Turning the corner on "woke"?

[Pat]

  No one thinks critical race theory is taught in schools.  HOWEVER, many of the conclusions reached from critical race theory are in fact taught, or attempts at applying these things are all over the place.  It is playing a semantic game to say there is no critical race theory in the sense of there being some course that teaches such.   The influence of critical race theory (of which MANY professors have a great deal of contact with, the people indoctrinating/training teachers,  and I suspect a rather large portion of the professor population agrees with) is there for all to see.  I honestly feel it was the most convenient name to call it, and one thing people get scared about is when people start naming an enemy.  If something can not have a name, well it can not be, right?  So again we get endless word games.

In much fewer words, Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

CRT is not taught in schools below graduate level law school. If you say it is you are a liar.

Oh look, a liar!

As far as CRT's influence on culture and learning. I am glad that it has made an impact.

Oh look, you admit you're a liar!

Well, you are failing to make a distinction between two different concepts.

CRT is a theory on examining systemic racism and how it has impacted the lives of people. The application and the understanding that results from this examination and applying it to the real world is a different thing. But if you look at right wing media, CRT has become a code word for anything that goes against the concept of the status quo. The idea that everything is fine... which right wing media and those who follow it is likely to believe in since they have actively benefited from things being the status quo.

To promote the idea that maybe how laws and rules and policies have been shaped to support and prop up the wealth and success of whites and to actively suppress and beat down the same of minorities is anathema to the right, since this not only weakens their own supposed achievements but also leads to the means to strengthen the status those they find less than them. They consider everything a zero-sum game and when one who is not them stands to gain, they themselves believe they will lose.

So they lash out.

But it's not a zero-sum game. The success of one certain person is not necessarily at the expense of another. In fact the success of one person may bring on success to others by their actions. This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism. One person becomes rich and wealthy and starts a business that creates jobs and opportunities for many others.

I'm not failing to make any distinction. I'm pointing out you're very dishonest because you used one definition to attack people you don't like, and then in the very next sentence you switched definitions to defend the group you do like.

You admit that yes, they're teaching the principles of CRT in elementary schools. But you're trying to dismiss the criticism that they're teaching the principles of CRT in elementary schools because they shorten that to "CRT" instead of the "principles of CRT". You clearly know what they're saying, because you've literally described it. If you were honest, you could note or even correct the slight difference in terminology, but you'd have to accept the point they're making, and then try to refute it by arguing that it's actually good. Instead, you're just denying its happening. Which is vile behavior.

[Pat]

As far as 1st amendment violations, it remains to be seen. Free speech is protected from government action, not private corporations (which is why being banned on twitter is not a 1st amendment violation). Twitter can implement whatever limitations on speech it desires now and under Musk. If Musk wants to open the flood gates, so be it. We can let the 'free market' decide. In light of the lack of popularity of other so called 'free speech' platforms... this can probably ruin Twitter as a platform.

The idea that only direct actions by the government are protected by the first amendment is absurd. The Biden administration was literally telling the social media companies who they should ban, at the same time they were threatening the social media companies with regulation.

"By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech."
- Harry A. Blackmun, Supreme Court Justice

In my opinion, the people clamouring the most about free speech are the ones whose speech is the most abhorred.

Intellectuals have long pointed out that defending free speech inherently involves defending people with ideas you disagree with, or even find abominable:

"One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."
- Salman Rushdie

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
- H.L. Mencken

... but you've twisted that into saying the people who have the the courage and principles to stand against evil, like Rushdie and Mencken, are the real monsters.

[Pat]

But if you want to use your free speech to incite aggression, imply falsehoods, or engage in manipulations against an other... that is no longer free speech that is an attack on the well being of another person. This is why we have libel laws and defamation laws. The right to free speech does not give you the right to use your speech to harm others.

If you think free speech ends if you "imply falsehoods, or engage in manipulations against an other", you must never have had a romantic or family relationship, worked in an office, or even had a casual friendship. You also don't believe in free speech. In fact, you're an ardent enemy of the basic principle.

[FelixGamingX1]

Elon Musk just bought Twitter.

This is going to be fun.

This changes... Nothing whatsoever for me. Never used Twitter, never will.

But hey, more mean tweets coming soon, right?

No one knows what's the deal here yet. There's a big, big difference between free speech and the harassment of others. Elon has the chance to turn twitter into something new and unique.

[Ghostmaker]

Shaun King, aka Talcum X, the white guy cosplaying as a black guy, deleted his Twitter account.

This is a net positive.

[Pat]

Shaun King, aka Talcum X, the white guy cosplaying as a black guy, deleted his Twitter account.

This is a net positive.

A white guy is upset that an African American is moving in, and fled? That's a classic example of white flight.

[Eirikrautha]

Shaun King, aka Talcum X, the white guy cosplaying as a black guy, deleted his Twitter account.

This is a net positive.

A white guy is upset that an African American is moving in, and fled? That's a classic example of white flight.

Ok, I admit it.  I LOLed.  And everyone around me stared.

[oggsmash]

  I have learned most laws against things that are illegal, like murder, are racist.   It seems some people will be disproportionately affected by enforcing the law.  Thus, enforcing laws is racist.  If enforcing law is racist, maybe the law is racist?    It is an interesting world to live in.  For instance a few decades ago a warring drug trade  caused high violent crime and caused quite a bit of collateral damage across the nation.  People in minority neighborhoods demanded law makers and enforcers do something about it.  They made a bill to punish harshly, people involved in drugs and violence (attaching extra time for getting caught with drugs and guns, and smashing people who had drugs that were tied to the massive violent crime wave).  Well, the bill worked and violence was brought back down across the nation.  Now because one group of people that was disproportionately involved in the violent drug wars had to go to prison at a rate that showed its disproportionate involvement, the bill is RACIST. 

   I think there may be some realities or facts that are just racist if these are the metrics we are going to use going forwards.

[fixable]

  No one thinks critical race theory is taught in schools.  HOWEVER, many of the conclusions reached from critical race theory are in fact taught, or attempts at applying these things are all over the place.  It is playing a semantic game to say there is no critical race theory in the sense of there being some course that teaches such.   The influence of critical race theory (of which MANY professors have a great deal of contact with, the people indoctrinating/training teachers,  and I suspect a rather large portion of the professor population agrees with) is there for all to see.  I honestly feel it was the most convenient name to call it, and one thing people get scared about is when people start naming an enemy.  If something can not have a name, well it can not be, right?  So again we get endless word games.

In much fewer words, Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

CRT is not taught in schools below graduate level law school. If you say it is you are a liar.

Oh look, a liar!

As far as CRT's influence on culture and learning. I am glad that it has made an impact.

Oh look, you admit you're a liar!

Well, you are failing to make a distinction between two different concepts.

CRT is a theory on examining systemic racism and how it has impacted the lives of people. The application and the understanding that results from this examination and applying it to the real world is a different thing. But if you look at right wing media, CRT has become a code word for anything that goes against the concept of the status quo. The idea that everything is fine... which right wing media and those who follow it is likely to believe in since they have actively benefited from things being the status quo.

To promote the idea that maybe how laws and rules and policies have been shaped to support and prop up the wealth and success of whites and to actively suppress and beat down the same of minorities is anathema to the right, since this not only weakens their own supposed achievements but also leads to the means to strengthen the status those they find less than them. They consider everything a zero-sum game and when one who is not them stands to gain, they themselves believe they will lose.

So they lash out.

But it's not a zero-sum game. The success of one certain person is not necessarily at the expense of another. In fact the success of one person may bring on success to others by their actions. This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism. One person becomes rich and wealthy and starts a business that creates jobs and opportunities for many others.

Okay smoothbrain, prove it. Provide a law, rule or policy that does what you claim and prove it. I know of only one such policy but I very much doubt it's the one your room temperature IQ is thinking of. Because it goes against your cult's dogma to think like I do.

You are asking me about laws, rules or policies that claim what, exactly? The discrimination against minorities? Lol, fine where do I begin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,of%20race%20or%20national%20origin.

https://www.aclu.org/other/drug-war-new-jim-crow

https://www.financialsamurai.com/mortgage-interest-rates-by-race/

https://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/racial_disparities_traffic_stops.php#.YmeaY_PMIiw

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/

Lol. do you want more? You have yet to provide a single link to evidence of the question I asked you.

Laws, rules and policies that aren't in use anymore...

Trafic stops... That have been proven not to be because of racism but because some are prone to speeding...

Marijuana arrests... You mean to tell me that if someone smokes it in their home is less likelly to get arrested? wow!

You mean to tell me that banks charge you more in interest rates if you're poor? WOW!

Who destroyed Black Wall Street? Democrats
Who instituted Jim Crow? Democrats
Who was behind the KKK? Democrats
Who was the dear mentor of $hillary?
Who demanded the increase in the penalty for crack cocaine? Black activists.

I think you're barking at the wrong tree.

He who has eyes to see and ears to hear...

It has been proven by your self that you're a bad faith actor.

You can type whatever you want. But you still haven't provided any actual evidence to support anything you say. You also still haven't responded with any evidence based on the question I asked you.

Your response is just words typed by you. With no actual backing or support. And lol... you can cite dixie democrats but not the same party that exists today, just like the republican party from the past is not the same as it is today. But you can just use the label out of context to try to prove your point (without any actual links or citations to support your claims).

For example:

https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/jimcrow

It is important to remember that the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s were very different parties from their current iterations. Republicans in the time of the Civil War and directly after were literally the party of Lincoln and anathema to the South. As white, Southern Democrats took over legislatures in the former Confederate states, they began passing more restrictive voter registration and electoral laws, as well as passing legislation to segregate blacks and whites.



I'm sorry but I held up my end of your question, you haven't held up yours. If you don't want to engage with me in good faith, just say so. But please stop or actually provide citations. If you provide a citation from a credible source, I'll read it.

Appeal to authority
So jimcrow, red linning are in effect now? Fuck off smooth brain.

Yes, the Democrats back then are sooooooooo different from the modern ones... Who was the now late dear mentor of Shillary Clinton?

You have nothing, at best you can show laws no longer in place and some disparities and cry "Muh structural raycismism!" Backing said nothing with some hyperlinks does nothing to convince anyone not a smoothbrain or in your cult.

I provided several links in the thread where that discussion has been taking place. Post deleted and not by me. But go check The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, many interesting videos and with sources. Now fuck off.

Lol. I made no  such appeal just provided evidence on how jim crow laws and red lining is an example of systemic racism. And yes redlining still happens now.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

Not to mention the long term impacts of redlining that have prevented minorities from developing the same level of generational wealth that whites have.

I've asked for anything correllating your claims but get no actual evidence to support them. And when you do say you stated any such evidence, the post was deleted? Then you tell me to go to some right wing podcast?

I simply asked for credible sources. It's fine if you won't or can't provide any. I'm pretty much good with no longer needing to continue this conversation

[GeekyBugle]

  No one thinks critical race theory is taught in schools.  HOWEVER, many of the conclusions reached from critical race theory are in fact taught, or attempts at applying these things are all over the place.  It is playing a semantic game to say there is no critical race theory in the sense of there being some course that teaches such.   The influence of critical race theory (of which MANY professors have a great deal of contact with, the people indoctrinating/training teachers,  and I suspect a rather large portion of the professor population agrees with) is there for all to see.  I honestly feel it was the most convenient name to call it, and one thing people get scared about is when people start naming an enemy.  If something can not have a name, well it can not be, right?  So again we get endless word games.

In much fewer words, Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

CRT is not taught in schools below graduate level law school. If you say it is you are a liar.

Oh look, a liar!

As far as CRT's influence on culture and learning. I am glad that it has made an impact.

Oh look, you admit you're a liar!

Well, you are failing to make a distinction between two different concepts.

CRT is a theory on examining systemic racism and how it has impacted the lives of people. The application and the understanding that results from this examination and applying it to the real world is a different thing. But if you look at right wing media, CRT has become a code word for anything that goes against the concept of the status quo. The idea that everything is fine... which right wing media and those who follow it is likely to believe in since they have actively benefited from things being the status quo.

To promote the idea that maybe how laws and rules and policies have been shaped to support and prop up the wealth and success of whites and to actively suppress and beat down the same of minorities is anathema to the right, since this not only weakens their own supposed achievements but also leads to the means to strengthen the status those they find less than them. They consider everything a zero-sum game and when one who is not them stands to gain, they themselves believe they will lose.

So they lash out.

But it's not a zero-sum game. The success of one certain person is not necessarily at the expense of another. In fact the success of one person may bring on success to others by their actions. This is one of the fundamental concepts of capitalism. One person becomes rich and wealthy and starts a business that creates jobs and opportunities for many others.

Okay smoothbrain, prove it. Provide a law, rule or policy that does what you claim and prove it. I know of only one such policy but I very much doubt it's the one your room temperature IQ is thinking of. Because it goes against your cult's dogma to think like I do.

You are asking me about laws, rules or policies that claim what, exactly? The discrimination against minorities? Lol, fine where do I begin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,of%20race%20or%20national%20origin.

https://www.aclu.org/other/drug-war-new-jim-crow

https://www.financialsamurai.com/mortgage-interest-rates-by-race/

https://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color

https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/racial_disparities_traffic_stops.php#.YmeaY_PMIiw

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/

Lol. do you want more? You have yet to provide a single link to evidence of the question I asked you.

Laws, rules and policies that aren't in use anymore...

Trafic stops... That have been proven not to be because of racism but because some are prone to speeding...

Marijuana arrests... You mean to tell me that if someone smokes it in their home is less likelly to get arrested? wow!

You mean to tell me that banks charge you more in interest rates if you're poor? WOW!

Who destroyed Black Wall Street? Democrats
Who instituted Jim Crow? Democrats
Who was behind the KKK? Democrats
Who was the dear mentor of $hillary?
Who demanded the increase in the penalty for crack cocaine? Black activists.

I think you're barking at the wrong tree.

He who has eyes to see and ears to hear...

It has been proven by your self that you're a bad faith actor.

You can type whatever you want. But you still haven't provided any actual evidence to support anything you say. You also still haven't responded with any evidence based on the question I asked you.

Your response is just words typed by you. With no actual backing or support. And lol... you can cite dixie democrats but not the same party that exists today, just like the republican party from the past is not the same as it is today. But you can just use the label out of context to try to prove your point (without any actual links or citations to support your claims).

For example:

https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/jimcrow

It is important to remember that the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s were very different parties from their current iterations. Republicans in the time of the Civil War and directly after were literally the party of Lincoln and anathema to the South. As white, Southern Democrats took over legislatures in the former Confederate states, they began passing more restrictive voter registration and electoral laws, as well as passing legislation to segregate blacks and whites.



I'm sorry but I held up my end of your question, you haven't held up yours. If you don't want to engage with me in good faith, just say so. But please stop or actually provide citations. If you provide a citation from a credible source, I'll read it.

Appeal to authority
So jimcrow, red linning are in effect now? Fuck off smooth brain.

Yes, the Democrats back then are sooooooooo different from the modern ones... Who was the now late dear mentor of Shillary Clinton?

You have nothing, at best you can show laws no longer in place and some disparities and cry "Muh structural raycismism!" Backing said nothing with some hyperlinks does nothing to convince anyone not a smoothbrain or in your cult.

I provided several links in the thread where that discussion has been taking place. Post deleted and not by me. But go check The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, many interesting videos and with sources. Now fuck off.

Lol. I made no  such appeal just provided evidence on how jim crow laws and red lining is an example of systemic racism. And yes redlining still happens now.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

Not to mention the long term impacts of redlining that have prevented minorities from developing the same level of generational wealth that whites have.

I've asked for anything correllating your claims but get no actual evidence to support them. And when you do say you stated any such evidence, the post was deleted? Then you tell me to go to some right wing podcast?

I simply asked for credible sources. It's fine if you won't or can't provide any. I'm pretty much good with no longer needing to continue this conversation

But did they control for credit history? No or it would be mentioned. Color me not shocked they lie with halkftruths, or that you believe everything you read uncritically as long as it confirms your bias.

No, you asked for an impossible standard while ignoring (on purpouse) that grooming is also used to describe indoctrination into an ideology/cult and that not all groomers have to be gay/trans. Because it fits your narrative to pretend otherwise.

So fuck you and your "conversations".

[jhkim]

Dude. You know CRT is a graduate law school theory and not taught to anyone who hasn't moved on to post degree law studies right?

No one is teaching CRT in children's schools... you know that right?

So why get so upset if CRT is banned from children's schools?

After all it was never there in the first place

The laws billed as banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools typically don't refer to it by name, but instead have a list of principles which may or may not have overlap with how CRT is defined elsewhere. I started to look into this about a year ago, but I lost interest as like most academic theories, everything was frustratingly vague. For examples of laws, this is the relevant clause in Idaho Bill HB 377,

No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
  (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;
  (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or
  (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
(b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color.
(c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the tenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school.

And this is the relevant clause from Tennessee bill HB 580,

This amendment also prohibits any LEA or public charter school from including or promoting the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex;
(4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex;
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex;
(7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;
(.8.) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
(9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government;
(10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; or
(11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
This amendment does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with present law concerning textbooks and instructional materials;
(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
(4) Historical documents that are permitted under present law, such as the national motto, the national anthem, the state and federal constitutions, state and federal laws, and supreme court decisions.

I don't especially object to these laws, and it's also not clear to me what existing K-12 material they would actually ban. For example, I read some recent news about Florida banning a bunch of math textbooks reportedly over CRT, but it seems like most of the objectionable content was from "Social Emotional Learning" - which wouldn't be addressed by any of the points above.

[Ghostmaker]

Dude. You know CRT is a graduate law school theory and not taught to anyone who hasn't moved on to post degree law studies right?

No one is teaching CRT in children's schools... you know that right?

So why get so upset if CRT is banned from children's schools?

After all it was never there in the first place

The laws billed as banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools typically don't refer to it by name, but instead have a list of principles which may or may not have overlap with how CRT is defined elsewhere. I started to look into this about a year ago, but I lost interest as like most academic theories, everything was frustratingly vague. For examples of laws, this is the relevant clause in Idaho Bill HB 377,

No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
  (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;
  (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or
  (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
(b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color.
(c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the tenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school.

And this is the relevant clause from Tennessee bill HB 580,

This amendment also prohibits any LEA or public charter school from including or promoting the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex;
(4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex;
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex;
(7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;
(.8.) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
(9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government;
(10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; or
(11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
This amendment does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with present law concerning textbooks and instructional materials;
(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
(4) Historical documents that are permitted under present law, such as the national motto, the national anthem, the state and federal constitutions, state and federal laws, and supreme court decisions.

I don't especially object to these laws, and it's also not clear to me what existing K-12 material they would actually ban. For example, I read some recent news about Florida banning a bunch of math textbooks reportedly over CRT, but it seems like most of the objectionable content was from "Social Emotional Learning" - which wouldn't be addressed by any of the points above.

Then you clearly didn't read the examples. One had a couple of purported 'math problems' which were multiple choice and each option was associated with connecting them to an event from the life of Maya Angelou.

Setting aside the shitty SJW content, that is so fucking wrong for math it's not even funny.

[oggsmash]

  Social Emotional Learning needs banned, it is just CRT in a different package combined with a whole bunch of pushing all the feels.  It is also pushed by Panorama (Company run by Merrick Garland's son in law) which is making money hand over fist pushing "materials" and surveys that look as if they took their ideas from the magazine "Teaching Tolerance" that gets pushed on educators as well. 

    This is just more hard leftist bullshit getting sold to public education thanks to shitlords who have the right political connections to get their rat feet into the door.  It is bullshit. 

   As to the article above trying to imply redlining...well having high debt to income ratio and bad credit is NOT redlining.  It is called bad choices and fuck ups.  My advice to people with those problems is stop fucking your life up, and expect to spend at least 3-4x the time and effort to fix a fuck up than it took to fuck it up.   

[HappyDaze]

Dude. You know CRT is a graduate law school theory and not taught to anyone who hasn't moved on to post degree law studies right?

No one is teaching CRT in children's schools... you know that right?

So why get so upset if CRT is banned from children's schools?

After all it was never there in the first place

The laws billed as banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools typically don't refer to it by name, but instead have a list of principles which may or may not have overlap with how CRT is defined elsewhere. I started to look into this about a year ago, but I lost interest as like most academic theories, everything was frustratingly vague. For examples of laws, this is the relevant clause in Idaho Bill HB 377,

No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
  (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;
  (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or
  (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
(b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color.
(c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the tenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school.

And this is the relevant clause from Tennessee bill HB 580,

This amendment also prohibits any LEA or public charter school from including or promoting the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex;
(4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex;
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex;
(7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;
(.8.) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
(9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government;
(10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; or
(11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex.
This amendment does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with present law concerning textbooks and instructional materials;
(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
(4) Historical documents that are permitted under present law, such as the national motto, the national anthem, the state and federal constitutions, state and federal laws, and supreme court decisions.

I don't especially object to these laws, and it's also not clear to me what existing K-12 material they would actually ban. For example, I read some recent news about Florida banning a bunch of math textbooks reportedly over CRT, but it seems like most of the objectionable content was from "Social Emotional Learning" - which wouldn't be addressed by any of the points above.

So in Idaho, it appears that objective teaching of such theories can be offered, but in Tennessee even that might be forbidden.

[jhkim]

I don't especially object to these laws, and it's also not clear to me what existing K-12 material they would actually ban. For example, I read some recent news about Florida banning a bunch of math textbooks reportedly over CRT, but it seems like most of the objectionable content was from "Social Emotional Learning" - which wouldn't be addressed by any of the points above.

Then you clearly didn't read the examples. One had a couple of purported 'math problems' which were multiple choice and each option was associated with connecting them to an event from the life of Maya Angelou.

I think you're mixing up examples here. What I read is that the Maya Angelou problems were given to high schoolers in the Lincoln County Missouri, and were not from a textbook - but rather from a content sharing website teacherspayteachers.com.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/20/fact-check-homework-referenced-maya-angelous-sexual-abuse-sex-work/7387752001/

There's a huge difference between what individual teachers do and approved parts of the curriculum or textbooks. There are 3.5 million public school teachers in the U.S., so regardless of the average quality, it's easy to find dozens of examples of completely shitty teachers and teaching. I have a low opinion of the quality of U.S. public education in general, but they should be judged on the average, not on the bottom of the curve.