6 ms·

Those activist teachers are also teaching the kids about MLK, Jr. and civil rights. Learning how to function within a heterogeneous society isn't what we send o

Those activist teachers are also teaching the kids about MLK, Jr. and civil rights. Learning how to function within a heterogeneous society isn't what we send our kids to school for! But seriously, if society is failing due to not enough citizens understanding math, and the parents don't want their kids to learn math, but society has deemed it important that the schools teach math to those kids anyway, that's part of the social contract for public schooling. Here we have a case of sections of society perpetuating violence on an outgroup, and the voters as a whole deciding that one prong of the fix is educating the children. This technique has worked before on the same type of problem.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US, correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery or talk about civil rights heroes. What most people object to are the Derrick Bell arguments that racial segregation is good, that racism is fundamental and unsolvable and that equality is not achievable or real. These are illiberal views that have no place being taught.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  If you’re trying to describe critical race theory, that’s not it.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Derrick Bell is one of the original CRT scholars. He believes desegregation was a mistake. [1] CRT holds, as a critical tradition, that there are fundamental unsolvable struggles. In critical gender theory this struggle is on the basis of gender, and in CRT this struggle is on the basis of race. The struggle can not be resolved, only inverted. I have read the work of Bell and Delgado, well liked overviews supported by CRT proponents and quite a few essays on the matter. I would recommend reading the source material and not the version of it touted in the press. Delgado in particular has many.. interesting views. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      I don't think we have the time, nor is this the place to discuss CRT in detail. But nothing in your citation (wikipedia) says that he believed that the goal of desegregating society is a mistake, or as you put it "racial segregation is good", only that school desegregation might have had so much blowback that it did more harm to black communities than good. Which is not an "illiberal" idea.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        > Bell concluded, therefore, that the focus for American educational systems should not be on national integration but, rather, should be on improving the quality of education provided for black students. More depth is given here, > "From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored "equal" part of the "separate but equal" doctrine. Via https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.ht... If you don't want the lights on, you are in fact asking for the lights to be turned off. There is no third option. You may prefer the answer to be stated in a given way - and this is a game that CRT proponents play - but logically the conclusion is the same. If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. I know a different group of people who are pro-segregation, believe racism is a fundamental non-resolvable struggle and think we should be keeping the races separated: that is literally the alt-right platform.
        kennywinker 5y ago
        I'm sorry but that's not sound logic. > If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. If I don't support vapes as a tool for quitting smoking, that doesn't mean I support smoking. There's more than two options. Nicotine gum, patches, hypnotherapy, cold turkey, etc. You're getting caught up in the idea that not supporting "forcibly de-segregating school in the 1960s" is the same as supporting racial separation. "Desegregation" in this context isn't the idea of racial separation, it's a specific event where schools were racially unified over a period of a few years - but also probably caused a significant blowback (white flight) that some believe did more harm to black communities than good. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where from 1967 to 1977 the schools remained segregated, but black schools were funded as well or better than white schools (emphasizing the equal in "separate but equal"), at which point they were desegregated - but not forcibly and abruptly. The desegregation happened organically over the next 10-20 years. Would we be better off? Have more racial harmony, or less? Would we have prevented white flight, or just delayed it? I don't think exploring these possibilities is racist, illiberal, segregationist, or unproductive. Especially as we search for solutions to the racism that is apparent in america today (unsolvable? maybe... I hope not).
- fknorangesite 5y ago
  > Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US Have you missed the latest conservative boogeyman of "critical race theory"? > correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery On the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
  - woobilicious 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_themes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_... > Critique of liberalism...Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993, was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action,[86] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[87] They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order. > Storytelling/counterstorytelling and 'naming one's own reality'":': The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression. This doesn't sound like history or science, it sounds like personal, highly subjective anecdotes, maybe even propaganda (see Jussie Smollett). > Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. > Cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism). Because we definitely want to teach our kids segregation is good. Now tell me how CRT is actually teaching objective historical facts? Because in my eyes, this is not a philosophy that cares about facts, or liberal values, or even racism.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      >> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. > this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. A revisionist means "examining and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is" I.e. we've understood the facts incorrectly, let's take another look to try to understand them correctly. This is literally what people who study history do every day. I read a great blog recently dispelling myths about what medieval life was like. Definitely revisionist, super interesting.
anamax 5y ago
Ah, but what are they teaching the kids about MLK, Jr. and civil rights? > the voters as a whole deciding that one prong of the fix is educating the children Did they? In which election was this a campaign issue?
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  They're teaching the kids that slavery, discrimination, and oppression are wrong. The curriculum is set by the school board, which consists of elected officials.
  - anamax 5y ago
    > They're teaching the kids that slavery, discrimination, and oppression are wrong. How are they teaching that? And, how do you know that's what they're teaching? Better yet - how do you know what kids are learning? (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-work/201706/is-your-company-s-diversity-training-making-you-more-biased https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-work/2017... ) Here's an easy one - is hard work racist? I've lived/worked in a farm labor camp and my father was a migrant farmworker. I went to a high school that has been on the "worst high schools in the state" for decades and graduated less than half of the students who started. I look male and white. Who's more oppressed - me or Malia Obama?
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      Because I see what they teach in schools and have asked them if they understand. Here's an easy answer: Hard work is not racist. If you are now wealthy, you are less oppressed than an equally wealthy black man in America. Here's another series of easy questions: Should we educate all of society to the best of their ability? Are black people inherently a standard deviation below whites in educational ability? If so, why can charter schools like Kipp get their black students to perform exactly the same as their white students, who also perform better than they do in public schools? Are Koreans smart or stupid? How did they go from mostly illiterate (stupid) to top of the world (smart) in two generations?
sleighs 5y ago
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Grooming? Looking for lgbtq kids and supporting them isn’t grooming.
  - sleighs 5y ago
- fknorangesite 5y ago
woobilicious 5y ago
Teaching history is for the history teachers, not the art teacher who took a single critical race theory course in university, and now thinks Ibram X. Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo are great sources of historical truths. An activist is a clearly biased source of information, they have already picked a side, and should not be trusted that they're teaching accurate history, and not just manipulating kids for their own ends. You're under the assumption that these "teachers" could never do wrong, but how would you feel if some Christians were having secret clubs teaching your kids about Christ? Wouldn't you want to make sure the teachers running some of sort of bible club were from some sane branch of Christianity and actually respected your children personal opinions and not Westboro baptists, shaming and them in to thinking they have to attend the club otherwise they're bigots...I mean sinners going to hell. Parents should be worried about these clubs and how they're teaching kids, because there's a fundamental difference between liberal interpretations of rights, and non-racism, and the radical subjectivism of modern LGBTQIA+ groups, and CRT anti-racism.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  You're confusing civics with history. We absolutely do expect teachers to teach students how to get along with others and how to regulate their emotions to be productive contributors to society. What, specifically, is the radical subjectivism of LGBTQIA+ groups that you object to that the article says is happening in schools? What I see is teachers suggesting students get involved in Gay-Straight Alliance groups to help their fellow students. Your comparison to teachers encouraging students to join a Bible club doesn't fit because that is illegal.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > What, specifically, is the radical subjectivism of LGBTQIA+ groups that you object to There have now been numerous cases of children having been encouraged to have a sex change and now deeply regret the decision. Not to mention they are now infertile. As an adult, do what you like, but I find groups such as Mermaids to be borderline abusive.
    - 5y ago

vorpalhex 5y ago

Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US, correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery or talk about civil rights heroes. What most people object to are the Derrick Bell arguments that racial segregation is good, that racism is fundamental and unsolvable and that equality is not achievable or real. These are illiberal views that have no place being taught.

kennywinker 5y ago
If you’re trying to describe critical race theory, that’s not it.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Derrick Bell is one of the original CRT scholars. He believes desegregation was a mistake. [1] CRT holds, as a critical tradition, that there are fundamental unsolvable struggles. In critical gender theory this struggle is on the basis of gender, and in CRT this struggle is on the basis of race. The struggle can not be resolved, only inverted. I have read the work of Bell and Delgado, well liked overviews supported by CRT proponents and quite a few essays on the matter. I would recommend reading the source material and not the version of it touted in the press. Delgado in particular has many.. interesting views. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I don't think we have the time, nor is this the place to discuss CRT in detail. But nothing in your citation (wikipedia) says that he believed that the goal of desegregating society is a mistake, or as you put it "racial segregation is good", only that school desegregation might have had so much blowback that it did more harm to black communities than good. Which is not an "illiberal" idea.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      > Bell concluded, therefore, that the focus for American educational systems should not be on national integration but, rather, should be on improving the quality of education provided for black students. More depth is given here, > "From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored "equal" part of the "separate but equal" doctrine. Via https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.ht... If you don't want the lights on, you are in fact asking for the lights to be turned off. There is no third option. You may prefer the answer to be stated in a given way - and this is a game that CRT proponents play - but logically the conclusion is the same. If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. I know a different group of people who are pro-segregation, believe racism is a fundamental non-resolvable struggle and think we should be keeping the races separated: that is literally the alt-right platform.
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        I'm sorry but that's not sound logic. > If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. If I don't support vapes as a tool for quitting smoking, that doesn't mean I support smoking. There's more than two options. Nicotine gum, patches, hypnotherapy, cold turkey, etc. You're getting caught up in the idea that not supporting "forcibly de-segregating school in the 1960s" is the same as supporting racial separation. "Desegregation" in this context isn't the idea of racial separation, it's a specific event where schools were racially unified over a period of a few years - but also probably caused a significant blowback (white flight) that some believe did more harm to black communities than good. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where from 1967 to 1977 the schools remained segregated, but black schools were funded as well or better than white schools (emphasizing the equal in "separate but equal"), at which point they were desegregated - but not forcibly and abruptly. The desegregation happened organically over the next 10-20 years. Would we be better off? Have more racial harmony, or less? Would we have prevented white flight, or just delayed it? I don't think exploring these possibilities is racist, illiberal, segregationist, or unproductive. Especially as we search for solutions to the racism that is apparent in america today (unsolvable? maybe... I hope not).
fknorangesite 5y ago
> Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US Have you missed the latest conservative boogeyman of "critical race theory"? > correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery On the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
- woobilicious 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_themes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_... > Critique of liberalism...Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993, was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action,[86] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[87] They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order. > Storytelling/counterstorytelling and 'naming one's own reality'":': The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression. This doesn't sound like history or science, it sounds like personal, highly subjective anecdotes, maybe even propaganda (see Jussie Smollett). > Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. > Cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism). Because we definitely want to teach our kids segregation is good. Now tell me how CRT is actually teaching objective historical facts? Because in my eyes, this is not a philosophy that cares about facts, or liberal values, or even racism.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    >> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. > this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. A revisionist means "examining and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is" I.e. we've understood the facts incorrectly, let's take another look to try to understand them correctly. This is literally what people who study history do every day. I read a great blog recently dispelling myths about what medieval life was like. Definitely revisionist, super interesting.

anamax 5y ago

Ah, but what are they teaching the kids about MLK, Jr. and civil rights? > the voters as a whole deciding that one prong of the fix is educating the children Did they? In which election was this a campaign issue?

lern_too_spel 5y ago
They're teaching the kids that slavery, discrimination, and oppression are wrong. The curriculum is set by the school board, which consists of elected officials.
- anamax 5y ago
  > They're teaching the kids that slavery, discrimination, and oppression are wrong. How are they teaching that? And, how do you know that's what they're teaching? Better yet - how do you know what kids are learning? (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-work/201706/is-your-company-s-diversity-training-making-you-more-biased https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-work/2017... ) Here's an easy one - is hard work racist? I've lived/worked in a farm labor camp and my father was a migrant farmworker. I went to a high school that has been on the "worst high schools in the state" for decades and graduated less than half of the students who started. I look male and white. Who's more oppressed - me or Malia Obama?
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Because I see what they teach in schools and have asked them if they understand. Here's an easy answer: Hard work is not racist. If you are now wealthy, you are less oppressed than an equally wealthy black man in America. Here's another series of easy questions: Should we educate all of society to the best of their ability? Are black people inherently a standard deviation below whites in educational ability? If so, why can charter schools like Kipp get their black students to perform exactly the same as their white students, who also perform better than they do in public schools? Are Koreans smart or stupid? How did they go from mostly illiterate (stupid) to top of the world (smart) in two generations?

sleighs 5y ago

kennywinker 5y ago
Grooming? Looking for lgbtq kids and supporting them isn’t grooming.
- sleighs 5y ago
fknorangesite 5y ago

woobilicious 5y ago

Teaching history is for the history teachers, not the art teacher who took a single critical race theory course in university, and now thinks Ibram X. Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo are great sources of historical truths. An activist is a clearly biased source of information, they have already picked a side, and should not be trusted that they're teaching accurate history, and not just manipulating kids for their own ends. You're under the assumption that these "teachers" could never do wrong, but how would you feel if some Christians were having secret clubs teaching your kids about Christ? Wouldn't you want to make sure the teachers running some of sort of bible club were from some sane branch of Christianity and actually respected your children personal opinions and not Westboro baptists, shaming and them in to thinking they have to attend the club otherwise they're bigots...I mean sinners going to hell. Parents should be worried about these clubs and how they're teaching kids, because there's a fundamental difference between liberal interpretations of rights, and non-racism, and the radical subjectivism of modern LGBTQIA+ groups, and CRT anti-racism.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
You're confusing civics with history. We absolutely do expect teachers to teach students how to get along with others and how to regulate their emotions to be productive contributors to society. What, specifically, is the radical subjectivism of LGBTQIA+ groups that you object to that the article says is happening in schools? What I see is teachers suggesting students get involved in Gay-Straight Alliance groups to help their fellow students. Your comparison to teachers encouraging students to join a Bible club doesn't fit because that is illegal.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > What, specifically, is the radical subjectivism of LGBTQIA+ groups that you object to There have now been numerous cases of children having been encouraged to have a sex change and now deeply regret the decision. Not to mention they are now infertile. As an adult, do what you like, but I find groups such as Mermaids to be borderline abusive.
  - 5y ago