There are as many interpretations of Critical Race Theory (CRT) as there are interpreters, and while I agree with its motivation (equality of opportunity), and with some of the tenets I see in it (e.g., the pressing need to fix inequalities that began with slavery and bigotry centuries ago, or the need to call out clear instances of racism), I disagree with others (e.g., the ideas that all whites are infused with subconscious bias and the Kendi-an notion that inequality of proportions automatically implies bigotry). But it’s one thing to disagree with some aspects of a theory, and another to ban its teaching altogether.
And that’s what many states are doing now: banning the teaching of CRT or of their interpretations of what it says. These initiatives are nearly all, as far as I can see, from Republicans, though some liberal parents are opposed to teaching the more divisive aspects of CRT in secondary schools. The New York Times op-ed below asserts (correctly, I think) that banning the teaching of CRT or its perceived principles in secondary schools is “un-American”. The authors identify themselves as a libertarian (Kmele Foster), a progressive (Thomas Chatterton Williams, I think), a moderate (Jason Stanley, I think), and a conservative (David French).
And they agree, as do I, that these laws are, in effect, censorship, for they ban the promulgation of ideas because those ideas could make students uncomfortable. Read on, and click on the screenshot:
They changed the title in the last hour but the article is the same. Why do you think they changed the title? I have no idea.
Here’s how the authors describe some of the new laws:
In recent weeks, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, Idaho and Texas have all passed legislation that places significant restrictions on what can be taught in public school classrooms, and in some cases, public universities, too.
Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, for example, bans any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.”
Texas House Bill 3979 goes further, forbidding teaching that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States.” It also bars any classroom from requiring “an understanding of the 1619 Project” — The New York Times Magazine’s special issue devoted to a reframing of the nation’s founding — and hence prohibits assigning any part of it as required reading.
Right off the bat you can see problems with the laws. Teaching evolution, geology, Western medicine, or any fact that contradicts the Bible or Qur’an, for instance, could cause resentment by religious people (but see below). Emphasizing the degree of economic inequality among Americans could make those in the upper classes uncomfortable.
As for Texas’s law, what the “authentic founding principles” of the United States are could be seen as racist in part. Even at the Constitutional Convention the “founders” determined that each slave would count as only 3/5 of a person for purposes of taxation and representatives. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not condemn slavery, and tacitly accept it (Constitutional amendments and later legal clarifications fixed that.) The ringing words of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” could be said to have been violated right off the bat.
No, not all men were seen as “created equal” nor endowed with even the same basic rights. These things should be taught in American history classes. I would not, of course, go so far as the 1619’s projects assertion that slavery was intentionally baked into the founding documents from the outset, nor would I want an ideologically slanted newspaper like the NYT determining how our children are taught history.
As the authors note, any teaching of American history in an honest way will make people uncomfortable. How can you teach about slavery, about the ripping apart of African families and forced servitude under horrible conditions, without making people uncomfortable? How can you teach about the extirpation of Native Americans without making people uncomfortable? As our former University President Hannah Gray said, “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.” That was intended for college students, but should also apply, in a more diluted form, in secondary schools.
Of course there are things that I wouldn’t want taught in classrooms: divisive practices like demonizing white children or telling them that they’re all racists, or accepting the 1619 Project’s claim that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery. But I prefer to leave these matters to the judgments of school districts and teachers than to legislatures.
The authors point out the necessarily fraught nature of teaching history in America, but object to the new laws on two further grounds, and with these I also agree:
a.) The laws are imprecise. I quote:
Because these laws often aim to protecting the feelings of hypothetical children, they are dangerously imprecise. State governments exercise a high degree of lawful control over K-12 curriculum. But broad, vague laws violate due process and fundamental fairness because they don’t give the teachers fair warning of what’s prohibited. For example, the Tennessee statute prohibits a public school from including in a course of instruction any “concept” that promotes “division between, or resentment of” a “creed.” Would a teacher be violating the law if they express the opinion that the creeds of Stalinism or Nazism were evil?
Other laws appear to potentially ban even expression as benign as support for affirmative action, but it’s far from clear. In fact, shortly after Texas passed its purported ban on critical race theory, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a list of words and concepts that help “identify critical race theory in the classroom.” The list included terms such as “social justice,” “colonialism” and “identity.” Applying these same standards to colleges or private institutions would be flatly unconstitutional.
b.) The laws amount to censorship. By banning the teaching of ideas or even the use of specific words (see the Texas think tank’s recommendations above), these laws violate the First Amendment, which applies to all public schools. To quote again:
These laws threaten the basic purpose of a historical education in a liberal democracy. But censorship is the wrong approach even to the concepts that are the intended targets of these laws.
. . . . Let’s not mince words about these laws. They are speech codes. They seek to change public education by banning the expression of ideas. Even if this censorship is legal in the narrow context of public primary and secondary education, it is antithetical to educating students in the culture of American free expression.
With such politically motivated control of school curricula, American education is at the mercy of the ideologies and political view of those in power. And those powers will change over time. We cannot allow this to happen.
So why can’t legislatures ban the teaching of evolution because it makes religious children uncomfortable as well? Well, the government does retain certain rights to ensure that subjects are taught “properly”. That’s why both federal appellate courts and the Supreme Courts have declared the teaching of creationism and intelligent design illegal, for they are considered religious doctrine: teaching them violates the First Amendment.
CRT does not do that. Certain aspects of CRT violate principles of fair and objective teaching, but not the Constitution itself.
So what do the authors propose to do, then, given that CRT is already being taught, and, as we know, often in invidious and divisive ways that even liberal parents find objectionable? And this is where the authors offer weak tea as a solution:
A wiser response to problematic elements of what is being labeled critical race theory would be twofold: propose better curriculums and enforce existing civil rights laws. Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act both prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, and they are rooted in a considerable body of case law that provides administrators with far more concrete guidance on how to proceed. In fact, there is already an Education Department Office of Civil Rights complaint and federal lawsuit aimed at programs that allegedly attempt to place students or teachers into racial “affinity groups.”
But “proposing better curriculums” won’t solve the problem unless you specify what you mean by “better”. Even liberal high schools have constructed curriculums (curricula?) that I consider propagandistic and divisive. People are not going to unite behind any one curriculum, as each group has its own agenda.
As for enforcing civil rights laws, that’s already being done, and perhaps will solve some of the problems associated with teaching about ethnic groups, like creating “affinity groups” that, as the authors imply, could be construed as illegal. But in the end, it will be hard for people to agree, given the Zeitgeist, how our kids should be taught history.
I have no solutions, but I know that no solution should involve government mandates about what can and cannot be taught if such matters don’t violate the Constitution. I’d rather trust teachers, school boards, and parents than to trust the government. In that way the process at least becomes a bit more democratic.
But perhaps you feel differently, and this is the place to discuss the new anti-CRT laws.
The motivation of CRT is explicitly equality of outcome, not just of opportunity. Indeed, under CRT, any non-equal group outcome is necessarily “systemic racism”.
On the central question, prohibiting the promotion of CRT ideology in schools is a good thing, but many of these bills go way beyond that and so should not be supported.
I’ve said the same thing about equality of outcomes, but is that really true? I know it’s what Kendi says, but is that him or is it truly foundational in CRT?
The right wing loves CRT because it’s so easy to demonize. Hardly anyone really knows what CRT is, so it becomes whatever your ideological bias makes it.
Clearly the definition of CRT has become too hazy. From what I gather it was originally a study of laws that benefit whites over minorities, and a topic only studied in law and graduate schools. It’s never been on grade school curricula.
The concept that all whites are complicit in this inequality seems to be a derivation of the original topic, and the one that most of us here object to. I’m not sure it’s part of the original theory.
So my two cents:
– attempting to ban an idea is the best way to spread it. Republicans are happy to spread it, so long as it paints liberals as intolerant busybodies who condemn all whites as racist.
– large parts of these laws shouldn’t hold up in court, but with so many Trump judicial appointees, it’s impossible to predict.
And once again Democrats are losing the propaganda wars. They have to get better at this.
67+% of NFL players are black (as opposed to the 13.4% they represent in the population at large).
By CRT, clearly system racism is rank in the NFL.
systemic …
But it can’t be racism because “power structures.”
But yes, this is one of many instances where Kendi’s contention that unequal outcomes are evidence of racism falls completely apart.
I don’t think the NFL is a great example. While the percentage of black players is much higher than the general population, the percentage of head coaches and general managers is lower. Three out of 32 head coaches are black, and that’s up one from last year.
And I think all of the owners are white.
However worthy the original intentions behind CRT were, in practice it can be divisive setting one ‘group’ against another irrespective of the views of the individuals in that ‘group’.
I believe it will not end well and so should be banned as a general teaching attitude (which appears to be the direction of travel).
Equality of opportunity is not the goal of CRT. It wants equality of outcome (aka equity). They shouldn’t ban teaching what CRT is, but they shouldn’t practice it on students either. That’s what’s happening in some places. It’s not simply teaching what CRT is, but the actual practicing it on students that needs to be banned. Like teaching that people are inherently oppressors or oppressed based on the color of their skin should be banned.
Agreed. They want both. I favor equality of opportunity but not equity unless inequity is due to bias rather than preference.
I’m fully in favor of equal opportunity and treatment, but think the only way equal group outcomes will be achieved is through unequal treatment (aka discrimination). I don’t think it’s really even possible to have both equal opportunity
for individuals and equal group outcomes. So wherever we can see unequal treatment we should definitely seek to correct that, but unequal outcomes should not by itself be treated as evidence of unequal treatment/opportunity.
Good point, you’re right. With equality of opportunity or outcome it is pick one, you can’t have both.
Per CRT, unequal outcomes (which are inevitable; people are not endowed equally) are, by definition, proof of “systemic” racism.
So, only an authoritarian state can satisfy the demands of CRT: Equality of outcomes.
I have heard (NPR) Michael Sandel (Harvard) advocate for paying people based on how hard they work to produce a unit of value.
His example was a house builder (contractor). He said that it would be more fair for a contractor who had to work harder to produce a house to be paid more than a contractor who could produce the same house for less effort/time. He advocated this with a “straight face”.
In other words: We should be rewarding incompetence.
Yes I agree. Teaching about CRT and discussing its ideas shouldn’t be banned but practicing it should because that’s indoctrination into an ideology.
Thanks for clarifying my position on that. Much clearer than I made it.
Any statement of the form: All X people are Y
Where:
X is the racial group people were born into (by historical accident)
Y is any significant (and non-trivial) attribute
Is the quintessence of racism: A judgment about a racial group based on nothing but race.
“All white people are racists” a commonplace amongst the CRT people.
Banning CRT falls under the banning books rule. If we ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Charles Murray for the one side, and Ibram Kendi and White Fragility for the other, what will we have left? So no banning, even though I think the problem with CRT is that it sees everything in Black and White.
Critical Race Theory has been around for over 20 years. I think problems arise when it is reinterpreted into a form of racism enhancing the divisions that exist in every social setting.
It’s been around almost 50 years…originated in the mid-70’s.
Re: The NYT’s penchant for rewriting headlines. They do this constantly. I can only suspect that it increases clicks. Dog knows I’ve clicked on stories I’ve already read because I thought it was something new.
If I’m being charitable, I’d say they do it so that if a story didn’t catch your eye the first time you saw the headline, it might the second. I’d hate to think they were trying to sucker subscribers into additional page views.
Oh I SOOO hate that. It is so dishonest. Sneaky.
Reading articles at the TImes is bad enough, to be tricked into starting them TWICE is just The End.
Why does EVERYTHING in this country have to be a big grift, a small grift, a hidden charge, a retributive policy, a rip off, a game of 3 card monte, con job, a contract of adhesion nobody reads?
I'[ve lived in 4 countries for more than 2 years each – the USA wins hands down on corporate dishonesty and just the “rip ’em off if we can.”
D.A.
NYC
CRT aims for equity not equality or equal opportunity. Its goal is to erect a brand of communism and thereby impose its version of justice.
Redbaiting will never get old, will it?
Michael, you hit the nail on the head. Here the right-wing tactic is in the open. CRT=Communism and anyone that says anything good about CRT is a goddamn Commie bastard and should be investigated by the FBI (except Trump doesn’t like that agency – it’s probably infiltrated with Reds). Only if Joe McCarthy were alive. He would by now have compiled a list of CRT Commies that infest our government and destroy the minds of our children.
What is demanding equality of outcomes? What political philosophy would that fall under?
Kendi wants an unelected, unaccountable body (shall we call it a politburo?) to run the USA (have control over all Federal, state, and local officials).
Kendi is perhaps the leading advocate of CRT, so this isn’t a strawman.
I don’t think this will come to pass; and it would violate the rest of the constitution. But it says a lot that he owns this publicly.
The CRT folks clearly have a strong authoritarian bent. They wish to censor those who disagree. Shout them down. Shut down others’ speech. Force bystanders to recite their political mottos.
I don’t think the GOP laws are smart or (likely) constitutional either. Both ends of the political spectrum have gone full-Orwell.
I read the text you linked. That’s not communism or even socialism. Ibrahim Kendi will be happy in a capitalist and massively unequal society as long as racial quotas are fulfilled. Kendi would find his antiracist equity paradise in a billionaire oligarchy as long as at least a representative percentage of oligarchs were black, and enough of the people sleeping under bridges were white or Asian.
I implore Greg Mayer to reprise his summary of this idea, which he dropped in the comments on a post at this site earlier in the year. It was brilliant. Something to the effect that among woke neoliberals it is ok for 1% of the people to own 50% of the wealth just so long as 13% of the 1% are Black.
I can see no objection to teaching it as an idea espoused by some, as long as alternatives are also discussed. The problem arises if it is taught as an idea that must not be questioned.
But, in effect, these laws promote teaching history in a way that must not be questioned. And I’m curious, where is it shown that any sort of racial history derived from CRT is taught as “must not be questioned?” There’s a lot of bugbearism against teaching anything other than the standard “American Exceptionalism” history that James Loewen explores in his book “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” These laws are designed to make a safe space for racism, and that the idea that the United States has a racist past and present are not to be discussed because then history is uncomfortable.
It may be correct to say that perhaps since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, white America is no longer predominantly racist. But, what is incontestably true is that up to that time white America (North and South) was overwhelmingly racist. The brouhaha over CRT has given the right-wing a golden opportunity to deny this fact with the goal of smearing those who wish to end the American delusion that has been taught in history classes. Unfortunately, the more extreme advocates of some version of CRT have overplayed their hands.as the left usually does. As a result, the right-wing has seen an opportunity to crush the teaching of a better understanding of American history. Being masters of propaganda and deception, they appear to being successful. It is like taking candy from a baby.
Evidently, some Americans now feel the need to make up for the fact that white America is no longer predominantly racist. If they don’t fight (by suppressing the vote, among other things), they risk the country passing the point of no return. Perhaps we need to update our methods of measuring racism in the US. It now matters how racist someone is.
Benefitting from a racist system doesn’t make one bigoted, and that’s the implication that I am getting from most of the comments on this story; that our kids are being taught that they are bigoted. I’d like to see some sort of proof of that, because I know that this is nothing that my grandkids are bringing home, and nothing that my kids did back in the day either.
How many reactions here on this post are based on what’s happening or based on what Christopher Rufo and Tucker Carlson are saying is happening?
“Benefitting from a racist system doesn’t make one bigoted”
No, but understanding that and voting for the party whose chief platform is to continue it makes one a bigot.
The puritanical roots of this country makes things way more complicated than they should be. (as excellently written above) Knowledge should never be suppressed, and young people should actively SEARCH OUT ideas and art forms that make them “uncomfortable.” It’s called putting your big boy pants on.
First, laws banning the teaching of anything are counter-productive and liable to be abused. There are channels by which curricula are determined and criticized. They should be used and, if found lacking, revised.
I do think we should fight CRT. It is fundamentally flawed. Many of its positions are deal-breakers and, once you get past simple anti-racism, its motivations are dangerous. Breaking it into components, keeping some and throwing away others, is unnecessary and won’t work. Some say let’s keep CRT because it teaches history with more honesty. That can easily be done without bringing CRT’s baggage along for the ride. By all means teach about the Tulsa Massacre.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been in grade school, so I really don’t know how history is taught these days. On the other hand, I doubt it has really changed all that much. My guess is that it is still too heavily biased towards inculcating patriotism and ignores all the embarrassing bits of US history. I hated that stuff when I was a kid, not because I was against patriotism but against fake patriotism. It still bugs me when people wrap themselves in the flag but don’t see anything that needs improvement unless it affects them personally. They want their taxes lowered but don’t get that our health system is the worst of all rich countries and could be fixed by emulating the best. I would love it if history was taught with the overall goal of making better citizens. Teach the good and the bad, the latter including racism of course.
By “including racism”, I mean honestly teaching our racist history, not teaching students to be better racists. 😉
Thank goodness you clarified that.
/s
Phew!
Teaching history to make better citizens is the crux of the problem. The question is: what is a better citizen? Governments view “better citizens” as those loyal to the state. That is why on the elementary and high school levels, the fairy tale version has been taught. That is, on July 4, 1776 this God blessed country magically sprang into existence under the guidance of the Founding Fathers, the most noble and disinterested people ever to appear on the face of the earth. True, there was slavery, but this was a minor speed bump on the road to ever increasing glory as the greatest nation not only on this planet, but in the galaxy. Anyone who challenges this view is unpatriotic scum that should not be allowed anywhere near a classroom. It is the mission of the right wing to convince the American public at large that these CRT people are un-American because fairy tale history is the only “true” history. To them, CRT folks are a danger because they challenge 250 years of indoctrination. In other words, their kind of indoctrination is fine and dandy. Alternate analyses of American history, usually much more in accordance with facts, are mortal dangers to the Republic as they think it should be.
Sure, but obviously that’s not my definition of “better citizens” as I thought I had made clear in what I wrote. In my view, better citizens are ones who seek to improve their country, not spend all their time “honoring” it. In order to even contemplate improvement, one has to first recognize that it isn’t perfect already. That where an honest history comes in handy.
Yes, Paul, I know what you were saying. I was just pointing out that the notion of what makes a better citizen varies greatly. Over the course of American history, your view that I share, has not been in the majority. It is the goal of the right wing to keep that view in a minority.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting you here; but I think you are saying that one should not honor anything that’s imperfect (in other words anything at all)?
I haven’t heard anyone arguing that the USA is perfect. (But I don’t listen to/read any right wing Media either.)
I don’t know how you read that into my comment. I was simply saying that the traditional way to teach US history has been to focus on glorifying it. I don’t they would be so stupid as to say it was perfect as that would make it less believable. They teach AS IF the USA was perfect. We should honor that which is good and point out that which is not good or can be improved. Common sense, in other words.
Wow, I guess if you question teaching CRT in public schools, then you must be an unreconstructed, racist, ignoramus.
If CRT involves statements like “all white people are racist”, which it frequently does, at least by the advocates local to my area, then it should be questioned (and embarrassed) publicly.
A law or rule against teaching religion (say Christianity) would seem acceptable. I’ve not been a teacher, but when I learned “patriotic history” I was young; once I aged, I questioned. How do young kids, say junior high, take learning that US is systemically wrong? When they reach the age of questioning authority…?
Words and phrases have been redefined….”pregnant man” anyone? So, one of the more interesting aspects is how punctilious defenders of CRT have been in preserving the sanctity of what CRT encompasses.
Its proponents admonish to stick to its narrowest use: a theory taught in college, whereas critics use “CRT” as a portmanteau for theory and how it instantiates, in essence struggle sessions, etc.
Anyway, the person most responsible for bringing anti-CRT to attention is Cris Rufo who went on Joey Reid…….worth your few minutes. (Much of what she says is not correct.)
Schools should be free to teach students about every ideology under the sun — be it Fascism, Communism, Critical Race Theory, laissez-faire economics — the whole kit and caboodle, even religion (in the form of comparative religion courses).
But it is not a public school’s place to indoctrinate a student in any ideology. (This is true even of American Civics — a subject that, sadly, seems not to be taught much nowadays. US primary and secondary students should be taught all about how the US system of government functions; they should not, however, be indoctrinated into “American exceptionalism.”)
Teachers are, nonetheless, human beings (notwithstanding what I assumed to be the case at the time regarding the nuns who taught me in grade school 🙂 ). As such, they may well have their own personal views — pro or con — regarding any ideology they are teaching about, and those views may influence how a course is taught. (This is a good reason why some controversial subjects — say, comparative religion — shouldn’t be taught until the latter years of secondary education or, perhaps, even reserved for the university level).
But these are subtle distinctions we’re talking about here — far too subtle to be addressed by the blunt instrument of legislation.
I definitely wouldn’t trust nuns to teach comparative religion fairly. 😉
What worries many people is that CRT isn’t taught as a way of interpreting, but as the only lense to see history and the present. In other words, outside of interpretation.
It’s more revelation/religion than an interpretation to be argued.
There is an annoying ambiguity in “teaching CRT in schools.” On the one hand it could mean “teach the CRT interpretation of events alongside other interpretations” or it could mean “use CRT to describe what we are teaching about.” So, for example, it can mean that when we teach about the civil war, we can teach that it had something to do with succession, industrialization, slavery, etc. Or, we can teach that the civil war was fought because the southerners were racist and wanted to preserve white hegemony and slavery. I suspect that many people think the former eminently reasonable and the latter bizarre. But the debate lumps the two together and people can’t understand why others disagree. I would bet that most laws opposing CRT would not get a hearing if they all thought they were talking about the former version of CRT and there would be far more bills like this if everyone thought we are talking about the later version of CRT.
Ken Kukec’s comments are the most insightful of all because he distinguishes between the teaching of something and promoting its adoption. Unfortunately in many of our universities the doctrine is already being taught rather than the study of the origin and consequences of slavery. Has no one else commented that it is black students who have been trying to throw out white writers, historians and philosophers (not to mention science) because it makes them “uncomfortable” and constitutes “micro aggressions:? Of course we must teach without deference to white students’ feelings but it was the black students who first demanded this! Race issues need to be taught just like religion, as history, not doctrine. Finally, it is naive to think that BLM and radical racialists just want to correct history. Their intent goes far beyond university courses. They want to abolish all of western civilization, the Enlightenment and essentially those parts of history that don’t support their own views. The central push comes from anti intellectualism: an attempt to “privilege” individual feelings over methodical study of human civilization, culture and the arts. Their opposition to STEM and demands for control over artistic decisions and management are clear proof that they are motivated by a demand for power and privilege no different from what they accuse whites of possessing and misusing.
That is the crucial question. Are they teaching something or proselytizing it? With CRT and its supporters, I think the latter is baked in. As McWhorter tells us, it’s a religion. We shouldn’t allow religion to be taught in school unless it is comparative or historical.
Yes, it has many of the key features of a religion. Including original sin: All white people are racist. (But that’s not a racist statement! Because I say so.)
Lorna, I’d already come to the conclusion myself that a lot of this “woke” stuff has an anti=intellectual basis. I wondered if you know of any written sources, preferably not associated with the right wing end of things as if I attempt to use this info this will be used to criticise independent of the facts.
No, we should not ban CRT. Yes, we should bar teaching racism or sexism. I believe that CRT is racism. If the proponents of CRT feel that this affects them, let them explain why it is not racism.
I read somewhere today an opinion that ‘anti-racism’ had become ‘neo-fascism’. Maybe yes and maybe no. But what is to stop a social agenda which permits no debate from becoming totalitarian?
That is a very odd position, to say that something is racist unless the proponent of it can explain why it is not racist. Surely no one can do this until you explain just why you think it is racist.
“Critical Race Theory? Video of Kendi, Charlotte K12”
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article252536268.html
The above may be of interest. (If you haven’t accessed the Charlotte Observer before or one too many times, the website may let you look at it.)
Kendi made a 45-min Zoom presentation to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg staff. The school system was required to sign a restricted contract with Kendi, preventing it from sharing the full video with the media or anyone else outside the school system.
From the article:
“In Kendi’s book, he does cite his opposition to capitalism and calls for ‘present discrimination’ to address past discrimination.”
Apparently Kendi is not so opposed to capitalism that he was inclined to accept less than $25,000.00 for his presentation. I contemplate what pearls of wisdom he cast before them. Anything not in his book(s)?
Wouldn’t buying the book be cheaper? May one reasonably infer that his fee would have been significantly more had he troubled himself to fly to Charlotte to give it in person?
For the sake of opposing censorship, I’m reasonably for CRT being taught. But what does CRT offer that a comprehensive history of the U.S., warts and all including the depth and breadth of racism, does not? Indoctrination? Re: a survey course on religion versus proselytizing a specific religion in the classroom. What are CRT enthusiasts’ views on censorship? Will students be allowed to reference John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, etc.? Or will they be censored for wrong thinking? I’m for students being made uncomfortable in the face of historical facts and thinking for themselves. I am no less for teachers and CRT enthusiasts having to bear up under rational, logical critical questioning from students, and if the former feel uncomfortable or “triggered” or “micro-agressed” as a result, too bad.
I think there ought to be a CCT (Critical Culture Theory) class comparing cultures. I look forward to NMAAHC and its kindred spirits no less similarly critiquing additional cultures, no exceptions, and publishing charts, for the edification of students. Will that happen?
nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
The basic problem is that the truth of the assertions about society that are made by CRT proponents are not demonstrated but rather assumed. They insist up front that ‘objective’ arguments against CRT are simply a socially-constructed rationale to retain dominance.
“The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking – one that we will challenge throughout this book.” – Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, “Reconstructing Knowledge,” in Anderson and Collins, Race, Class, and Gender, p. 4-5
We tend to go straight to the answer. Given the state of propaganda camps, the historically illiteracy prevalent, we encourage home schooling, for even if the parents provide only a 5th grade education during all those years, along with real math and history, their children will be leaps and bounds what’s graduating today, unfortunately. If a parent can find one good teacher, that one teacher could provide one day of lessons per week and it would be leaps and bounds ahead of the propaganda camps. Because that one good teacher would not dum# those kids/teens down, put out the light of understanding, but would provide quality material and encourage them to truly think for themselves, also learning about starting a business.
Loury and McWhorter – “CRT in theory and practice” (excerpt?) : https://youtu.be/-1znlcw7JT8
McWhorter in a Munk “Debate” referred to above ^^^ with Gloria Ladson-Billings (professor, UW-Madison) : https://youtu.be/R4pikerUu6o
It is unfortunate that the transcripts are not so readily available, as they are for e.g. Sean Carroll’s excellent Mindscape series. Because the clarity between McWhorter and Loury (who admits of indulging in ranting) is precious – as is the lack thereof in the case to promulgate what to think.
Full length Loury and McWhorter : https://youtu.be/wplt3RpyKoc