Education

The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn't Matter if We Had More School Choice

Guide your children’s education and let your opponents teach their own kids.

|

A recent school board meeting in Loudon County, Virginia, turned so heated that attendees faced off in dueling protests and people were hauled off in handcuffs. The main point of disagreement was over the teaching (real or imaginary) of critical race theory (CRT) in public school classrooms, and parents' feelings over that controversial nominally anti-racist but really racially obsessed ideology. The conflict represented an escalation in the ongoing national curriculum wars that, like all such battles, could be peacefully settled by recognizing families' rights to choose educational approaches instead of surrendering children to the whims of government bureaucrats.

"Parents protesting against critical race theory broke into the national anthem when the Loudoun Co., Virginia school board ended public comment because the crowd got too out of hand," Reuters' Gabriella Borter tweeted June 22. "The Loudoun County sheriff's office declared the school board meeting an unlawful assembly. Everyone told to get out or will be trespassing. Two arrests made."

The confrontation in Loudon County is part of a national debate over critical race theory (a subset of overarching critical theory) and related belief systems which, in the guise of deconstructing oppressive and hierarchical human relationships instead strip people of individuality and reduce them to representatives of group identities. This intellectual movement rejects rationalism and objectivity, and brands the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, as irredeemably racist—but its collectivism breeds racism every bit as pernicious as anything cooked up by the Ku Klux Klan.

In response, some states are banning the teaching of CRT—an approach that threatens to turn advocates of the ideology into free speech martyrs fighting the entrenched establishment. Trinity College's Isaac Kamola argues that many Americans oppose the ideology "because academic, journalistic and movement efforts to critically interrogate the lasting impact of slavery and American racism fundamentally challenge the free market fundamentalist ideology." That's a wildly tendentious claim, but ideological bans lend it a gloss of credibility.

Bans also run afoul of the difficulty inherent in trying to filter ideas which can be taught without use of a red-flag brand name, or by teachers who unknowingly absorb assumptions which permeate academia and then pass them on to students without reference to specific scholarly sources. Removing ideas from their origins makes it easier to pretend the ideology has little presence in classrooms.

"No, 6-year-olds are not being taught Derrick Bell — or forced to read Judith Butler, or God help them, Kimberlé Crenshaw," observes writer Andrew Sullivan. "Of course they aren't — and I don't know anyone who says they are. But they are being taught popularized terms, new words, and a whole new epistemology that is directly downstream of academic critical theory."

Sullivan compares the role of CRT in many schools' curricula to lessons in Catholic school, which don't dwell on theological intricacies but do pass along the religion's values. Also, he points out, CRT rejects the foundations of the liberal order in free and open societies. That ups the ante on the decades-long national battles over what is taught in public school classrooms.

"Rather than build bridges, public schooling often forces people into wrenching, zero‐sum conflict," notes the Cato Institute's Public Schooling Battle Map, which tracked such debates long before the current controversy. "Think creationism versus evolution, or assigned readings containing racial slurs. The conflicts are often intensely personal, and guarantee if one fundamental value wins, another loses."

That said, families that choose how their children learn—my own included—rather than defaulting to government-run institutions don't have to lose anything because we have largely escaped these battles. By homeschooling, or micro-schooling, or picking private or charter schools, we can avoid curricula permeated with ideas we find toxic and select those that present ideas of which we approve or, even better from my perspective, that encourage open debate among opposing perspectives.

"The kids break into two groups at lunch," my son tells me of his private high school. "The smaller group is really woke and always angry about something. I sit with the larger group of normal kids."

My wife and I aren't worried that the school will suddenly turn into a CRT seminary. We like and trust the administrators and teachers, but we also pay tuition. If the school abandons its open embrace of discussion and debate, we'll stop those payments and educate our son elsewhere.

That's not to say that we're emulating conservative lawmakers by trying to shield our kid from ideas we dislike. Our son is going to encounter them one way or another, so we prepare him to engage with CRT's advocates. This summer, alongside time devoted to fun activities, he's reading Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, as well as materials that support enlightenment values, individualism, and open debate. You don't fight bad ideas by ignoring them; you have to understand them and their flaws.

Parents that reject liberalism and support CRT also have alternatives to battling over the content of schoolroom lessons. They can introduce their tykes to Ibram X. Kendi's Antiracist Baby Picture Book, marinate their kids in CRT-infused homeschooling, or send them to one of many private schools that offer willing families an education steeped in the ideology. That sounds like a tour through hell, to me, but if that's what they want their kids to learn, let them do so in peace, and without zero-sum arguments about what children are taught in shared institutions.

Then our kids can engage with each other's ideas in a society of diverse viewpoints. 

The curriculum wars were nasty enough when they were over competing editions of textbooks spun for conservative school boards in Texas and liberal educators in California, or about whether to call the United States a "democracy" or a "republic." Now that the debate is escalating over more fundamental differences involving the value of liberal ideas, individualism, and rationality, it's difficult to see how Americans of opposing viewpoints can share tax-funded schools that fall on one side or the other of the ideological divide. So let's not even try when we can encourage the growing exodus from public schools to alternatives of all sorts.

We don't need to wage the curriculum wars at all. Instead, let's pick where and how our children are educated, and encourage others to do the same. Then they can hash out their ideas in a society that remains open to disagreement and debate.

NEXT: Government Pandemic Loans Plagued by Potential $260 Billion in Fraud

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “controversial nominally anti-racist but really racially obsessed ideology.”

    Jeffythecollectavist hardest hit.

    1. Jeff the racist collectivist.

      1. Sounds like a SNL skit character.

        1. But in reality it’s just one of the resident lefty commentators.

          1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular FFF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

            1. F0r Online Jobs … Visit Here

              1. I am making a good salary online from home. last month I have made $21987 in one month by working from home. i was jobless 6 months ago , but now i am getting a really good salary by doing this online job.Everybody must endeavor this movement now by in a general sense use this link….go to this site home media tech tab for more detail thank you….Click Here.

        2. More like Monty Python’s Flying Circus

          1. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started..Visit Here.

  2. “The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn’t Matter if We Had More School Choice

    Critical Theory is straight up Marxism, and so is its daughter, Critical Race Theory.

    “[Critical Theory] argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation . . .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

    The idea that I would be okay with having my tax dollars used to undermine capitalism by teaching children to abhor individual effort and embrace Marxist ideology–because my kids don’t attend public schools–is patently absurd.

    If totalitarianism has something to do with using the government to control people’s thoughts, then teaching Critical Theory in public schools is totalitarian Marxism–and this libertarian capitalist isn’t about to shut up about it because I’m a libertarian capitalist.

    1. the idea that school choice will resolve this issue is false since many private and charter schools are still required to teach what the government tells them to teach. CRT would likely become a requirement no matter what schools a child attends. Get rid of the lie of CRT and common core

      1. Private schools have very little in the way of regulation. The main thing for them is to get accredited by private organizations so that colleges and universities will accept their students. It is fairly out there to suggest that private schools would ever be forced to teach CRT or Common Core or anything else when so many Christian schools teach kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve were real people.

        1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings wsd are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page……. Home Profit System

    2. The take home from this article is that TooSilly would apparently be ok with public money going towards totalitarian indoctrination. So long as parents had ‘choice’ where there kids went to school.

      Libertarianism isn’t going to win anyone over so long as voices like his are given amplification.

      1. Now now, Tucille knows that asking parents to actually pay for things they want is a political third rail. He must compromise to merely arguing that we must have more stores selling the exact same thing by royal decree.

        1. “more stores selling the exact same thing by royal decree.”

          Excellent encapsulation of what Toosilly is actually promoting.

          Free minds and free markets my ass.

    3. Ken, from what I have read most Post-modernists/Critical Theorists reject Marxism because it is too focused on class and not enough on race, gender, and other woke hierarchies of oppression and power. Also, Marx used reason, perhaps in twisted ways, and the PM/CT doctrine rejects reason.

      1. Class battles tended to not be as effective in America due to economic mobility. In the 60s lawyers using post modernism began to search out for other ways to segment populations in America, which turned into critical race theory. It is simply the more effective strategy for Marxists in America.

        1. Marxism is:
          Identity as units of class rather than individual personalities. Classes based on superficial traits, such as skin color or economic status, engaged in perpetual warfare upon each other to determine oppressed/oppressor hierarchy. Class dynamics determine all conditions and interactions.

      2. They don’t reject Marxism, they’re just looking for a different tactic to get the masses to grant them the power they crave. Tankies are furious with the working class for not toeing the lefturd party line, so they’re resorting to racist guilt-peddling to sow hatred and division and they’re having a disgusting level of success with it.

        -jcr

      3. “Post-modernists/Critical Theorists reject Marxism ”

        They ‘reject’ Marx & Engels Marxism much the same way third wave Feminists reject earlier forms.

        But Critical Theory is still Marxism the same way 3rd wave Feminism is still Feminism. And that both rely heavily on intersectionality is hardly a coincidence.

      4. It’s a revision. The essence of changing reality by changing ideology and undermining the “false” belief in individual effort is still the same.

  3. People are entitled to send children to private schools (although society should require qualifying schools to be accredited, in a system less deferential to nonsense-teaching, science-suppressing “education,” as a fundamental matter of child welfare).

    The public should not pay for private schools, however, any more than the public should fund helicopter rides for those who eschew public roads and public transit systems.

    1. You are free to do as you please, as long as you do it this way.

      1. ^^THIS; B.S. from fascists.

        1. Actually, from any types of fundamentalists who imagine a perfect way for all humans to live, and want to use society as a weapon to enforce that vision.

          1. “Cannibalism and child sacrifice are just as valid and legitimate as western representative democracy!” – libertarians.

            1. Run out of straw yet?

              1. That was closer to reducto as absurdum than a straw man. Maybe even slippery slope.

                Take your logic from the previous comment and, while being consistent, explain why it doesn’t apply to cannibalism and child sacrifice.

                If your logic rejects certain underlying assumptions to build the arguments on, you lose the plot. Why are your preferred mores good but other’s are not? And if you reject out of hand that cannibalism and child sacrifice are wrong ways to live, how are you any different from the fundamentalists you mock?

      2. “You are free to do as you please, as long as you do it this way.”

        Stop signs, center lines, traffic lights, and ‘no parking in intersection’ signs must drive you crazy.

        Which would explain the craziness.

        1. Everything in life is analogous to a roadway

          1. Tom Cochrane? Is that you??

      1. GFY leftie shit.

      2. Note my lack of surprise that shitlunches and kirkles agree.

      3. Hey look, shreek’s sockpuppet agrees with shreek’s other sockpuppet.

        Fucked any children lately you pathetic piece of shit pedophile? Remember how you got banned from this website for posting your disgusting cache of child pornography, kiddie fucker?

    2. The public should not pay for public schools if a child of theirs is not attending said school.

      1. Amen! In addition to “separation of church and state”, we also need “separation of school and state”… And an end to the endless needs for degrees, credentials, and licenses for performing a boat-load of different kinds of should-be-free-market jobs!

        “Crazy libertarians” have been saying these kinds of things for decades now. GOOD LUCK on getting it to happen, sad to say!

        1. If you want to connect your house’s electric service to a grid designed by woke activists supplied by wind turbines and PV panels have at it.

      2. ” The public should not pay for public schools if a child of theirs is not attending said school. ”

        Disaffected, anti-social, irrelevant malcontents are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit, anyway.

      3. The public should not pay for public schools if a child of theirs is not attending said school.

        If the public (taxpayers) should not be paying for public schools if they don’t have kids attending public schools, then why have public funding of education at all? You’re basically saying that only those with kids attending a school should be paying for it, so why not just charge tuition and not have taxes involved at all? Of course, that would mean that children of lower income families and the poor would be screwed, but that’s just incentive for their parents to work harder, amiright?

    3. So, Art, you’re saying that the public schools should be paid for students that don’t attend those schools?

      1. Public schools should be funded by the public. If students attend other schools, it should be at private expense.

        1. That’s funny because there is a big conversation in NYC about the lack of diversity in private charter schools. Unable to provide a private expense is consider a barrier to diversity. As such it is considered a byproduct of white supremacy.

    4. Pinochet fan Rev?

      1. I am a fan of successful, reasoning, diverse, modern America, shaped by the liberal-libertarian mainstream and continuing to improve.

        1. Now that’s funny.

    5. Speaking of someone worthy of a helicopter ride…

    6. “The public should not pay for private schools, however, any more than the public should fund helicopter rides for those who eschew public roads and public transit systems.”

      And private school users should pay for public schools? Some asymmetry or what?

      1. And private school users should pay for public schools? Some asymmetry or what?

        Should people without kids at all pay for public schools? What about families with lots of kids, aren’t they getting a lot more for their tax dollars than those with fewer kids?

        You are missing the whole point of publicly funding education. It is like anything else publicly funded. Think of fire/rescue services and law enforcement. People use those services when they need them regardless of how much they personally pay in taxes. Just because a multimillionaire could afford to hire private security, private detectives, or keep their own emergency crews on standby doesn’t mean they would get to opt out of paying taxes for the firemen and police that everyone else would still rely on.

        Anyone that believes in trying to maintain equal economic opportunity in society is going to understand and accept that education can’t be something that all parents would have to pay entirely on their own. The publicly-funded system has to exist for those without the means to manage it on their own for their children, and it also sets the standard for what is considered “adequate” education for all children. Even in an all-private school system with universal vouchers that some libertarians dream about, all taxpayers would be contributing to it, and thus all taxpayers would want a say in how schools are accredited and judged as being “adequate”.

  4. As long as they keep funding schools through tax dollars, people should get a say in what happens at school. It’s unfortunate a law as basic as “dont be a blatant racist” has given the left wing activists such a problem.

    Of course school choice is great. But as long as we are forced to pay for public education we should be able to tell the teachers not to be racists

    1. If you believe your employer has no power of what you say at work, then Tuccille could start pushing fascism or communism and expect to keep being paid. Teachers are paid to teach what the taxpayers want; it is not a free speech issue.

      1. No , the teachers get paid to teach what the school boards and government wants. Most school and school boards don’t give a c*** what the parents want, they will teach what they were taught in college,that is if you push your agenda to small children they willlearn it for life. You then have a new generation of whatever political flavor is in vogue. Parents NEED to know exactly what their kids are being taught and have input into it. Just think when the schools went virtual and the teachers and schools didn’t want the parents listening. What were they hiding? The fact they were indoctrinating your kids? If we don’t get a handle on this now in one generation it will be too late.

        1. “c***”

          You’re allowed to say crap here. Even fuck!

      2. Tuccille could start pushing fascism or communism and expect to keep being paid

        Start?

        1. Exactly

      3. Teachers are paid to teach what the taxpayers want

        No they aren’t. They are not robots mindlessly obeying the will of a fickle mob. They are paid to serve as the professionals that they are in their discipline.

        1. It’s hilarious how pathetically obsequious cytotoxic is toward people with an undergraduate degree in elementary education. I guess that seems impressive when you’re still laboring in your 8th year of studies to get your associate of arts in indigenous studies.

          So cytotoxic, you would similarly oppose those stupid asshole voters whose forcibly-extracted tax dollars are being used to create and fund the police force from having a say in the way that our professional law enforcement officers behave right? After all, cops are not robots mindlessly obeying the will of a fickle mob. They are paid to serve as the professionals that they are in their discipline. Who the fuck are YOU, a mere citizen with no training in law enforcement, to question the use of deadly force when our highly trained professional law enforcement officers deem it necessary?

        2. Part of the professionalism that they (hopefully) have is to teach the curriculum as determined by the state or local school boards and administrations. Are you trying to say that that shouldn’t be how it works?

          1. Not really. In my view, ideally, the curriculum is determined by the leadership of a school itself, in conjunction with the teachers, and the school board is more of an oversight board, not to try to micromanage the curriculum, but to set general priorities overall.

            1. That would be fine if it wasn’t a taxpayer funded public school. If people are paying for something, they should get some say in it. Which is going to mean that controversial subjects and educational approaches will be excluded. Perhaps that’s not the ideal education, but it’s what it has to be if we are forcing everyone to pay for it.

              1. If people are paying for something, they should get some say in it. Which is going to mean that controversial subjects and educational approaches will be excluded. Perhaps that’s not the ideal education, but it’s what it has to be if we are forcing everyone to pay for it.

                No it doesn’t have to be that way.

                For example, consider the military. Obviously taxpayer-funded. And yes the public ought to decide, for example, whether the military is to be sent to war. For big decisions like that. But the public at large really shouldn’t be deciding minutiae such as what color the uniforms are, or how many beds are in the barracks. Those types of decisions should be left up to professionals. The public should have overall say in the big picture. But not to micromanage every tiny detail. We have to trust professionals to do their jobs professionally.

                It can be the same with schools, if we allow it. Sure the public should have input over the big picture. The overall direction of the school. But not to micromanage every detail. And that includes precise details of the curriculum. We have to trust professionals to decide an appropriate curriculum in their fields of expertise.

                The problem is that school boards have been given power to decide very precise details about the curriculum, and they are loathe to give up that type of power. It can be used to serve partisan aims, as we have seen for a while now (not just with CRT).

                If we do have a robust school choice regime, it has to come with a relinquishment of that type of micromanagement power.

                1. But the military ISN’T the same as schools, you fat fuck. School board members are elected by the local community. School districts funded through property taxes. Who the fuck are you to tell them that they get no say in how those schools are run and what is taught there?

                2. We have to trust professionals to decide an appropriate curriculum in their fields of expertise.

                  Fuckin’ LOL at this guy literally parroting the TOP. MEN. meme, but unironically.

                  1. He admitted he was a collectivist this weekend, and didn’t even realize it. He’s not very bright.

                3. Your analogy might have worked if we had thousands of local INDEPENDENT militaries.

                  No wonder you couldn’t grasp the homeless analogy yesterday.

        3. They are employees of the state dumbass. They are not independent contractors weeking clients.

          Youre such a lying cunt.

        4. Spoken like someone who hasnt had a kid in the public school system.

    2. “As long as they keep funding schools through tax dollars, people should get a say in what happens at school.”

      Assuming that taxpayers will continue to pay for education, the way for the parents to “get a say” in their kids’ education is to fund the kids directly, and let the parents choose the school.

      1. I’m all for vouchers. But even universal vouchers would not be a panacea for this sort of issue. As noted above the government will still seek to impose shared standards and limits controlling what every school must and must not do.

        Consider a school district comprised of 90% Hasidim, could they turn the school into a yeshiva where no English language was taught? Doubtful.

        No. Like it or not public funding means some degree of public control over all schooling. All taxpayers should have some say about how their money gets spent educating someone else’s kids.

        And indoctrinating them in straight up Marxism, as opposed to teaching about Marxism, is not something they should be doing. We should teach Marxism the same way we teach about it’s bastard children fascism, Nazisim, and Maoism.

        1. No. Like it or not public funding means some degree of public control over all schooling. All taxpayers should have some say about how their money gets spent educating someone else’s kids.

          Right, so you aren’t going to relinquish control over how other kids are taught. The control over other people’s lives is just too hard to give up.

          Vouchers can only work if we all collectively agree to give up most, if not all, control over the curricula, and hand that control to where it belongs, the professionals who actually run the schools. That is one of the *major points* of vouchers – that it eliminates these interminable power plays about what ought to be in a single unified curriculum that everyone must adopt.

          We have to collectively agree that the goal of seeing kids educated broadly is more important than trying to dictate precisely what is in the curriculum. Otherwise, what is the point? Just continue doing what we’re doing now, and have the school curricula continue to be a political football that is wielded in the name of power, not in the name of education.

          1. We aren’t talking about determining precisely what is in every curriculum, but rather disallowing the teaching of certain offensive and destructive ideas to children.

            1. but rather disallowing the teaching of certain offensive and destructive ideas to children.

              Who decides what is “offensive and destructive”? That ought to be in the eyes of the parents themselves, right? The whole philosophy of school choice is that parents decide the curriculum that is best for their kids. So if Alice wants her kids to learn about anti-racism, but Bob does not, then Alice sends her kids to the anti-racism school, and Bob sends his kids to the Patriotically Correct school. But Bob doesn’t get to dictate Alice’s school’s curriculum, and Alice doesn’t get to dictate Bob’s school’s curriculum.

              Once we start down the path of “I support school choice, but…” then it is a slippery slope down to where we are at, with the curriculum used as a political football between warring tribes, and kids caught in the middle.

              1. Who decides what is “offensive and destructive”

                In this case, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He seemed to want kids judged on the content of their character, not on skin color alone.

                Apparently this is too restrictive for those that want to push racism in classrooms.

                Again, the hill you are trying to die on is not a good look. Its the least “individualist” thing I can imagine, treating kids as though they are part of monolithic blocks with no regard for their circumstance or character

                1. In this case, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He seemed to want kids judged on the content of their character, not on skin color alone.

                  I agree with that. But the whole philosophy behind school choice, and behind liberty generally, is that we have to let go of trying to control the choices of everyone else, even when we strongly disapprove of the choices that they would make.

                  Most people would not approve of getting addicted to heroin, or gambling away one’s life savings, or any number of destructive choices, but we libertarians fully acknowledge that these poor choices should not be *prohibited by law*.

                  It is the same general idea with school choices. Most people would not approve of any number of fringe curricula. But we have to let go of trying to impose our judgment onto their choices. They should be free to pursue a curriculum that we wouldn’t approve of.

                  1. I wouldn’t care much if I wasn’t forced to fund it. I imagine there are families of KKK members that home school their kids and also teach race garbage. But I’m not forced to pay for it.
                    If some fatty wants to eat Big Macs all day long I’m good with that provided I don’t have to pay for the food or any of the healthcare as a result of that diet.

              2. “Who decides what is “offensive and destructive”? That ought to be in the eyes of the parents themselves, right?”

                Oh, who the fuck do you think you are fooling with that argument?

                Can schools drop all sex education if the parents want it? Can they stop teaching English grammar? Can they mandate a school teach that transgenderism is morally AND biologically wrong? Can they require teaching that some humans are really mud people?

                Are you really trying to pretend that there would be no limit on parent control over curriculum? I actually support vouchers, unlike you you dishonest leftist, but I’m also honest enough to acknowledge the reality that taxpayer money means taxpayer control.

                The only way to eliminate taxpayer control is to privatize all education. Something that I also support.

                1. Having school vouchers, but trying to maintain public control over the school curricula via the voucher money, is not much of an improvement, if at all. In fact it can be worse, as now you will have power play battles over each tribe trying to impose curricula over everyone, *including* the private schools that accept voucher money. Your voucher scheme effectively nationalizes private schools, rather than leading to less government involvement in schools.

                  And yes I favor no-strings-attached school vouchers, see below.

                  1. “no-strings-attached school vouchers,”

                    No ‘strings’ other than a totalitarian exclusionary test creating a disenfranchised underclass that is.

                    1. No strings attached means each of us can decide to not fund this system. If only.

              3. So if Alice wants her kids to learn about anti-racism, but Bob does not, then Alice sends her kids to the anti-racism school, and Bob sends his kids to the Patriotically Correct school. But Bob doesn’t get to dictate Alice’s school’s curriculum, and Alice doesn’t get to dictate Bob’s school’s curriculum.

                But Alice gets to spend money that was stolen from Bob at gunpoint by a third party and then redistributed to her, while Bob has to pay out of pocket to send his kid to a school that doesn’t teach Alice’s 19th century racist bullshit and Bob has no right to complain about it because reasons.

                Once we start down the path of “I support school choice, but…” then it is a slippery slope down to where we are at, with the curriculum used as a political football between warring tribes, and kids caught in the middle.

                Possibly because stealing money from everyone in a political jurisdiction and then distributing it to the people within that political jurisdiction who happen to have opted in to become parents is not actually “choice” in any meaningful sense of the word you fucking collectivist piece of shit.

                Considering you are on record telling us that parents should have no say in what is taught to their children and that all curricula should be determined exclusively by teachers regardless of the wishes of the people who pay them, the debate over whose stolen lucre is used for the salaries is a pointless distinction anyway. Your belief system where teachers are infallible and should be able to operate completely autonomously and without any form of oversight means that the source of funding is immaterial. You believe that the people who pay teachers to teach children are not entitled to any input on the manner in which teachers, as vaunted “professionals”, do their job. Privatizing schools entirely wouldn’t make any difference if we followed your ideology. We are at the mercy of teachers because they are “professionals”. In your world we don’t question “professionals”. Don’t like the house your architect designed? Who the fuck do you think you are? Are YOU a professional architect? Well, are you?

                1. But Alice gets to spend money that was stolen from Bob at gunpoint by a third party and then redistributed to her, while Bob has to pay out of pocket to send his kid to a school that doesn’t teach Alice’s 19th century racist bullshit and Bob has no right to complain about it because reasons.

                  If both Alice and Bob are sending their kids to schools that are participating in school choice, then this concern is not relevant.

                  The question of whether everyone, even non-parents, ought to fund education at all, whether via public schools or via vouchers, is a different question. I would argue that having a broadly educated citizenry is a public good, and as such it is worth having some general fund taxpayer money funding that public good.

                  But if you are in favor of having completely privatized education, not even with vouchers, then please explain how you would encourage kids to go to school, or parents to send their kids to go to school, particularly those who are poor.

                  And I do not believe parents should be micromanaging the activity of professionals. Should patients be telling doctors what types of medicine to prescribe and what types of surgery to perform? Should clients be telling lawyers what legal briefs to file and what legal arguments to make?

                  Do you even accept the idea that there is such a thing as a professional within a certain area of expertise, whose opinion in that area of expertise ought to be weighted a little bit more heavily than the non-professional in that field?

                2. But if you are in favor of having completely privatized education, not even with vouchers, then please explain how you would encourage kids to go to school, or parents to send their kids to go to school, particularly those who are poor.

                  I’m not a collectivist sack of shit, so I don’t give a mosquito fuck about whether kids go to school, or whether their parents send them to school, regardless of how much money they have. As I pointed out the last time you trotted out this absolutely retarded canard, we have about 35 centuries of historical examples of how you handle that situation. Your collectivist Prussian model public education is actually a relatively recent invention.

                  Should patients be telling doctors what types of medicine to prescribe and what types of surgery to perform? Should clients be telling lawyers what legal briefs to file and what legal arguments to make?

                  Uh… yes? A doctor that prescribes medication without the input of their patient is a hack who rightly could and would be sued for medical malpractice. A lawyer that filed legal briefs without consulting his client, the same. Do you actually think that physicians and attorneys just get to unilaterally do whatever the fuck they want? I know you’re a sheltered, effete piece of shit who still lives with his parents but fuck oh dear. Is this literally your first day on earth?

                  Do you even accept the idea that there is such a thing as a professional within a certain area of expertise, whose opinion in that area of expertise ought to be weighted a little bit more heavily than the non-professional in that field?

                  Yes. I also recognize the limits of expertise. Going back to your previous idiotic examples, a physician can give a patient medical advice but they can’t force them to take a course of treatment. A lawyer can give a client legal advice but they can’t force them to plead guilty to a crime. And importantly, a physican could give his patient legal advice, but the patient would probably do well to consider that advice carefully since the physician is not an expert in legal matters. A 24 year old kid with a Bachelor of Arts in Education is not an authority on moral philosophy and is in no better position to decide whether a child should be shamed because of their race than anyone else. “Professional” is not a way of papering over all objections to the diktats of self-anointed experts.

              4. Individual voters and legislators get to decide what it offensive and destructive. And if enough find some particular thing so, then a law gets passed it doesn’t get taught in public schools.

                1. Individual voters and legislators get to decide what it offensive and destructive.

                  Under a robust school choice regime, that power should be taken away from voters and legislators, and instead handed to parents.

                  1. Except that you literally just got done saying IN THIS FUCKING THREAD that parents should not have that power and that it should instead rest solely in the hands of “professional academics”. Fuck oh dear you lardass sack of shit. Try to space your lies out far enough that you can’t easily refute them by merely scrolling 5 lines up on the SAME GODDAMN PAGE.

                  2. You’re arguing for a system that does not exist while we are arguing to deal with the present reality.

                2. Let’s understand that this is a false battle. CRT is taught in colleges as an elective. It is a methodology for studying aspects of history, not a course taught in elementary or high schools. It might be mentioned in AP history courses but the argument here is ridiculous. CRT is a concept that most elementary school children and, apparently their parents can’t quite grasp. This discussion makes about as much sense as the attempt to ban Sharia law from being applied in federal or state courts in the US.

                  1. Let’s understand that this is a false battle.

                    Another variation of the “move along, nothing to see here” deflection.

                    If there was nothing to it, you and your allies wouldn’t be so freaked out by people trying to nip your racial gaslighting in the bud.

              5. “Who decides what is “offensive and destructive”? That ought to be in the eyes of the parents themselves, right?”

                ….and when the school board ignores parents wholesale and just does what they want?

              6. The local community, dumb ass.

            2. I actually favor school vouchers but with zero strings attached. So if parents want to use the voucher money to send their kids to Bible Thumping Jesus school, or to Communist Indoctrination school, they would have complete freedom to do so. The only government requirement that I would impose is a high-stakes exam at the end of highschool, which determines if one has reached eligibility for all of the privileges and duties of full adulthood.

              1. ” a high-stakes exam at the end of highschool, which determines if one has reached eligibility for all of the privileges and duties of full adulthood.”

                And they called Heinlein a fascist…

                You think that’s clever don’t you? Meanwhile anyone with a whit of common sense sees the Trojan Horse for what it is. Along with the naked totalitarian impulse that animates it.

                But thanks for the closest thing to honesty we’re ever likely to get from you. You sick fuck.

                1. Yes, “naked totalitarianism” like the SAT. How awful!

                  Spare us your drama. The high-stakes test would be to determine if the kids actually learned anything in all of that schooling. So that, if you did decide to send your kids to Bible Thumping Jesus School, or to Communist Indoctrination Academy, then did the kids actually learn what is needed to be a productive and functional adult in modern society. That’s all. Don’t worry, it’s not a 100-page multiple choice test written by Robin DiAngelo.

                  1. Yes, “naked totalitarianism” like the SAT. How awful!

                    The SAT is an optional test used by college administrators to determine eligibility and class placement, not a mandatory test used to determine if a person gets to participate in society. The SAT also detracts points from white students and gives bonus points to black students based on their skin color and how much money their parents make. By all means let’s adopt that as a model for a citizenship requirement.

                    So that, if you did decide to send your kids to Bible Thumping Jesus School, or to Communist Indoctrination Academy, then did the kids actually learn what is needed to be a productive and functional adult in modern society.

                    And who pray tell us gets to determine what is needed to be a productive and functional adult in modern society? The same “professional” teachers who you have told us cannot be questioned by parents or taxpayers under circumstances? A board of government bureaucrats? The College Board?

                    It’s ironic that you support a mandatory test to participate in all of the privileges and immunities of American citizenship, yet think that asking for identification before voting in national elections is white supremacy and fascism. It’s almost like you’re a lying sack of shit.

                    1. I used the SAT as merely an idea of the type of high-stakes test I was talking about. I don’t propose using the literal SAT for this idea of mine.

                      And who pray tell us gets to determine what is needed to be a productive and functional adult in modern society? The same “professional” teachers who you have told us cannot be questioned by parents or taxpayers under circumstances? A board of government bureaucrats? The College Board?

                      Some mix of all of those. There would still be government meddling, but it would be far reduced – instead of trying to dictate every aspect of the curricula, now it only has influence over one test at the end. That seems like a net improvement to me.

                      And I have never been opposed to mandatory voter ID, so you can take that strawman and burn it.

                    2. I used the SAT as merely an idea of the type of high-stakes test I was talking about. I don’t propose using the literal SAT for this idea of mine.

                      And I pointed out how the SAT is not only a really shitty test, but also of a completely different character from the type of test you are proposing. I know that completely undermines your idiotic idea and makes your position untenable. That’s why I did it.

                      There would still be government meddling, but it would be far reduced – instead of trying to dictate every aspect of the curricula, now it only has influence over one test at the end.

                      Just like how No Child Left Behind and Common Core merely prescribed standards to which schools must test? Good point. It’s not like that had any influence on pedagogy in American schools.

                      And I have never been opposed to mandatory voter ID, so you can take that strawman and burn it.

                      Lol. Holy fuck bro. I know you lie as easily as most people walk, but wow.

                  2. “Don’t worry, it’s not a 100-page multiple choice test written by Robin DiAngelo.”

                    Says who?

                    The taxpayers????

                    You really are a simpleton.

                    1. Is the SAT some ultra-woke exam? No? Okay then.

                      Believe it or not, there are academic professionals who actually do write tests to measure learning in professional ways.

                      Do you think there are some topics that all students ought to learn before finishing highschool? If so, how do you suggest that the mastery of these topics be measured?

                    2. ” academic professionals who actually do write tests to measure learning in professional ways.”

                      You means the very same ones who have academic credentials from the very same places where CRT is so widely accepted?

                      Again, you really think you are clever. What you are is obvious.

                    3. Yes yes yes, Mr. Cynicism here thinks that every academic professional is a super-woke CRT acolyte. Whatever.

                      Let’s hear your idea on how to measure student learning of topics necessary for success as a productive adult citizen. Or do you only have bitching and cynicism to offer?

                    4. Is the SAT some ultra-woke exam?

                      Yes. Yes it is.

                      Believe it or not, there are academic professionals who actually do write tests to measure learning in professional ways.

                      Believe it or not, there are professional professionals who professionally reject professionalism, as professionals.

                      The hilarious thing is that, just like the SAT had to integrate a racial bonus score because black students could not perform to the standards of the test, the people most fucked by your idea of requiring an SAT test to participate in full citizenship would be those poor, poor benighted niggers who so, so need the benefit of a white savior such as yourself. You’re the most racist piece of shit there is so you project your barely-concealed racial anxieties through the lens of your colonialist white man’s burden onto everyone else and then pat yourself on the back for being such a great ally to the black people who you hold beneath contempt. Because you’re a piece of shit.

                      Do you think there are some topics that all students ought to learn before finishing highschool?

                      You proposed requiring a standardized test in order to receive the benefits of legal adulthood, not for high school graduation you mendacious fat piece of shit. Also about 1/4 of high school students currently graduate with a sub-8th grade reading level. Maybe those academic professionals who academicize professionally need to rethink things a bit.

                    5. “Let’s hear your idea on how to measure student learning of topics necessary for success as a productive adult citizen.”

                      Well, it may not be first or foremost, but I would certainly include a question or two testing their ability to recognize “look, squirrel!” deflections from the topic at hand.

                    6. Let’s hear your idea on how to measure student learning of topics necessary for success as a productive adult citizen.

                      I’ve got just the thing: If you become successful enough to own property then you get to vote and participate fully in civic society. Otherwise, you’re out of luck. No test required, we just let the market decide. Totally fair, no bias.

                      Oh wait, we did away with that kind of thing. Hmm. Must have been some kind of a mistake.

                    7. Jaimie Hool
                      June.28.2021 at 12:55 pm

                      Gee what a surprise, nothing but bitching and moaning, and now with racial epithets mixed in for flavor.

                      Why don’t you rejoin the conversation when you have something constructive to offer.

                    8. Well, it may not be first or foremost, but I would certainly include a question or two testing their ability to recognize “look, squirrel!” deflections from the topic at hand.

                      Okay, so who writes this question? How is this test administered? What happens in case of failure?

                    9. I’ve got just the thing: If you become successful enough to own property then you get to vote and participate fully in civic society. Otherwise, you’re out of luck. No test required, we just let the market decide. Totally fair, no bias.

                      Not sure if serious, but if you are, that would create even more of a classist society that you accuse me of wanting to create.

                      Would this only be real property such as real estate? What about a car, or mobile home, or Winnebagos? Would these count?

                    10. I like moveable yurts.

                    11. Is the SAT some ultra-woke exam? No? Okay then.

                      Yeah, it’s not like colleges are eliminating the SAT as an entrance requirement or anything specifically because minority applicants have been getting average lower test scores for decades.

                    12. Not sure if serious, but if you are, that would create even more of a classist society that you accuse me of wanting to create.

                      Yeah, I figured out that you’re too stupid to realize when you’re being parodied when you got all huffy about me using the term “nigger” while characterizing your patronizing racism against black people under the guise of charity. Thanks for making that even clearer for our viewers at home.

                    13. “What happens in case of failure?”

                      Go ask the people who pay for it would seem to be the obvious answer.

              2. “I actually favor school vouchers but with zero strings attached. So if parents want to use the voucher money to send their kids to Bible Thumping Jesus school, or to Communist Indoctrination school, they would have complete freedom to do so. The only government requirement that I would impose is a high-stakes exam at the end of high school, which determines if one has reached eligibility for all of the privileges and duties of full adulthood.”

                For me, that “eligibility” would consist 90% on the ability to read, write, do “arithmetic” (perhaps up to quadratic equations and very basic statistics), Add to that basic civil law, including the Constitution.

                1. Yes, that is the basic idea. So parents can send their kids to whatever school they wanted. The only thing that ought to matter in the end, at least as far as the government is concerned, is if the student learned the basics of what is required to be a functioning member in society.

                  1. So then the disproportionate number of black students who drop out of high school would lose the franchise in this utopia of yours? Leaving society to be ruled by the educated, affluent, white upper class? I mean, those poor stupid darkies already can’t figure out how to get identification, now you want to make them perform to some white man’s academic standards in order to be full citizens? Damn bro. Doesn’t sound very racially progressive. Matter of fact, Critical Race University taught me that’s actually white supremacist.

                    1. Jeffy knows that a million lawsuits would bloom and that problem would be ‘solved.’

                      He’s obviously internalized the Reason ‘logic’ that it is open borders will cause the end of the welfare state.

                      Which is impressive, considering how stupid he is.

                    2. I am sure there are some super-woke people out there who would consider that holding everyone up to an objective standard is “white supremacist” or something. That is ridiculous and I reject it.

                      And this is an outline of an idea. It is not a fully developed white paper. The idea is to have school vouchers pay for whatever education the parents want, no strings attached – so as to avoid the problem of having interminable battles over the “correct” curricula – and then at the end to measure whether students actually learned anything. If there was a truly high-stakes test at the end, maybe education wouldn’t be so much of the dumpster fire that it is today, as there would be real consequences of not passing certain classes.

                    3. Or instead of layering a government-issued test on top of a convoluted system of redistribution whereby the government steals money from some taxpayers and then gives it to others, maybe we should just let people keep their money and purchase whatever education they want for their children with no involvement of the government or their fellow taxpayers, and then when their kids graduate from school they can go into the world with the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they learned and see if they have any value. Hey, maybe we could even have institutions where students could go and pay money in exchange for further education and then be conferred some sort of a letter or document verifying that they met that institution’s standards of learning. The institutions could even compete among each other and the ones with the best standards could trade on their reputation in order to charge more money. But wait! Shit! That wouldn’t allow us to redistribute stolen money to benefit Marxist ideologues! Nevermind then, fuck that!

                    4. maybe we should just let people keep their money and purchase whatever education they want for their children with no involvement of the government or their fellow taxpayers, and then when their kids graduate from school they can go into the world with the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they learned and see if they have any value.

                      Okay, fine. That is a perfectly defensible idea. Now, what about parents who cannot afford tuition? What happens to their kids?

                      Furthermore, do you think there is an aspect of a public good to see that citizens, generally, are broadly educated? Do you think you benefit in any way if voters have strong critical thinking skills, and instead aren’t easily swayed by the latest demagogue that comes along promising free shit and scaring people into voting for authoritarians to ‘protect’ them?

                    5. Now, what about parents who cannot afford tuition? What happens to their kids?

                      Oh shit, you got me. I have absolutely no idea. I had honestly never even considered that possibility, and it’s a truly devastating critique. Since the Prussian model of public education has always existed and we have no possible historical examples we could draw upon where the children of the poor were educated at home, or at the hands of charitable organizations, or self taught, or where an autodidact lawyer we elected to the presidency of the United States, it’s truly impossible to know what might happen.

                      Furthermore, do you think there is an aspect of a public good to see that citizens, generally, are broadly educated?

                      Oh of course! There are undeniably certain kinds of knowledge that must be of a general nature and, more importantly, a certain cultivation of the mind and character that nobody can afford to be without. People obviously cannot be good craftworkers, merchants, soldiers or businessmen unless, regardless of their occupation, they are good, upstanding and – according to their condition – well-informed human beings and citizens. Everybody knows that!

                      Do you think you benefit in any way if voters have strong critical thinking skills, and instead aren’t easily swayed by the latest demagogue that comes along promising free shit and scaring people into voting for authoritarians to ‘protect’ them?

                      I haven’t seen any evidence of it. Remember how you spent 18 months ranting and raving in a histrionic fit that anyone who refused to wear a cloth mask that is scientifically proven to do absolutely nothing to arrest the spread of respiratory viruses was personally responsible for endangering your health because you’re a fat piece of shit who is vulnerable to respiratory viruses? And on that basis you insisted that 350 million people had a duty and personal responsibility to submit to house arrest with real-time tracking of their whereabouts?

              3. Starship Troopers wasn’t an instruction manual. Jesus Christ.

          2. The nerve of some people, thinking just because their confiscated money is being used for a government purpose that they have some say in how that money is used!

            You see the same thing with these uppity coloreds who think that just because they pay taxes to fund the local constabulary that they are somehow entitled to dictate to our highly trained professionals in law enforcement how they should do their jobs. The solution is obviously to shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down, and trust the highly trained professionals we hired to enforce our laws to do their job and enforce our laws in whatever way they see fit. Are you a highly trained law enforcement professional? No. You are not. Place your trust in the highly trained law enforcement professionals to do their job without interference from the public with their bullshit protestations about “justice” and “inequality” and “excessive force”.

        2. And indoctrinating them in straight up Marxism, as opposed to teaching about Marxism, is not something they should be doing.

          *In your opinion*, and in my opinion as well. However, one big point of school choice is that it permits parents to select the type of education for their kids that they want. If parents want their kids to receive an education from a Marxist curriculum, why not? If parents want to receive an education that is focused on STEM, or focused on the humanities, or focused on the arts, why not?

          We have to let go of imposing our desires onto the curricula of everyone else.

          1. You lying fuck. That is not your opinion. You’ve openly stated your agreement with CRT and have pushed that disallowing people to be taught their intrinsic race biases them to oppressed or oppressor status would mean teachers can’t teach history.

            Youre such a lying fuck.

            1. He’s too stupid to understand how and why people know he’s so stupid.

          2. If parents want their kids to receive an education from a Marxist curriculum, why not?

            Why indeed. While we’re pondering such mysteries: If parents want their kids to receive an education from a Marxist curriculum, why should I have to pay for it?

            1. If parents want their kids to receive an education from a Marxist curriculum, why should I have to pay for it?

              For the same reason that the parents who want their kids to receive a Marxist curriculum would also have to pay for your kids to receive a capitalist curriculum.

              That is why I say that if real school choice is going to work, we have to abandon any sense of trying to dictate individual curricula at any school, and collectively decide that the goal of seeing kids educated in ways that best suits them is more important than trying to micromanage in every detail what precisely they are being taught.

              1. For the same reason that the parents who want their kids to receive a Marxist curriculum would also have to pay for your kids to receive a capitalist curriculum.

                Wow, that really makes sense! Thanks for explaining! So instead of me using my money to pay for my kids to go to a school that teaches the sort of curriculum I agree with – which by the way you have repeatedly stated is not the prerogative of parents who should have no ability to question the curriculum developed by academic professionals – I could steal a little bit of money from my neighbor who also stole a little bit of money from me and we can use each other’s stolen money to pay for our kids to attend rival schools that we each deeply disagree with. That really simplifies things and solves most of the major problems facing American education!

              2. “ For the same reason that the parents who want their kids to receive a Marxist curriculum would also have to pay for your kids to receive a capitalist curriculum.”

                One of these is not like the others. One of these is not the same. La la la

  5. “In response, some states are banning the teaching of CRT—an approach that threatens to turn advocates of the ideology into free speech martyrs fighting the entrenched establishment.”

    Well, at least they aren’t threatening to turn them into actual martyrs. Yet.

    1. “In response, some states are banning the teaching of CRT—an approach that threatens to turn advocates of the ideology into free speech martyrs fighting the entrenched establishment.”

      Does Tuccile oppose banning the teaching of intelligent design for similar reasons?

      We wouldn’t want people to turn the First Amendment into a free speech issue?

      Maybe it would be better if we did turn the teaching of CRT into a free speech issue. Maybe it would be better if people understood the difference between what governments are allowed to do under constraints imposed by the voters and the Constitution and what private citizens are allowed to do on private property.

      Anyone who wants to teach CRT to their own children on their own private property using their own money should be perfectly free to do so. If you want to force other people’s children to learn it, using the other people’s money and a government institution, then you need to subject your plan to the scrutiny of elected officials who accountable to the voters and the taxpayers.

      1. “Anyone who wants to teach CRT to their own children on their own private property using their own money should be perfectly free to do so. If you want to force other people’s children to learn it, using the other people’s money and a government institution, then you need to subject your plan to the scrutiny of elected officials who accountable to the voters and the taxpayers.”

        Exactly this. You are going to potentially force my kid, paid for with my taxes, to listen to activist drivel. Im going to put in my protest vote on that. Especially when more often than not, it is devolving into segregation and racism. Activist K-12 teachers arent intellectually equipped to deal with this topic in the way it needs to be.

        1. What’s more elitist than the idea that we can’t have the voters weighing on what we teach in public schools?

          It’s one thing if you say something they want to teach is inherently unconstitutional. Quite another to argue that what public schools teach is outside the proper purview of democracy–and should be left to unaccountable government bureaucrats without regard to what the voters want.

          1. Quite another to argue that what public schools teach is outside the proper purview of democracy–and should be left to unaccountable government bureaucrats without regard to what the voters want.

            Which chemfat has been arguing ever since this debate went mainstream.

            1. Those teachers who got hired straight out of undergraduate school to a $60k/yr job with full benefits and 3 months off are TOP PROFESSIONALS and if you don’t trust them implicitly to teach your children than you are a racist Nazi fascist white supremacist.

              1. Teachers. Often they wear high school entrance exam scores and gpas entering colleges. And their tik toks prove they learn nothing in college.

                But they agree with Jeff’s preferred marxism, so they are top professionals.

        2. The irony of all these teachers demanding that online classrooms continue is that it gave parents far more visibility into the goofy race-baiting shit that’s being taught in schools these days. It’s hardly a coincidence that so much of this debate is going on in Louden County, which is largely upper-middle class to wealthy and will have parents who are far more involved in their kids’ education than the average lower class neighborhood.

        3. Teaching about something is one thing. Actively treating people and encouraging other to be ashamed of their skin color or heritage and continuously apologize for it is quite another. History needs to be taught,not cancelled or rewritten. Otherwise you can not learn from it and will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Slavery was and is terrible, but there was not only one race being the slave holder and one the enslaved. Every people on earth went through a phase where they were one or the other. And it is STILL happening today in parts of the world. The fact is we as humans matured and learned how wrong it was and we learned this from the past history. If that was not available for us to learn ,it would still be going on here.

          1. Teaching about CRT as an academic theory is one thing. Teaching CRT as the official curriculum is quite another. I would have no problem with it being discussed as an academic theory, in an appropriate course, at an appropriate grade level. It’s a thing that exists and some people believe it, other people don’t, and it’s worth discussing.

            Jamming its tenets into other, non-related courses like math is unacceptable. Math teachers teach math, not equity studies.

            And you’re right, slavery and racism is bad. It’s a thing that happened, and should be discussed and studied, but CRT and its related ideas strip it of context. Both are bad, but neither is unique to America, and in terms of racial progress and civil rights, America has not only made huge progress in the past century, but is also light years ahead of most of world.

            1. Even the context is largely irrelevant in that the CRT proponents don’t give a shit. Only the US and Western Europe in general are required to abase themselves for the heinous shit those countries did to other people in the past. No one in academia is going to complain that nearly all African slaves were originally enslaved by Arabs or other Africans. They won’t complain that Europeans were enslaved by Arabs or Turks (although they certainly LOVE crying about the Crusades).

              It’s a completely one-sided, circular argument that should be rejected outright for the anti-intellectual, ahistorical, race-obsessed bullshit that it is.

              1. I agree, it’s anti-intellectual bullshit that any sane person with half a brain would reject. But so is Marxism in general. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth examining or discussing with a critical eye.

                The problem with it is, with it being part of official curriculum, you’re not allowed to discuss it with a critical eye, only accept it as dogma. I don’t have a problem with it existing, as long as it exists in its proper context.

            2. >America has not only made huge progress in the past century, but is also light years ahead of most of world.

              One of the reasons I’m kind of paranoid that the propagandists are winning is just this. I’ve been a lot of places and one of the things I have seen is that America is the least racist of any of them. I haven’t seen the whole world, but, yeah, many places have an attitude that makes Archie Bunker look modern.

              Social media manipulation is sort of known, but I don’t think people understand how subtle, insidious, and comprehensive it is. With LOTS of actors, not just China, though China has a massive propaganda operation.

              It just seems nuts to me that this racialist crap has any sort of foothold outside academia without some sort of “help” along the way. I just can’t connect the dots well enough to not be a conspiracy theorist.

              1. It’s because many Americans spewing this bullshit have never been anywhere else or seen how most of the rest of the world lives, so they have no idea how good they have it. Why do you think there is such a vast achievememt chasm between American blacks and African immigrants? Because African immigrants actually came from some of the poorest, most miserable places on earth and understand the wealth of opportunities available to them here, and capitalize on them. They haven’t been trained in victimology, although many of them are have suffered much worse victimization than American black people.

                1. When I was is hospital I had a nurse from Ethiopia. I asked why she chose to come to the us instead of England or Australia. Her answer is she wanted to start her new life where even the poor people had enough to eat because most of her childhood was spent starving and trying to survive. And yet we are considered worse than slave wonders by our fellow citizens

  6. The funny thing about “school choice” is it does nothing about students who fail. All you’re doing is talking of moving a few students who are otherwise stuck in bad schools to other ones which aren’t so terrible. It doesn’t fundamentally solve the issue that there will still be scads of students who fail (either by their own volition or by circumstances outside their control.)

    1. We shouldn’t solve any problems because we can’t solve all problems.

      1. ^^^On a roll today; 1000+

    2. There’s a load of B.S.
      – “school choice” is it does nothing about students who fail

      For a lot of us; picking the “school choice” in secondary education is EXACTLY the difference between success and failure.

    3. Was school choice promoted as a silver bullet to eliminate failing students?

    4. This take is absolutely retarded.

    5. Some people just aren’t academically talented. You can’t fix that.

      If all that school choice does is allow some good students to excel in a better school, I’d call that a pretty good result. This idea that smart kids need to be held back because of some notion of fairness or something I do not like.

    6. Leftie shit thinks public schools help kids who fail.

      You are delusional.

    7. The funny thing about “freedom of speech” is it does nothing about men who experience erectile dysfunction

      And those two things are related in exactly the same proportion as juvenile delinquents and private schools.

    8. All you’re doing is talking of moving a few students who are otherwise stuck in bad schools to other ones which aren’t so terrible.

      Pretty much the same argument being used for dropping advanced math courses.

      Put your stupid away, shitlunches. It’s unbecoming to take it out in public.

      1. This is what they want though. We have to handicap the exceptional to bring them down to the level of the less exceptional. No individualism, only collectivism.

        Straight out of the Marxist playbook.

    9. Not all students will be successful. Some will excel, most will pass, and some will fail. That’s just how it is, and how it’s always been. Some people are smart, most people are average, and some people are dumb. Charter schools and non-public options are not all cookie cutter mediocrity factories like public schools. They offer robust variety in teaching and learning approaches.

      School choice at least gives failing students an opportunity to succeed in an environment that suits their individual learning needs, unlike public schools, whose solution to the problem is to drag everyone down to the same level.

  7. “This intellectual movement rejects rationalism and objectivity,”

    Is this a paradox or an oxymoron?

      1. How about Paramorons – Idiocy From Above!!!

        1. Paramoron. Somebody who lacks the credentials of a full moron but can perform most mundane moron practice at a lower cost.

  8. “Then our kids can engage with each other’s ideas in a society of diverse viewpoints.”

    How is that even possible when so many are being steeped in our way or the highway ideologies?

  9. Yes, but no.

    If you are going to have government schools, it is a bad thing if the teachers are passing along the values of a philosophy that rejects the foundations of liberal society.

    And again, I am not sure how much “free speech” applies to what teachers are supposed to be instructing their students in at grade school levels.

  10. Critical race theory is completely fabricated bullshit. It has barely anything to do with anything other than keeping dumb as shit Republicans distracted.

    1. “Critical race theory is completely fabricated bullshit”

      Here we can find some agreement. Perhaps it should be left to the graduate students in grievance studies to mentally masturbate about, not 3rd graders.

    2. Teaching children bullshit is child abuse.

    3. It’s cute when you try Lard Ass Strudel. But you’re still a fucking dumb shit leftie.

    4. Critical race theory is completely fabricated bullshit.

      So then banning it would be of no actual consequence, right Jakie?

    5. If you think it’s about keeping R’s distracted, the CRT is doing it’s job – Proggies gaslighting themselves.

    6. CRT is the right wing’s Emmanuel Goldstein.

      1. It’s the right wing’s Russian collusion, except that it’s actually real.

      2. If you think it’s something only right wingers object to, you are a fucking idiot. Perahps “CRT” isn’t precisely the right term, but I’m pretty sure you do know what people are referring to when they use it. And it’s a real thing and it is contrary to any values of open inquiry or debate, which you keep claiming is all you really want. I’m not going to assume I understand your motivations here, but I find it strange that anyone calling himself “individualist” would not find this a disturbing trend in education.

        1. CRT is the perfectly correct term. It’s not new or exciting. Academic radicals have been using it as a term of art for 40 years. It’s a subset of critical theory which goes back to the Frankfurt school. cytotoxic just heard about it when the talking points in its favor started circulating on Democratic Underground and DailyKos, but it’s not a novel or particularly controversial term. Even his own idiotic definition from the American Bar Association fully acknowledges the unhinged racism underpinning the ideology while attempting to distance it from its academic origins in Marxist sociology departments.

          1. I think “CRT” is being used as sort of a blanket term right now and not in a precise academic sense. I only made the comment I did to avoid the stupid and inevitable “well, that’s not really CRT, that’s some other obscure goddamn theory with “Critical” in its name. But call it CRT or “Critical Social Justice” or “the church of Woke” and I think people know what you are talking about.

            1. True enough. In any case cytotoxic had no more heard the term than most of the rest of the public that hasn’t had the misfortune of being forced to sit through a mandatory racial studies course to tick a box for graduation. And he would distort any definition of the term that you used and substitute his own regardless, because he’s only here to deflect and employ red herrings like a high school freshman on his first day at debate team learning babby’s first sophistry.

            2. “I only made the comment I did to avoid the stupid and inevitable “well, that’s not really CRT, that’s some other obscure goddamn theory with “Critical” in its name.”

              Well, that didn’t work out. He tried that exact ploy.

        2. Actual CRT, the academic legal theory, has a lot of critics and no they are not all from the right-wing, I completely agree.

          But “CRT” as the right-wing uses it now, means any idea about race that they don’t like, regardless if it is actual Critical Race Theory or not. So general ideas about systemic racism, even if they don’t come from a CRT framework, are lumped into CRT. Christopher Rulo even admitted as much that he has deliberately sought to transform the term CRT to correspond to a container to hold all of the right-wing’s grievances about race and diversity.

          And CRT, now, is like what “ObamaCare” was in the 2010’s, or the “migrant caravans” were, something to focus conservatives’ ire against.

          And I am opposed to “forbidden ideas” in school. Entirely. Nothing should be off-limits, as long as the subject is presented in a professional, respectful, and age-appropriate manner. That goes for sex ed, religion, race, you name it. The moment we start accepting that there are some ideas that “just shouldn’t be taught in school”, that is when schools really do turn into indoctrination centers. We want students who will have solid critical thinking skills, not students who simply regurgitate the “correct” ideas. And the only way to develop critical thinking skills is to have robust debates over ideas free from constraint.

          1. Actual CRT, the academic legal theory, has a lot of critics and no they are not all from the right-wing, I completely agree.

            CRT is not a legal theory you stupid motherfucker. It’s a social and political theory. You learn CRT in radical Marxist sociology departments, not radical Marxist law schools. Remember when you embarrassingly referred to an American Bar Association paper as a definitive source of what the term means, hoping nobody would actually follow the link and notice that you lied about its contents?

            But “CRT” as the right-wing uses it now, means any idea about race that they don’t like

            Kinda like how you use “right-wing” to mean anybody to the right of Trotsky? Well, not really like that, because you actually use buzzwords to slime anyone to the right of Trotsky and nobody in this country uses CRT to refer to anything but the recently-ascendant ideology based on Marxist critical theory with a focus on race instead of class or gender.

            And I am opposed to “forbidden ideas” in school. Entirely. Nothing should be off-limits

            Other than the litany of ideas that are already legally forbidden in public school that you have never uttered a single fucking syllable against you mendacious fat fuck.

            the only way to develop critical thinking skills is to have robust debates over ideas free from constraint.

            Teaching a 6 year old child that they are evil because of the color of their skin and making them repeat that on tests that they will fail if their answer fails to reflect that they are evil based on the color of their skin is not “having a robust debate over ideas free from constraint” you fat sack of shit.

          2. I’m opposed to forbidden ideas in general, but them people start screeching about how awesome cancel culture is.

      3. And capitalism is the left’s Jews.

    7. “Critical race theory is completely fabricated bullshit.”

      Which means that it is a tremendous waste of limited class time and a disservice to every student exposed to it.

      Yet Jacob is angry at the “dumb shit Republicans” who want schools to drop it.

      Even if CRT is ‘only’ a distraction, that means proponents and adherents are using school children as pawns in a political game.

      Your statement is an indictment of your own stupidity as much as an indictment of CRT.

  11. By homeschooling, or micro-schooling, or picking private or charter schools, we can avoid curricula permeated with ideas we find toxic and select those that present ideas of which we approve or, even better from my perspective, that encourage open debate among opposing perspectives.

    FFS. You people are part of the problem. There are only two types of arguments re schools and they both originate in how money will be spent. Arguments about facilities (outside the classroom stuff) and arguments about curricula (inside the classroom – or library).

    The entire origin of this school choice implementation here in the US was an attempt to bafflegab away Brown v Board of Education. To reimpose segregated school facilities. Not by addressing the issue – but by assuming its continued existence and instead moving it outside the realm of something the public discussion can be about. That wasn’t the intent of Friedmans 1955 Role of Government in Education but it became obvious real quickly that that was the effect here in the US.

    Well guess what – segregated facilities funded with tax money IS an expression of a really fucking toxic manifestation of ‘curricula’. And it serves to muddy up arguments about ‘curricula’ from arguments about ‘facilities’. Far far worse – the real school governance culprit at the time in the 1950’s outside the Jim Crow south was school consolidation into districts. The south had always had districts (can’t do ‘separate and pretend equal but not really’ without making sure all the schools are managed by the same board of segregationist professionals). That consolidation was entirely because of boomer growth and school construction in new suburbs and bonds – ie facilities. But the effect was that it took school governance out of the hands of parents and into the realm of ‘professionals’.

    Already TLDR. This libertarian shit is totally fucked up.

    1. So the solution to your bullshit construction of a public school system shot through with white supremacist oppressors is… less private schooling, less charter schools, less homeschooling, and a bigger, better public school system that will, inevitably, be shot through with white supremacist oppressors even when the entire school board is affirmative action blacks who were graduated from university with a 5th grade reading level? Do you ever even follow your own mindless race-obsessed conspiracy theories through to their logical conclusion?

  12. You have school choice – homeschool and private schools. It is time to end the public education industrial complex.

    1. That is the only solution to the ‘problem’ of public control over public monies.

    2. Micro schools fall out of both and the structuring of education regulations and liability requirements stymies it. I like the micro school idea the best out of all the options because it pushes education even more local and reduces the cost to its absolute necessities.

  13. Once again the ‘root’ of the problem is………….
    COMMIE-SCHOOL

    Just as it is with everything “Commie” that shouldn’t be “Commie”.

  14. > The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn’t Matter if We Had More School Choice

    Well duh!

    I don’ t like Pepsi. But I don’t have to drink Pepsi. Because I have a choice of Coke, RC, Moxie, Dr. Pepper, Shasta, Fanta, and a dozen other brands.

    I don’t like County Hospital System. But I don’t have to be with them so I’m with Good Samitaran Health Services instead. And three other systems in my area. Only one of which (County) is run by the government.

    The mayor is having Oysters Rockefeller for dinner. I don’t have to eat the same thing, because I have a choice in my dinner.

    Why the fuck are schools a monopoly? Hell, even “school choice” is about a choice between schools WITHIN that monopoly. It’s like being forced to drink Coca Cola products, but you imagine you have a choice because you’re allowed to drink Tab.

    GET RID OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS! PERIOD! Take that tax money and give it direct to the parents in the form of vouchers instead. Or better yet, make them tax vouchers. Or better yet, stop taxing people to prop up failed government schools.

    We can’t do it overnight, way too many whiny people invested in the system. But we can easily change our direction and move away. School choice is not the goal, it’s merely step one. Then tax credits or vouchers to enable families to get out of the system entirely. Especially minority and disadvantaged families who are being abused by the affluent white progressives in charge. Then we phase it out entirely. If we need “special” schools then they can be funded by special grants. We don’t need to be anarchists, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept that everyone must be required to wear the same government underwear.

    1. We don’t need to be anarchists, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept that everyone must be required to wear the same government underwear.

      You’re not anarchists. Anarchists actually understand land (including property tax) – unlike ‘libertarians’. Even if they both fail at understanding human nature. You’re segregationists masquerading as freedom fighters. Not you personally but that was always the strategy behind paleo. Everyone can apparently ignore school choice as segregation academies.

      1. Individual Liberty and Justice is “segregation”?? LMAO…

        Let me guess; [WE] foundational mobs where all are *forced* to comply is the basis of every grand tyrannical authoritarian Gov-God founded nation.

        Here’s an idea; Why don’t you MOVE to a nation that fits such idiocy and stop trying to conquer and consume the USA by your and your kind of delusional [WE]-mob utopia.

      2. Anarchists actually understand land (including property tax)

        Nothing reflects a strong understanding of land and property tax like collective ownership of all property.

        If you don’t support forcing people to pay money to the government on threat of violence or death in order to teach 1st graders that they are evil because of their skin color you are a racist segregationist! REAL freedom lovers know that liberty is all about offering a single choice offered by a strong central state! If you just let people go about willy nilly paying for things they want you will soon find that your society is filled with racist white supremacy!

        1. Nothing reflects a strong understanding of land and property tax like collective ownership of all property.

          Doesn’t have to be collective. A shit-ton of you ‘libertarians’ are monarchists – or plutocrats – or Trumpist authoritarians – at heart. As long as the sovereign has the alloidal title to all land, then it ain’t no fucking different than some abstract ‘state collective’ having the same damn thing.

          And a ton of you commenters (‘libertarian’ or not) are complete ends justify the means types. Which means you all will lie through your teeth about everything and it is pointless to take you seriously.

          So – fuck off Tulpa.

          1. Doesn’t have to be collective.

            True! Tribalism is based on territorial warfare because no one holds legal title and the strongest, most brutally violent band of psychopaths gets to dictate use of the land. That’s certainly better!

            And a ton of you commenters (‘libertarian’ or not) are complete ends justify the means types. Which means you all will lie through your teeth about everything and it is pointless to take you seriously.

            Hey, that’s convenient. When you have no argument and have outed yourself as the totalitarian sack of shit that you are you don’t have to engage in any counter-arguments because some hypothetical people you disagree with are all lying liars who lie!

          2. Anyone who uses the phrase “alloidal title” is chin keep in a fever swamp of sovereignty bullshit.

            1. That neither of you seem to know that the term is allodial is just icing on the idiocy cake.

          3. Monarchists don’t necessarily believe the king has full custodial rights to the land. A feudal king MIGHT, but even that is incredibly reductionist.

            Israel, the king had no custodial rights to any of the land – it was held by the tribes. For most of English history, the land was owned by smaller nobles, not the central king.

            Ironically, it is the US government, far more than traditional, western monarchies, that believe they have full custodial rights to the land of the US.

    2. No one needs more than three brands of pop.

      1. Nuka-Color, Sunset Sarsaparilla, and Vim!

  15. Watch as dems and leftie shits move the goal posts to keep you off balance. Their persuasion is pretty good, but they revealed their hand too quickly.

    Punch back.

    1. That’s the only move they have. Move the goal posts, and manipulate language so its hard to pin down what you are arguing against. Change the definitions. “What so we can’t even TALK about slavery anymore?!?!”

      Joy Reid arguing with Rufo:
      “Robin Deangelo has nothing to do with critical RACE theory, she does critical WHITENESS studies”…

      The only ones falling for it are the ones drinking the koolaid already

      1. From the Critical Theory Handbook:

        Words mean whatever we say they mean.

        You can’t argue with CT because we say so. And we reject argument and reason.

        1. That’s no different from most commenters here.

          1. “I’m rubber and you’re glue!” is precisely the level of argumentation we’ve come to expect from you. Tell us more about how COVID-19 caused 3 million deaths in one year and Bush orchestrated 9/11 in collusion with the dirty Jews you retarded sack of shit.

            1. somebody pissed in Jfree’s Cheerios.

      2. ““Robin Deangelo has nothing to do with critical RACE theory, she does critical WHITENESS studies”…

        Because ‘whiteness’ isn’t a race, it’s part of your character.

        Oh, wait…

  16. The kids break into two groups at lunch,” my son tells me of his private high school. “The smaller group is really woke and always angry about something. I sit with the larger group of normal kids.”

    Aaaaand bingo bango bongo, just like that, the goal has been achieved! It’s called “divide and conquer”, one of the oldest strategies in the playbook.

  17. “”The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn’t Matter if We Had More School Choice””

    It wouldn’t matter if actual debate was allowed.

  18. CRT shouldn’t be taught in schools because it is inaccurate. It descriptive model of race relations is incapable of representing real world racial relations as demonstrated by the need to use ridiculous kludges like “multiracial white supremacy” to expain modes of racial conflict that don’t map to its whiteness-centered model. It should be treated the same way as any other theory that does not agree with observation and discarded.

    1. “It should be treated the same way as any other theory that does not agree with observation and discarded.”

      The whole of Marxism should have already been discarded. Instead, when confronted with the abject predictive failure of Marx & Engels Marxism to get anything right the adherents instead came up with Critical Theory. Which, as you note, has likewise failed any test of reason. Yet the response of proponents has been to double down AND to seek to force feed it to the population through domination of various social institutions – the schools, the military, entertainment industry, etc.

      Because it is their religion.

  19. This take is hilarious coming from a publication and an author who have strongly supported cake baking mandates and censorship of debate.

    1. If by “hilarious” you mean “entirely predictable” then I say spot on.

  20. Well, the comments to this article demonstrate why ‘school choice’ ultimately won’t work.

    First, the best that we can probably hope for in terms of school choice, when it comes to what is practical, is school vouchers for parents to send their kids to the school of their choice. If we are lucky, it will include privatization of all the schools, and schools would be supported by these vouchers instead.

    Of course Team Blue doesn’t want school choice in this manner, because it would mean undercutting the teachers’ unions that are a large part of their political support.

    But now we see that the modern Team Red probably isn’t going to support school choice in this manner, because some of that voucher money would be going to teach things that Team Red would object to, for example, concepts like systemic racism and white privilege. That is “racist indoctrination” in their book and can’t be allowed. Only P.C. (patriotically correct) curricula would be permitted to be funded by school vouchers.

    I don’t see a way around this dilemma, except with complete privatization and getting the government completely out of education entirely, not even with vouchers. That would be a tough sell.

    1. “We can’t move to a voucher system or privatize schools because those evil Republicans will use their own money to send their own children to schools that don’t teach radical racism!” – cytotoxic

      If you think there’s a surging marketplace for your idiotic 19th century racist bullshit you should welcome privatization of the schools, right cytotoxic? But dammit all anyway, those goddamn Republicans will POUNCE!

    2. Well, it is racist indoctrination. The very idea of “white privilege” is a racist one.

      1. The very idea of “white privilege” is a racist one.

        If by “racist” you mean “describing a concept in racial terms”, then yes.

        But if by “racist” you mean “judging a group of people by the color of their skin”, then no it is not.

        1. Imputing characteristics onto individual people based on the color of their skin is racism, and you’re a racist piece of shit.

        2. What I mean by “racist” is judging an individual or ascribing a particular characteristic to him based solely on the racial group he belongs to.

          1. Okay then.

            So, consider that, statistically, Black men are disproportionately incarcerated compared to White men.

            One might call it “White privilege” to note that, statistically, a White man is less likely to go to jail than a Black man.

            It is not a judgment of any specific White man or Black man.

            Is that analysis racist?

            1. If that’s all you mean by “white privilege”, fine. I don’t think that “privilege” is really the right word for what you describe, but I certainly agree that simply pointing out the disparities is not racist.
              But that’s not how I see the term used. I see people being told to “check your privilege” simply because they are white. That assumption is in fact racist.

            2. It’s a privilege that white people disproportionately follow the law?

        3. Did you get all giddy when HRC referred to black youths as super predators?

          1. It was shameful and demagoguery of the worst kind.

            1. But you still voted for her, right?

        4. You dumb cunt, white privledge is a judgement, and a racist one at that, as much as affirmative action hire is. In both cases you discount the individual to declare what they have or where they’re at as unearned except for some non-related criteria.

          In the examples above at least affirmative action hire can be demonstrated false with actual performance while white privledge can be assumed true without the possibility of falsification.

        5. How the fuck is saying the bum on the street outside my office has/does not have privilege based on the color of his skin, not inherently racist?

          1. His cardboard box housing is of a thicker stock than those that bums of other races have. And the seagulls allow him to steal the bread people throw to them whereas they fight the bums of other races for that bread.

    3. One solution you’re overlooking is, having leftists give up Marxism and their quest to accidentally fuck up civilization.

      That probably won’t work, and that’s very much their fault.

      1. But they’re not going to give up Marxism. Capitalists aren’t going to give up capitalism. Bible thumpers aren’t going to give up Bible thumping. People are not going to do what *we* think are best for them. The best we can do is to make sure they don’t have power over us to dictate their preferences to us. That is the essence of school choice.

        1. But they’re not going to let us do that, either.

    4. That would be an impossible sell. And honestly I’m not sure what the real goal is here either. Is it property-based? Are kids really parental property? Hmm. Cuz it’s clearly not about letting kids make all their education decisions about their future. Is it that education is just an item on the to-do list of ‘let’s drown gummint in the bathtub’? Good luck with that prioritization.

      Personally I think there is a way around the dilemma by splitting this entire issue into two pieces – facilities and curriculum.

      Facilities is, in general, not about kids. It is about property values. Which is only indirectly about kids because future buyers are likely to have kids and schools are important to them – but property values affect everyone whether they have kids or not because that’s how markets/pricing works at the margin.

      Curriculum is entirely about the kids. Conflicts between parents and professionals. Some elements of how to pay if parents are poor. But since curricula is in the classroom – it is very easy to see how ‘charter schools’ can be converted into ‘charter classrooms’. Why can’t a course on creationism be held right next door to a course on evolution? Mixed-age Montessori next to rigid-age ‘grade’. That doesn’t affect the building itself or the overhead fixed costs of a school. The marginal variable costs are pretty small. But of course that means there really is no need to pick fights with each other about semi-irrelevant spending items. And isn’t that the real point of competition here?

      ‘Libertarians’ won’t ever do this or think this way – because you can only deal with the issues that arise here at a local level. And the L’s are even less interested in local than the DeRps. And many commenters here are lying sacks of racist shit anyway so who gives a fuck what they think. Hopefully, their kids will be better people than they are – but that’s just hope not some BS plan.

      I think ‘libertarian’ is dead. Time to reclaim liberal without the adjective ‘classic’.

      1. And many commenters here are lying sacks of racist shit anyway so who gives a fuck what they think.

        Any time someone says this, I always know they live in a whiteopia and not a majority-minority neighborhood.

  21. “The kids break into two groups at lunch,” my son tells me of his private high school. “The smaller group is really woke and always angry about something. I sit with the larger group of normal kids.”

    No justice, no peas!

  22. School choice won’t resolve the conflict. The important thing to understand about any curriculum debate is that it is mostly not about people’s own children – most people heavily invested in teaching their kids information that is not included in or contradicts school can do so fairly easily. The argument is over what gets taught as the default to children whose parents don’t have a strong opinion.

  23. every family has school choice.

  24. The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn’t Matter if We Had More School Choice
    Guide your children’s education and let your opponents teach their own kid

    Well, I think it would, but at least parents could escape the racist ideas of CRT. For instance, I think even if we had more school choice, it would still “matter” if government schools were teaching Eugenics and giving children guidebooks on how awful the Jews were.

    1. “…it would still “matter” if government schools were teaching Eugenics and giving children guidebooks on how awful the Jews were.”

      I think this is the point you’re making, but that is exactly what is happening now, though with whites replacing the Jews.

    2. “it would still “matter” if government schools were teaching Eugenics and giving children guidebooks on how awful the Jews were.”

      I doubt government schools are teaching that. Is there a better example? Perhaps evolution, environmental studies, sex education are offensive items in the curriculum.

  25. Then they can hash out their ideas in a society that remains open to disagreement and debate.
    If we lived in a society that “remains open to disagreement and debate” today, and expected our children and grandchildren to join such a society, that might be a valid point. But given cancel culture, media bias, and official government suppression of free expression for conservatives while letting progressives loot and burn, I doubt that will be the outcome.

    1. “official government suppression of free expression for conservatives ”

      Nobody is suppressing you from proposing an alternative theory to explain the nation’s predicament. If you are unable, don’t blame the government.

      1. ” an alternative theory to explain the nation’s predicament”

        The whole of Marxism should have already been discarded. When confronted with the abject predictive failure of Marx & Engels Marxism to get anything right the adherents instead came up with Critical Theory. Which has likewise failed any test of reason. Yet the response of proponents has been to double down AND to seek to force feed it to the population through domination of various social institutions – the schools, the military, entertainment industry, etc.

        Because it is their religion.

        1. As I said, red baiting won’t cut the mustard. You need a theory to beat a theory. It’s not complicated. Calling critical race theory a religion is nonsensical. You’re not even trying.

          1. You need a theory to beat a theory.

            Indeed. You should try putting forward some theory that beats 4 centuries of western enlightenment socio-political concepts. Because “Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair (And Also White People Suck)” ain’t it.

            1. Critical race theory has already been put forward. All you can offer is bluster an name call. It’s not persuasive.

          2. CRT is nonsensical because it’s historically inaccurate for one. It’s also nonsensical because it doesn’t fit the very definition of theory. Thus, if one believes CRT it’s out of a belief system, against factual evidence. In other words, it is a religion.

            1. Doesn’t this depend on how you define it? Something you haven’t done here. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.

      2. School boards are arresting people who disagree with CRT so yes our government is suppressing speech in many ways

        1. School boards don’t arrest people. You are simply parroting others out of ignorance or laziness. You’re preaching to the choir.

  26. You need a theory to beat a theory. If conservatives haven’t the ability to propose a better theory, and name calling, red baiting and whinging about taxes and teachers won’t cut the mustard, critical race theory it will be.

    1. My theory of you: Tedious is as tedious does.

      But here’s a hint: Repetition does not make it any less stupid.

      1. As I said, name calling don’t cut the mustard. Critical race theory will remain as long as you can’t improve on that.

        1. “as long as you can’t improve on that.”

          See above. My ‘improvement’ consists of noting that Critical Theory is repackaged Marxism, which itself has already proven to be a murderously horrific mistake.

          I do not need a religion to reject your religion.

          1. Marxism is about class, not race. Religion is beliefs and practices that give us access to the supernatural world. You are simply parroting the others here, not thinking for yourself. If you want to supplant critical race theory you’ll have to do better.

            1. Marxism is about class, not race.

              And having failed to convince the proletariat to shed its false consciousness, Marxist theorists have substituted race, sex, and other innate factors for class going all the way back to the Frankfurt school. In a modern context this has been broadly termed “cultural Marxism”.

              Religion is beliefs and practices that give us access to the supernatural world.

              This would be an extremely simplistic and non-standard use of the term, but then that’s true of pretty much every word you pick up from Democratic Underground and then accidentally misuse out of stupidity or deliberately misuse out of mendacity.

              If you want to supplant critical race theory you’ll have to do better.

              No one needs to supplant critical race theory. It’s a non-standard and socially unacceptable racist ideology that civilized people abandoned in the 19th century. The burden of proof is on you to supplant 4 centuries of liberal western enlightenment ideas, which you have spectacularly failed to do by regurgitating “whitey bad”.

              1. What is your point exactly? Do you think white supremacy had any role to play in the creation of western institutions?

                1. What are you calling “western institutions”?

                  Romans and Greeks?

                  1. It was a question and it was rather broad.

                2. Are you saying that Jesus and Moses were white?

                  1. They are in movies.

                    1. Is Godzilla real?

                    2. Whoa. I mean, by lefty-shit standards, they are white. But damn, son.

            2. “Religion is beliefs and practices that give us access to the supernatural world. ”

              Funny how people who want to criticize your religion avoid any argument that might cause you to recognize their religion.

              That ‘supernatural world’ is a metaphysical statement is supposed to go unremarked.

              Lame effort.

              1. I defined religion and you reject it. Why don’t you give me your definition and perhaps we can reach an understanding.

    2. Technically, CRT is not even a theory, so there’s that.

      Historical fact defeats CRT and one can easily cite numerous examples of indigenous groups and other races, in which they were the oppressors.

      And anyway, I disagree with your premise.

      1. “Technically, CRT is not even a theory, so there’s that. ”

        We may have different ideas what critical race theory is. Mine is that race has been baked into the idea of the US since before it started. It continues today and accounts for the fact that race is imbued in every issue the nation faces, medical issues, justice issues, economic issues, political issues etc all have a deeply ingrained racial dimension. That’s a historical fact and it’s also current events.

        1. The core of CRT is that whites are uniquely oppressive, which is blatantly false.

          If you believe that race is baked into every single thing in the country, that is a belief, as you have no way to prove it.

          1. It use a generalization fallacy. The idea that Whites are X is as silly as saying blacks are X.

            If I said blacks steal, I would be criticized for painting all blacks with the same brush. And rightly so, the criticism stands.

            People who promote CRT are probably not kind to people who use a generalization fallacy against them.

          2. Read many papers in CRT have you?

            You do know that to be educated about something, you have to actually read about it, not just have talking heads flap their jaws at you about it, right?

            1. Ok, comrade, tell me how I misunderstand CRT.

              1. It doesn’t teach that whites are uniquely oppressive. At least I’m pretty sure. My understanding is pretty shallow, since it’s not a real thing that’s actually happening in the world.

                You’re being instructed to fear something you don’t understand by Tucker Carlson. You haven’t read a goddamn word about this subject that wasn’t right-wing media. You haven’t even read its wikipedia entry, have you?

                1. You’re being instructed to fear something you don’t understand by Tucker Carlson.

                  ding ding ding

              2. But here’s from the second paragraph, FYI:

                “While critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals.”

                Nobody is asking anyone to hate you for being white. If you believe that, you’ve been duped by demagogues with an agenda to turn your brain off, not on.

                1. Under CRT, everything in society is racialized and yes, despite what you say, whites are seen as oppressive. Thus, indirectly, kids will be taught to hate white people or have white guilt if they happen to be white.

                  Under CRT, the only way to remedy the “injustice” is to replace our cultural values so that society is more equitable.

                  You should know what you’re talking about before you try calling someone else out.

                  You would know this if you paid attention.

                  1. I’m going with Tony has read ZERO papers and poorly quoted Wiki leaving out the part that makes your point.

                    1. You’re both welcome to read for yourself.

                      More psychologically incentivized to stay loyal to trash talk radio than to know the facts, perhaps?

                2. “”While critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs,[2] the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals””

                  This is from Wiki.
                  The very next sentence is
                  “”CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction[11] which serves to uphold the interests of white people[13] against those of marginalized communities at large””

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

                  1. But the entire point is that it’s not conscious on your part, and you aren’t morally culpable, and it’s not about fucking you.

                    Jesus Christ, you sit here and dismiss centuries of oppression by focusing on the real problem: white people’s feelings being hurt.

                    And yet you object to the thesis.

                    1. Why do you hate white people?

            2. Read many papers in CRT have you?

              Well, articles on various forms of “whiteness” were quite trendy back when I went through grad school 20 years ago. It was clearly bullshit back then, too.

          3. You could benfit from broadening your reading on the subject. This is an echo chamber of wannabe victims.

            1. That’s rich coming from a leftist

              1. Name calling and red baiting won’t cut the mustard. If you really oppose critical race theory, stop whinging and come up with something with more explanatory power.

        2. “”It continues today and accounts for the fact that race is imbued in every issue the nation faces, medical issues, justice issues, economic issues, political issues etc all have a deeply ingrained racial dimension.””

          A very generalized statement that means little. Income, or lack thereof, has a bigger impact on ones life than race. But some people think that black means no money, and white means money. Which is not true.

          With justice issues, it’s a one sided conversation that ignores the role of black people in crime. A black person is more likely to get shot by a gangbanger of color, than a white supremist. Bring up black on black crime and you get shut down. It’s not an honest conversation if it’s one sided.

          Who is attacking Asians? Not the KKK.

          In the 70s there were criminals that would claim society made them do it. I’m seeing a rebranded version of that where liberals think society is the reason people commit crimes, as if the person had no free will to decide not to commit the crime.

          1. “Bring up black on black crime and you get shut down. ”

            Even more so if you bring up black on white crime.

            1. Again, this doesn’t refute critical race theory. The very notion that we must have categories like black on black crime or black on white crime seems to underline the relevance and essential correctness of critical race theory.

          2. Can you name even one issue of consequence that’s not shot through with race?

          3. “Who is attacking Asians? Not the KKK.”
            “A black person is more likely to get shot by a gangbanger of color, than a white supremist. ”

            How does any of this refute critical race theory?

    3. Switching the burden of proof is such an ancient piece of sophistry that it doesn’t even work on the school children whom you wish to inculcate with racial hatred. Stick to something a little more on your skill level, like your insane 9/11 Trutherism and anti-Semitism

      1. I’m not asking anyone to prove anything. Just propose a superior theory. So far, nothing…

        1. Still nothing I see. I’m not surprised, given the intellectual bankruptcy of your comments here.

  27. This was an otherwise good article with a weak conclusion. In public schools, there is no reason whatsoever to teach (indoctrinate) kids CRT, unless it’s part of a broader lesson discussing the horrors of Marxism. So yes, on this issue we must wage the “curriculum wars”–libertarians should be assertive and unapologetic about that.

    Let the commies brainwash their red diaper babies at home, and we’ll protect their rights to free speech and openly debate them later.

  28. The fact that Reason can’t just come out and condemn this stuff is yet another example of how society seems to be able to work out when things go too far right, but can’t seem to figure out when things go too far left.

    1. “This stuff”

      What stuff? Critical theory isn’t taught in K-12, and universities have a tradition, which I would like to see preserved, of not being bullied into censoring its curricula by yokels with torches.

      The smart people will let you know if a particular realm of study is a dead end. They don’t need your help.

      1. Have you been living under a rock? Not noticed how all of this SJW, Critical Theory stuff has worked its way into mainstream culture in the last year or two? Yeah, it’s not taught universally in primary school. That’s good. But I don’t think it’s a completely invalid concern. There are certainly people who want it taught in schools, and there are certainly some schools that have adopted it.
        I really hope I am excessively worried about this. But I’m not seeing a lot of reason to believe that is the case.

        1. Worried about what though?

          It’s a problem if young people are being taught to be polite to trans people?

  29. If you’re in favor of giving parents money to send their kids to school, then you’re in favor of public education.

    You just want it to be under the control of churches and for-profit interests instead of local governments. That’s all that’s going on here.

    You can’t get around the fact that you’re still taxing people to subsidize education. This is not a libertarian issue per se, it’s a culture war issue and yet another attempt by private capital to get its hands on public money.

    1. That is such a straw man deflection.

      Every practical person knows public education isn’t going away. We just don’t want our children indoctrinated with a hateful, violent ideology. I am white, but if I was a minority, I would not want my children brainwashed into thinking they are victims based on the color of their skin.

      And you have it backwards. The Marxists are the ones constantly trying to get their greedy, filthy hands on private capital, and brainwashing kids is one way to do it.

      1. You should check in with some reliable sources to make sure this indoctrination is actually happening before you hand over public education to the Koch brother and various churches.

        1. Muh Koch brother!! Whatever, comrade!

        2. If it wasn’t happening, the left wouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep it in place in the face of direct opposition.

          1. CRT has been a thing for 40 years. What are you talking about?

            You must know you’re being fed the latest in an endless round of culture war horseshit from the Heritage Foundation and such. How many thousands of times are you going to get hysterical over some race-adjacent boogieman you learned about on FOX News?

            You’re being had. Just figure it out.

    2. I’m against being forced to give anyone money and that includes paying for public schools. Regardless of the curricula.

      1. I don’t like my neighborhood being overrun by illiterate children, so I guess we’ll just see each other at the ballot box.

        1. Two Germans and a Jew voting on whose gold will be confiscated and sold to fund the upcoming invasion of Poland. Wonderful system you support.
          The most literate kids in my neighborhood are the Amish, they are bilingual, and they avoid public schools. I suppose if you wanted to make the poorly educated public school students feel better about themselves you could go to the polls to try to force these Amish kids into the public schools.

  30. Another issue with the school choice argument is that many regressive leftists absolutely hate that parents have the right to homeschool their children. I am sure that if the Biden Admin could do it, it would regulate home schoolers out of existence or outright ban them.

    1. It is amazing the Reason’s staff ability to suggest a solution to an immediate issue that will not be implemented anytime soon if ever. Especially since the people pushing CRT or “antiracist” pedagogy in the public schools are also those who are most resistant to choice in education. We will have to fight to maintain the gains made in school choice in this current political climate with the Left feeling itself ascendant.

      1. I agree. As I have said, reason cannot see the forest from the trees.

        1. Reason is making an excellent argument, though. School choice means school competition for your dollars and students. Don’t like CRT or whatever, take your kids to a school that fits your needs. We’ll see how the kids turn out, which schools do better, which teachers do better. But when you have the big teachers unions (backed by government) resistant to any change that removes students from their reach? That’s a much larger problem.

          1. If school choice was a possibility, that would be a solution. But school school choice is a pipe dream, it won’t happen. Good luck fighting the teachers unions and even then, there is no guarantee that the curriculum will be acceptable. Not to mention, most parents can’t afford private school and home school isn’t an option. It’s a bit ridiculous to think that school choice is any kind of solution. Thus, we must rid our schools of CRT altogether, no compromising. Let the commies teach it to their kids at home.

      2. Leftist propaganda in education has been a recognized problem for decades. Yet Reason never saw fit to argue that school choice was a solution to that problem.

        Only now, when the pushback against leftism in education is getting some traction do the “free minds and free markets” crowd see the need to suggest alternative approaches.

        You’d think people ostensibly interested in promoting individual liberty might not be so quick to ring the bell when it is the collectivists caught on the ropes.

        1. “You’d think people ostensibly interested in promoting individual liberty might not be so quick to ring the bell when it is the collectivists caught on the ropes.”

          That’s what gets me. Libertarianism is seemingly the ideological opponent of communism and diametrically opposed to it, yet too often the LP, reason, and Cato crowds totally acquiesce to and enable it. It is very odd.

          Perhaps I don’t understand libertarianism.

          1. Communism has nothing to do with any of this.

            You’re being fed that garbage by the same sort of talking heads who fed German citizens the lie about cultural bolshevism. It’s actually the exact same lie.

  31. School choice would fix this issue, but that’s not the point. The Leftists who are pushing CRT (and other things) in the public schools don’t WANT you to be able to decide where and how to educate your children. THEY want to educate your children for you, so it will be done on their terms.

    1. Then if you are a rightist, or just a libertarian, support school choice and vouchers,

  32. Funny how almost all of our very white, yet very woke friends with kids are sending them to private or catholic schools now. Had noting to do with CRT, but the complete ineptitude of the public schools to get their shit together during the pandemic, before CRT even became a buzzword. My kid is friends with one of the few who will stay in public school and I really feel bad for him because he is a nice and fairly smart kid but he is also short and thin and is going to unfortunately probably going to get the crap beat out of him when he starts middle school in the fall-CRT will only make it worse for him.

  33. Funny how almost all of our very white, yet very woke friends with kids are sending them to private or catholic schools now.,/i>

    If you want to find out how “anti-racist” a woke white person really is, especially if they’re parents, ask where their neighborhood is located. They notably do NOT want to send their kids to school with the black and brown kids whose “communities” they love sucking up to on social media.

    1. So you’re mad about white people not virtue signaling with their children.

    2. I have one sure fire test to find out whether a white person is racist or not. The question is:

      ‘Would you rather suck the penis of a white man or a black man?’

      The racist will say ‘white’ and the non racist will say something else. The test also works for exposing black racists, mutatis mutandis (with the necessary changes).

      1. What does your “both” answer mean? You’ve reached a higher level of wokeness?

        1. “What does your “both” answer mean? ”

          Non racist. ‘White’ is the racist answer. Other answers are non racist. It’s a simple, sure fire way to expose racists.

          1. Lol. Did you do your master’s thesis on sucking off penises of various races?

            1. I got this insight from a film J L Godard made, I believe, during his Dziga Vertov period. You may not be familiar with these works, they were shot on 8mm, usually considered an amateur stock, and not suitable for theatrical projection. A more accessible film by Godard is Tout Va Bien (All Goes Well) with its ‘dollhouse’ set which he lifted from ‘The Ladies Man’, a hollywood film from a decade earlier directed by Jerry Lewis. “Jerry Lewis is the only American director who has made progressive films,” Godard has said. The screen play of The Ladies Man is not one of Lewis’ better efforts, but the set he had constructed is amazing.

              1. So bullshit from top to bottom?
                Thanks.

                1. You thought otherwise? You need to develop what we communist elites like to call a ‘critical distance theory.’

              2. Regardless of the source, you’re focusing on sucking off non-white cock to prove you are not racist.

                1. You’ve found a better way?

                  1. Yup. Stop engaging in identity politics. Treat individuals by their character and their actions.
                    You can keep sucking on black cock. I don’t judge. But it doesn’t speak to whether you are racist.

                    1. “Treat individuals by their character and their actions.”

                      Critical race theory tells us that identity politics is unavoidable. You may shy away from its implications, (many here seem particularly hostile to the flip side of racism, ‘white privilege’) but there is not an issue in America that is not shot through with questions of race. Supposedly, the justice system is blind to race and treats individuals by their character and their actions, but it turns out that some races are disproportionately punished. You can argue that individuals belonging to the black race are more stupid, violent, lazier, sex crazed and inherently immoral than the others, and want that view taught in schools, but these days that notion seems dated, tied to the thinking of the 19th century. I suggest if you want to see critical race theory defeated, you need to come up with a better theory, and dredging up out dated ideas from the 19th century (and earlier) is not going to do the trick.

                      ” But it doesn’t speak to whether you are racist.”

                      I heard that it does. It was in a movie by J L Godard, if I recall. Maybe it was ‘1 P.M.’

      2. Already told you, CRT is a belief system, not rooted in fact.

        1. “not rooted in fact.”

          Are you denying there is black on black crime, or black on white crime? Are you denying the need to make these categorizations to enable us to understand the full meaning of these phenomena? This is the problem with the analysis offered by non Americans, the Canadian Jordan Peterson, for example. Unless viewed through the lens of race, understanding of any issue that animates Americans, crime in this case, will be incomplete. We have crime, of course, but we also have black on black crime, and black on white crime, which deserve their own separate discussion.

          1. “Unless viewed through the lens of race, understanding of any issue that animates Americans…”

            Regressive leftists might be more obsessed with race than any group since the Nazis.

            1. “Regressive leftists might be more obsessed with race than any group since the Nazis.”

              If they are Americans, sure. Obsession with race is baked into the American Pie. You seem to be catching on to what critical race theory is all about. There’s not an issue of consequence facing Americans that isn’t shot through with race.

      3. No joke, that’s one of the absolute dumbest comments I’ve ever read. You are unwell.

        1. “No joke,”

          That was your first mistake.

        2. You’re engaging an asshole, thus:

          mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
          “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

          Get what you should expect and worse. The pathetic piece of shit runs website where any clicks probably reward him with some pennies.
          Do not bother to click; let the asshole wither on the vine

          1. “let the asshole wither on the vine”

            Mixed metaphor. Back to your anus and shit obsession, I see. Playing to your strengths is always advisable.

  34. I am all for vouchers and charter charter schools. But most people, including most of you in the comments, just want to bitch. It is funny how they ignore the foundation of the article , and just go off on their own rants. Crazy.

    1. Did you have a point, or are you just drunk?

  35. OK, I did my best with the newest lefty asshole; you guys get to deal with shitstain’s lies and the lefty asshole AKA trueman.
    Per Ken’s ‘Tony and turd’ proposal, neither one of these pathetic pieces of shit are capable of even recognizing the idiocy of their claims.
    Tired of dealing with such idiocy.

    1. “Tired of dealing with such idiocy.”

      Because you lack the tools of ‘critical asshole theory.’

  36. If there’s no acceptable subset of ideas that can be “truthful history” then we’ve got the same problem in schooling that we have in the news. We’ve got ‘OAN’ and ‘AmericaOne’ and, to some extent Fox News, touting distortions on one end an MSNBC and the NYT (to some extent) touting distortions on the other. There has to be an acceptable intersection what is neither ‘Patriotic Education’ like Trump wants (whitewashing history) and woke guilt-mongering on the other.

    If there’s no reasonable compromises to reach then everyone might as well retreat to private religious schools. We’ll accelerate the fracturing of society where everyone is in their ‘bubbles’. School choice with no common standards at all leads to public funding of Islamic Madrassas, public funding of Creationism etc. I’d rather not have my tax dollars going to teach that ridiculous stuff. It’s worse than making white kids feel guilty because we admit the U.S. white population financially gained from slavery for many years.

    If you want to teach your kids that men rode dinosaurs and the world was literally created in 7 days, pay for it yourself.

    1. You’re right, we should be able to come up with a basic curriculum.

      Math, science, reading, writing, history, and so on. Unfortunately, many blue states have injected CRT into all of these topics, even math and science. In the progressive mind, even math is racist and students must explain how it has led to oppression; and also, there is no “right” answer, and to say that is white privilege or oppressive.

  37. Tucille thinks if he writes this bullshit enough times it would be true. This isn’t something that can be addressed by simply offering more school choices. Get your head out of your ass

  38. Reason’s attitude on this is why Libertarianism is impotent; why a vote for the LP is a vote for whatever direction the wind blows the vocal minority of race essentialist lunatics in charge of the Democratic Party.

    Maybe the we wouldn’t have to push back on children being taught racist historical revisionist ideologies if we had free market education, but we don’t have that *right now*. We will never get anywhere on any issue with Libertarians bemoaning what *could be*, while failing to attend to *what is*.

    Teachers who push CRT should be treated with the same public hostility and ridicule as those who advocated doctrinaire religious-based teachings of history in the 1990s (eg. dinosaurs weren’t real, earth is 5,000 years old, humans aren’t apes, etc). It’s the same shit, different religion. Libertarians need to act and speak –frequently and loudly– with hostility towards this racist ideology.

    Bitching about the free markets of a utopian future won’t get you there; you can’t cede all the ground that paves the road to that future and expect you’ll ever arrive at it.

  39. Libertarianism cannot address the culture war because it supports a policy of appeasement. You’re the Chamberlain of neo-Marxism. If we just ignore it, maybe it will go away.

    It’s the same debate about criminalizing Holocaust denial. If you really think that people are going to become Nazis just because a few morons got in trouble for denying the Holocaust, then god help you because you were a lost cause to begin with. You’re also a lost cause if you think criminalizing denial of the Holocaust creates a precedent to criminalize non-factual or unsettled factual matters.

    The notion that people should sit idly while the forces of chaos multiply all because of a hypothetical slippery slope is asinine.

Please to post comments