperbole and short on facts. School superintendents under attack in the state say that critical race theory is not a part of their curricula — and that their critics fundamentally misunderstand their efforts to create inclusive educational environments and teach students to approach history with nuance.

“At a national level now, people are making broad assumptions and making allegations that any discussion of race, or equity, or social justice among students or in a school system means that students are being sorted, or judged, or shamed based on their race or ethnicity,” said Guilford Superintendent Paul Freeman.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Plum said:

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

There would be little point in that. Time and again, mail-in ballots have been shown to have a very low incidence of any kind of fraud, and they allow more people to be able to exercise their right to vote, especially people that are disenfranchised by the current voting process. Your sister would not have been able to use the ballots that arrived. Every ballot is checked against the signature on file, and everyone only gets one vote. My husband and I have each had a ballot where our signature didn't match and we were contacted to resolve. For both of us, our signature had drifted since we first registered. Our signatures are now updated. I've been on a tour of a local mail in ballot counting facility, and my faith in the system was bolstered even further by seeing how it's done. It's an excellent system that works well and ensures people aren't disenfranchised.

 

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Although I dislike the ‘return by election day’ requirement, I think that it is important.  The system falters a great deal when there is uncertainty for weeks on end, and having an actual Election Day requirement is helpful in minimizing that, although it does not eliminate it completely in close/contested races.  And sending ballots by mail to people who have not requested them is a recipe for weird stuff happening—people not being able to figure out how to vote, people not really understanding that they have the actual ballot rather than a sample in hand, or people still figuring they should be able to find a polling place and vote on Election Day, which may or may not be true.  

The states that have transitioned to voting by mail entirely had to do some educating before getting there.  That’s wise and prudent.

I think that the bulk of votes should be counted with live observers present and all at once.  That is one of the reasons our system is more or less trusted.  If we are going to move toward mail in ballots, there has to be pre-implementation education, some kind of chain of custody control that is widely understood, and a rapid counting system with observers, to ensure the legitimacy of the results in people’s minds.

 

I don't think return by election day is necessary. It's only in modern times that we have come to expect such rapid turn around of voting results. It's not built into our system. In fact, our system is built with lots of time in between voting and certification and inauguration to give time for these things. As far as needing it "to ensure the legitimacy of the results in people’s minds," the only thing that called into question the legitimacy of the results was people insisting the results were not going to be legitimate starting months before an election even happened, for the express purpose of sowing doubts. Terribly damaging to our democracy.

[Condessa]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But sometimes "privilege" just means something like "white skin," and you wouldn't really want to describe a lack of this as an injustice or a disadvantage. 

I personally don't think there was any way to describe this concept to not make people bristle. People get defensive and angry when you imply they don't deserve their good fortune. Thus it is now, thus it always has been. 

But is having white skin a privilege?  Being discriminated against for having a different color skin would be an injustice.  I don't think my kids who take after my side of the family have a "privilege" over my daughter who takes after the other side of the family for having lighter skin.  Frankly, my pale daughter envies her sister's lovely brown tan, and not having to be so careful about sunburns.  My one daughter may someday encounter injustice over this in her life.  But does that mean that my pale, freckled kids are privileged?

I think of not being discriminated against as a right, not a privilege.  

Edited June 14, 2021 by Condessa

[pinball]

According to this, several states who had previously never done it sent ballots to all registered voters

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-mail-voting-policies-in-effect-for-the-2020-election.aspx

https://www.brookings.edu/research/voting-by-mail-in-a-pandemic-a-state-by-state-scorecard/

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Condessa said:

But is having white skin a privilege?  Being discriminated against for having a different color skin would be an injustice.  I don't think my kids who take after my side of the family have a "privilege" over my daughter who takes after the other side of the family for having lighter skin.  Frankly, my pale daughter envies her sister's lovely brown tan, and not having to be so careful about sunburns.  My one daughter may someday encounter injustice over this in her life.  But does that mean that my pale, freckled kids are privileged?

You're going to have to define a "privilege" for me before I can answer your question. Also, you're going to have to define "white skin." 

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, Condessa said:

But is having white skin a privilege?  Being discriminated against for having a different color skin would be an injustice.  I don't think my kids who take after my side of the family have a "privilege" over my daughter who takes after the other side of the family for having lighter skin.  Frankly, my pale daughter envies her sister's lovely brown tan, and not having to be so careful about sunburns.  My one daughter may someday encounter injustice over this in her life.  But does that mean that my pale, freckled kids are privileged?

I think of not being discriminated against as a right, not a privilege.  

If the less melanated and more melanated members of my 1st cousin cohort are asked that question it’s a resounding yes. Our family situations are all similar, genetics, intelligence, location, etc. also, by the way, black people burn in the sun.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[pinball]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

The idea that some teachers teach this badly so we shouldn't do it seems odd to me. Some teacher teach math badly...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach math in school. 

I think it is an inappropriate way for framing U.S. history, especially for younger kids, so it is inevitable that it will be taught “badly.”

[Condessa]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

You're going to have to define a "privilege" for me before I can answer your question. Also, you're going to have to define "white skin." 

Privilege: a special favor, honor, or right granted to a person or persons

I just used the term "white skin" to echo your wording in your prior post.  I assumed you meant having a complexion that people see and assume you to be white.