Critical Race Theory

Is Critical Race Theory Taught in K-12 Schools? The NEA Says Yes, and That It Should Be.

"It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks..."

|

The public debate over critical race theory (CRT) is in large part a semantics argument, with the anti-CRT faction attempting to include "all of the various cultural insanities" people hear about in the media under the banner of CRT while the other side protests that it's technically a much more limited concept confined to elite education. Progressives are essentially correct that the definition of CRT is being tortured to match conservative grievances, but conservatives are justified in feeling aggrieved by some of these things, and thus the argument is quite tedious.

That said, the National Education Association (NEA) appears to have accepted the conservative framing of CRT: namely, that it's not merely confined to academia but is in fact also being taught in K-12 schools. And the NEA thinks this is a good thing that should be defended.

At its yearly annual meeting, conducted virtually over the past few days, the NEA adopted New Business Item 39, which essentially calls for the organization to defend the teaching of critical race theory.*

"It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory," says the item.

Consistent with its defense of CRT, the NEA will also provide a study "that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society." The implication is that these critiques are aspects of critical race theory, which in a weird way makes this an example of the activist left basically accepting the activist right's new working definition of CRT as "all of the various cultural insanities."

This is no small matter, given that many progressives have rested their entire defense of CRT on the idea that it's a very narrowly defined aspect of elite law school training. Judd Legum, formerly of ThinkProgress, has said the notion that CRT is taught in K-12 schools is a lie. During an extended and furiously unproductive debate on the subject, MSNBC's Joy Reid accused Manhattan Institute scholar Christopher Rufo—the leading anti-CRT activist—of "making up your own thing, labeling it something that already existed as a name, slapped that brand name on it, and turned it into a successful political strategy."

I think this accusation is basically correct, and Rufo occasionally appears to admit as much. But if the NEA asserts that CRT is a much broader concept—encompassing anti-capitalism and anti-ableism—and a vital tool for fostering "honesty" in K-12 education, the organization is essentially validating conservative parents' concerns.

This does not mean that state legislatures are the proper remedies for the problem: For more, read Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams in The New York Times. It remains the case that giving families greater choice and control over their children's education vis-a-vis school choice is the best solution to fundamental disagreements about curriculum and teaching practices.

But the NEA is an extremely powerful union and one that works on behalf of public employees, not students or their parents. (As former Reason staffer Corey DeAngelis has pointed out, the organization once voted down a motion that would have made "student learning the priority of the Association.") We should believe its members when they allude to the fact that they are prepared to defend the broader, crazier version of CRT in the classroom.

*Update: Shortly after this story was published, the NEA deleted the New Business page from its website. I have added a link to an archived version of Item 39.

NEXT: Tennessee Woman Sues State Officials for Revoking Her ‘69’ Vanity Plate

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. So who cares what the NEA thinks. I use that term liberally because it’s not clear that they do think. It’s not their choice.

    1. The state might set up the standards, but it’s individual teachers (or teams of them) which build the curricula and create the lessons. Even if element based on CRT are excluded from the standards they will find ways of weaseling it back in, especially if informal leadership is pressing for it.

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy SD and simple job to do and its earnings 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…..FAST CASH1 COM

      2. Exactly. I’m amazed that Reason is clueless about this. Critical Race Theory is taught and enforced in M.Ed programs and simplified – and even more racist – versions are of this are taught in middle school. I assume Robby has had no kids in public schools for the last decade or two.

        1. You seem to have limited reading comprehension. This article was focused on K-12, not higher education. There is NO CRT being taught in meddle school at this point in time. Stop with the canned hysteria.

          1. “NO CRT being taught in meddle [sic] school at this point in time.” – PLP

            An incredibly sweeping claim – do you, PLP, have any supporting evidence?

      3. “but it’s individual teachers (or teams of them) which build the curricula and create the lessons”
        Not anymore.
        There are companies that sell curricula to school systems. Complete with lesson plans, worksheets/homework, tests etc. When a school switches different programs (lets say “new math” to “math 2.0” or whatever they call it) they cannot expect teachers to be effective out of the gate. So the counties buy these pre-canned curriculum to rapidly switch from one teaching to another.
        Considering how teachers are rated by standardized tests, they literally don’t have the time to deviate from the curriculum or risk their students scoring poorly on that pre-canned test.
        Welcome to maximum efficiency teaching

        1. I see this as a continuation of Obama’s attack on white America. Consider the damage done by ObamaCore, using references like the totally biased, pro-communist Old Gray Lady, Human Rights Council, and the Huffington post. I’m surprised the Southern Poverty Law Centers wasn’t included. Obama hasn’t just been buying mansions since he moved a block from the WH.
          At this point, CRT is designed as a weapon, as has been race, and the NEA should be abolished/outlawed for their complicity in such a Marxist, racist attack on students and society. When with the pimple come to a head and explode?

          1. Probably on your pasty WHITE ass.

          2. OOOOOO…Obama the boogie man is back eh?
            Obama did not attach white American, it was the opposite.

            1. “NO CRT being taught in meddle [sic] school at this point in time.” – PLP

              An incredibly sweeping claim – do you, PLP, have any supporting evidence?

              1. CNN told him it wasn’t.

            2. “Obama did not attach white American….” – PLP

              Seems incomprehensible; “attach” to what, and to which “white American” do you refer?

              1. PS: Please accept my sincere apology if we’re not conversing in your first language. For several years I volunteered to teach and tutor in United Way’s ESL program. Such classes may be available in your area, and if you are qualified, they may be helpful. Good luck.”

            3. All this time I thought White America elected Obama. Twice.

      4. Then State, schoolboards, and parents address the teacher and actual facts of conduct. Not a wide-ranging attack on states, or schoolboards, or unions, or the creation of new laws that address issues that don’t exist.

    2. Robbie is wrong in his assertion that it is a catch all for all conservative grievances. It has been making its way down through k-12 for a few decades now. Arizona had one of the first cases against CRT in its attempting to shut down the race based focus of Mexican American Studies that was one of the precursors foe grade school adoption of racial marxism. The state banned teaching of race based attacks, something MAS heavily utilized. It included LA Raza and Azatlan type teachings of Arizona belonging to Mexico and being stolen.

      Robbie is buying into the narrative that CRT is narrow when it has not been since the 80s. That is the gaslighting the left is pushing surrounding CRT. It includes the division of people based on race with a focus on race as a primary contributor to someone’s success in society. Robbie is simply naive.

      1. If those La Taza types wanted to live under the reign of the Spanish king, they should move to Spain.

        1. Why Spain?
          He’s in the United Arab Emirates

      2. Did you really expect better from Robbie? Really?

        1. If he can’t do better, he should be let go by Reason.

    3. “It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks…”

      Trump University should be at liberty to trump Liberty University with teacher education courses on how the intersectionality of the Moorish Scientology Temple curriculum is framed by indigenous perspectives on feminist gaciology.

      1. And we thought madrassas were objectionable.

      2. Ah, yes. “The ‘Ice Queen’ Strikes Again’!” [You did mean “Glaciology”, didn’t you?]

  2. >>academic frameworks

    lol. are they teaching Ancient Astronaut Theory too?

    1. They were teaching that the Olmecs were Africans in Mexico and that Black Africans flew airplanes in ancient Egypt in my county’s school system 20 years ago. I doubt they have stopped.

      1. Wut? What county?

      2. I preferred the 2nd Egyptian Dynasty invention of electric batteries; closely tied with melanin not being merely a skin pigmentation, but related to intelligence and quasi-psychic abilities.The latter abilities giving us literal magickal Negroes, not just the sort the Left require in their wishful thinking.

  3. It is funny that an academic movement, which does not believe in objective truth as one of its tenets, s defending itself by saying its critics are torturing definitions.

    1. Well put bit of irony.
      I need to reread 1984 again…..

    2. The basic problem is that the truth of the assertions about society that are made by CRT proponents are not demonstrated but rather assumed. They reject up front that anybody’s ‘objective’ arguments against CRT are anything other than a socially-constructed rationale to retain dominance.

      The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking – one that we will challenge throughout this book.” – Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, “Reconstructing Knowledge,” in Anderson and Collins, Race, Class, and Gender, p. 4-5

      1. They have already uncovered the real problem with society. It is White male culture. “roots of white male culture” include traits such as “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work,” “operating from principles,” and “striving towards success”—which are “devastating” to women and minorities.
        Since women and BIPOC have the opposite traits it is unfair to compete against White males.

  4. Whoo boy. I’m afraid this may not be as well received as Robbie might hope.

    1. What, him pushing the gaslighting and ignorant of the multi decade effort to push this shit in k-12?

      1. My wife was on a school board in the 90s and they were pushing this shit and it’s variants back then. There’s a very profitable cottage industry of curriculum hacks that’s been selling this crap for decades. I think what has changed is that the racism has become much more explicit and parents started to notice because of remote learning.

        1. I think what has changed is that the racism has become much more explicit and parents started to notice because of remote learning.

          That’s likely what happened. Even involved parents aren’t really going to look at the study materials unless their kid is struggling. Remote learning ended up allowing them to see all the study materials first-hand, and the non-racist ones went, “What the fuck is this shit?”

    2. …while the other side protests that it’s technically a much more limited concept confined to elite education

      Which explains why it’s being taught in kindergarten.

      But please Reason, feel free to advocate conceding more ground to race baiting marxists.

      1. When and where did Reason do so?

        1. Their gaslighting about crt. What his comment said.

          1. Dee’s not very bright.

        2. Literally the entire article, and in every issue since Nov 2016.

    3. He just needs to be able to show this to a future employer. The goal to becoming the house non-doctrinaire leftist is reassuring them you can be counted on for the core mission.

  5. Does it occur.to Robbie that the progressives might just be lying?

    1. Does it occur to Reason readers that Robbie might be lying? Or at least Gaslighting.

      >Progressives are essentially correct that the definition of CRT is being tortured to match conservative grievances

      Really? That’s carefully stated to turn things around. Grievance culture is the stock and trade of what CRT has become. White = evil racists, everyone else is a victim. So he uses that word against people who are looking at the forced cultural shift and saying “WTF?”

      CRT might once have been a narrow academic discipline, but it is not presented that way in K-12. It is presented as who has “privilege” and who they put down to get that, almost entirely based on broad classifications like skin color. This isn’t tortured definitions to match grievances, it’s the article author being completely full of shit.

      1. “Really? That’s carefully stated to turn things around. Grievance culture is the stock and trade of what CRT has become. White = evil racists, everyone else is a victim. So he uses that word against people who are looking at the forced cultural shift and saying “WTF?”
        The GOP invented grievance culture, Rush Limbaugh became a very rich man riling everyone up on “the grievance of the day” since the 80’s. You seem to have bought it hook line & sinker.

        “CRT might once have been a narrow academic discipline, but it is not presented that way in K-12. It is presented as who has “privilege” and who they put down to get that, almost entirely based on broad classifications like skin color. This isn’t tortured definitions to match grievances, it’s the article author being completely full of shit.”

        BULLSHIT…that is a bold faced lie. It is NOT being taught in K-12 and never has been.

        1. Which K-12 school district in which states are not teaching it? If they aren’t teaching it why is the NEA defending teaching it and why are parents both Black and White that have seen what their children are being taught up in arms? Why is the left against legislation that bans CRT teaching in schools? I think who ever is telling you what to think is lying to you.

    2. Whether this has occurred to him or not, that’s what progressives are doing. If they truly are, as Soave says, “[resting] their entire defense of CRT on the idea that it’s a very narrowly defined aspect of elite law school training” (which it isn’t, because I encountered these ideas in the 90s and wasn’t attending any law school, elite or otherwise), then their defense is just phony motte-and-bailey posturing. No one is concerned about “elite” law schools here. Anyhow, the NEA clearly thinks CRT is being taught in K-12, and should be. Progressives (and Soave, apparently) want to make this about definitions and semantics because 1) people are alarmed at the blatant indoctrination of schoolchildren using a catechism of woke hatred, and 2) CRT gives them a handy label for this indoctrination that doesn’t involve the “Oh, so you’re *for* racism?” semantic trap of engaging with the currently approved progressive label for this: anti-racism. The progressive response here amounts to this: “Use the words and definitions we want you to use, because they render any counterargument impossible by design without actually addressing the substance of any counterargument, and only notice what we want you to notice in the first place.”

      1. “Progressives (and Soave, apparently) want to make this about definitions and semantics because 1) people are alarmed at the blatant indoctrination of schoolchildren using a catechism of woke hatred, and 2) CRT gives them a handy label for this indoctrination that doesn’t involve the “Oh, so you’re *for* racism?” semantic trap of engaging with the currently approved progressive label for this: anti-racism. The progressive response here amounts to this: “Use the words and definitions we want you to use, because they render any counterargument impossible by design without actually addressing the substance of any counterargument, and only notice what we want you to notice in the first place.”

        Oh brother….

  6. •X isn’t happening
    •X is happening but it isn’t a big deal
    •X is happening and that’s a good thing
    •Everyone must support X or be unpersoned

    1. The Party answer is all of the above.

      1. It’s kind of sad when it’s the Libertarian Party, though.

    2. Best we cleanse the progs as quickly as possible.

    3. Progressive rhetoric in a nutshell.

  7. “The NEA is an extremely powerful union and one that works on behalf of public employees, not students or their parents.”

    Thank you for putting this in there, Robby.

    I might only add that the NEA is an elitist blight on our country and the enemy of every libertarian and the American people. Because they should be free to be a blight on society and the enemy of all that’s good and holy, of course, doesn’t mean they aren’t a blight on society and the enemy of all that’s good and holy.

    1. “Because they should be free to be a blight on society and the enemy of all that’s good and holy, of course, doesn’t mean they aren’t a blight on society and the enemy of all that’s good and holy.”

      I like the way you put that.

    2. Enemies should be fought and defeated, not allowed to thrive on forced-taxation dollars. If libertarianism cannot reach that conclusion, then libertarianism is dead.

  8. The teachers are paid employees of the public. In what other field do the paid employees get to decide what to do, with either no regard for the employers wishes or directly in opposition to them?
    Of course the answer is to defund the public schools.

    1. “The teachers are paid employees of the public. ”

      They are the employees of the school boards which set the curriculum. Of course, once the classroom doors are closed, the teachers are free to do whatever they please, as was heartwarmingly demonstrated in the Hollywood blockbuster ‘School of Rock.’ The answer is increased monitoring, testing, security cameras etc. Or, more cheaply, just remove classroom doors.

      1. School of Rock was at an elite private school, not your run of the mill suburban government school.

    2. “This does not mean that state legislatures are the proper remedies for the problem.”
      Yes, it does. Your tax dollars pay for the teachers, who back the NEA’s bigoted agenda. Your tax dollars enable them.
      Answer: defund the teachers’ unions.

      1. If teachers can afford to pay their unions, enough for the massive donations to politicians, and now finance legal challenges to parent’s objections to their indoctrination, including oppo research into parent-formed organizations, they are paid too much.

  9. It’s not about semantics. And NEA’s “New Business Item #39” also calls for the NEA to execute this plan in cooperation with openly Marxist organizations.

    1. The pushing of Zinn can not be cited enough.

    2. As the founders of our current educational system were Marxists themselves, you wouldn’t expect anything else.

  10. New Business Item #39

    Race all day, race all night
    Know where this is goin’
    I don’t think that’s actin’ right
    Your red roots are showin’

    (With apolgies to Joe Walsh)

    1. James Gang sympathetic to the Confederates.

      1. CRT creates a Life of Illusion. Better to just Walk Away.

        1. I *am* From Another Time … maybe should just Tend My Garden.

          1. I’d say something more, but I’m an Ordinary Average Guy. Life’s Been Good to Me.

            1. we need to Wrapcity this bit anyway. time for Cruisin’ Down the Highway

              1. ILBT’s. Just saying.

  11. When conservatives say “Critical Race Theory”, they mean “anti-racism” as defined by Kendi. The problem is that saying you don’t agree with “anti-racism” confuses the vast majority of people. It’s a trap. It allows anti-racism proponents to argue about semantics rather than the ideas.

    1. ” “anti-racism” as defined by Kendi” is racism.

      1. Di Angelo now has 2 books where she admits she is a raging racist… yet is paid 30k a speech to teach people how not to be racist. It is mind boggling.

        1. I’m gonna have to go back and read more Kafka. I read “The Trial” a number of years ago, but maybe it’s time to learn more about being turned into a bug.

      2. see: anti-Fascism

  12. Of course CRT should be taught in public schools. Reason.com commenter chemjeff has repeatedly explained that all serious libertarians should support this.

    Indeed, it’s no coincidence that as modern Democrats increasingly focus on racial and other identity issues, they have become the party of choice for Koch-funded libertarians. Back in the 1980s, for instance, Democrats would have been horrified by what’s happening in our economy right now — billionaires rapidly getting richer, federal minimum wage stagnating. Today’s intersectional, billionaire-friendly Democratic Party, in contrast, prioritizes issues like CRT education and ladydick in the women’s locker room.

    #LibertariansForCRT

    1. You’re on your game man.

    2. Wee can assume jeff’s muted you also.

  13. CRT is like Flat Earth Theory, and has no place in K-12. Remember, the goal of our education process is to produce “functioning” adults. To that end we need not fill our kids heads with shit.

    1. A better analogy is Nazism or Communism.

      Unfortunately, right-up racism is not an analogy, because analogies are similar, not identical.

      1. It combines the worst aspects of nazism and communism.
        Truly evil

    2. How is the CCP supposed to overtake the US if we have a functioning educated youth? C’mon, man, it’s their turn!

  14. Progressives used to mock the idea that they were demonizing hetero white males. Now they openly state as much. Cisheteropatriarchy and capitalism are bad. Patriarchy might be bad (if it truly still exists) but what is bad about cishetero white males? I ask as a bisexual male.

    1. “what is bad about cishetero white males? ”

      Nothing much. What’s bad is when the term is used as a stand-in for ‘American’ or worse, ‘average American.’ It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the practice marginalizes non cishetero white males. Examples: The average American was freer in the 1950s. Or Americans were freer in the 19th century, sentiments like these are often casually repeated in these pages.

      1. A shining example of trueman’s careful analysis and clever repartee’:

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

    2. Do you really identify as bi, or was that last bit humor?

      No judgement, just surprising to me.

      Pardon me for asking a personal question.

      1. I do. And why is it surprising?

        1. You don’t type bi….

        2. I just don’t know a whole lot of vets who identify as bi, especially from the generation previous to me, and so I made an incorrect assumption. My bad.

          1. My first bi encounter was in the barracks.

            1. Was it consensual? What did the rest of the barrack occupants do while you were encountering? Were you the catcher or thrower? Sorry for all the questions but inquiring minds want to know. As an ex-Army Vet I just can’t picture that happening in a barracks.

          2. This thread is, amazingly, not surprising to me. DOL is what I picture him to be.

            1. Oh, what’s that? Someone who didn’t know that soldiermedic is a bisexual man?

          3. You’re not a vet you lieing sack of shit. You’ve been called out on it a million times.

            1. I’ve been vetted by several different people on this board. Want to be next? Put up any dollar amount on your word.

              1. You’ve been noted as a lying piece of lefty shit who is not capable of backing bullshit claims, asshole.
                $100 for that cite of Ken lying. Put up or STFU.

      2. Why don’t you just ask him out if you’re interested. This is why you’re always a bridesmaid, and never a bride.

      3. From the guy that brought up his taint in the roundup.

        1. I’m really on a roll today.

          1. BTW, lying piece of lefty shit: Ever find ONE lie by Ken?
            Didn’t think so.

    3. Face the facts. Whites are now a minority in this country. 61% wouldn’t appear to be a minority, but half of white females align with POC to make a white minority. The new majority is doing what it will with western history and culture.

  15. I encountered CRT in the sixties (but it wasn’t called that). It concentrated on “institutionalized” barriers. One example of it was the case of the City Fire Dept having which had height and weight minimums for fire personnel, which meant that ninety-percent of women “need not apply.” So yeah, there were, and may still be some examples of this.

    It is certainly a good thing to point out these types regulations which can marginalize individuals. And maybe pointing out such “facts” is a better than teaching “theory.” I trust students to be able to connect the dots.

    1. You trust students to “connect the dots”?

      On what planet have you observed this higher level critical thinking in adults under 25 years of age?

      Look up “indoctrination” first, then post.

      1. Admittedly, a lot of students won’t connect the dots. And many won’t be motivated to connect the dots no matter their age. That doesn’t mean you don’t encourage them to do so.

        1. You acknowledge that for “a lot” of students this will be nothing more than indoctrination.

          I’m sure that it is leftist indoctrination has nothing to do with your blase attitude.

          You may be Jefferson’s Ghost, but only if Jefferson was his first name.

          1. Yawn.

            1. Get the fuck out of the way, dumbass, or join the new nazis as an avowed enemy of liberty and Americans.

              1. Wow you certainly are a brave one little keyboard warrior hiding behind your screen. YOU are not in charge of anything on this thread so quit acting like a sanctimonious asshat!

          2. Um no he doesn’t…..WTF do you care what his handle is anyway?

      2. @YuckFou

        I have personally never noticed a strong correlation between critical thinking skills and age. Most people under 25 strike me as credulous idiots, most people over 25 are the same.

        Fortunately, the credulous idiots will not be indoctrinated by this. They will be assigned to read books about CRT. They will pretend to read them. When assigned to write an article about them they will download a few articles about CRT from the internet, change a few words with a thesaurus to try to thwart plagiarism detectors, and then frankenstein together a paper with snippets of text from the articles, which they skimmed without really comprehending. Then the semester will end and they will forget that CRT ever existed. They are too dumb to be indoctrinated.

        The only people who will bother to do the reading are the people who, as Jefferson’s Ghost says, can be trusted to connect the dots.

        1. The 90’s called and they want this excuse back.

        2. This is one of the things that gives me hope, because yeah, that’s what a lot of kids will do.

  16. It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory

    This has less to do with CRT than it does with the NEA union choosing to side with academics (the trainers/certifiers of professional pedagogues). And arrogantly deciding that it (the union) should have that influence over curriculum that individual teachers used to wield.

    This isn’t a cause of schools consolidating into districts – but it was a known consequence. Curriculum can easily be decided at the individual school level. That is only one step removed from where it is taught in the classroom. It can only be worse when that decision is moved to a district level – or to a state level (fuck you California and Texas) – or to the federal level.

    governance at the individual school level eliminates teachers unions as the replacement/intermediary for individual teachers. there is no need for an intermediary.

    1. Wow, I agree with you.

      1. CRT can unite all shades of libertarian apparently.

        Which makes jeff stand out quite brightly…

        1. It’s one of many reasons that Jeffy stands out among “libertarians”.

    2. “governance at the individual school level eliminates teachers unions as the replacement/intermediary for individual teachers”

      Doesn’t that result in the costly reduplication of tiny bureaucracies?

      “there is no need for an intermediary.”

      Surely that’s up to the teachers to decide. If they feel the need to unionize they have the right to do so.

      1. Doesn’t that result in the costly reduplication of tiny bureaucracies?

        Yes and no. The only reason it would is if a function actually does work better at a district/state/compact level – or if it is truly required. The latter was the reason consolidation happened – because boomers/suburbs required school construction – which required bond issuance – which required a level above ind schools as the bond guarantor. An example of the former might be some facilities stuff or maybe a benchmarking type job (eg if a student moved here this year what grade should we initially slot them into – is 7th grade there roughly equal to 7th grade here – at the interstate compact not federal level). But individual teachers or cafeteria workers or janitors or somesuch, no.

        If it does, then the reason is that the state itself adheres to the Dillon rule (where muni/local is wholly subordinate to state legislature) rather than Cooley doctrine/home rule (where muni/local is deemed to have its own govt consent). If the latter then the ‘duplication’ is not nec a negative. There’s no duplication with having two burger joints in town. And nothing in Cooley doctrine prevents some functions from being consolidated. It’s just a matter of who is the real decision-maker.

        Surely that’s up to the teachers to decide. If they feel the need to unionize they have the right to do so.

        Even in collective bargaining, unions are only ONE side of that bargaining table. The other side is govt/taxpayers (at the district level) or school/neighbors/parents (at the individual school level). I’m ok with that all being a state level choice (as it currently is i think) – but none of those are remotely the same paradigm as capital v labor unionism. The German/Swedish approach to this may work – not the American.

        1. “There’s no duplication with having two burger joints in town.”

          My idea of duplication would be each school having to employ a committee to set the school’s curriculum for each year.

          1. It’s not duplication if they each have the ability to do their own thang re curriculum. It’s only duplication if they don’t have that authority but do have the requirement. Which gets back to the Dillon (only a state legislature has that authority because munis are mere creatures) v Cooley.

      2. You first have to prove the big bureaucracy was efficient and then more efficient and not bloated compared to the micro.

        1. Economy of scale is how economists term it. One gigawatt electrical generator is more efficient that a thousand megawatt ones.

          1. So.

            One king is more efficient than a legislative body.

            One set of federal laws are more efficient than 50 states with laws.

            Efficiency is not always the best judgement of things.

            1. “Efficiency is not always the best judgement of things.”

              Indeed. It depends on your qualities. Sometimes it’s best leaving matters to capable experts, sometimes you can manage on your own. Deciding on the best curriculum for a child could go either way depending on a lot of different circumstances.

          2. But only if it is providing identical commodities.

            Individualized curricula get lost under a bureaucracy bent cost cutting through standardized output…

      3. Doesn’t that result in the costly reduplication of tiny bureaucracies?

        Probably, but these days we have costly duplication of humongous bureaucracies, so I don’t think you’d be losing much. Se, for instance, the California University system having 8400 staff at an “administration” location completely separate from all of their universities, etc.

        1. “so I don’t think you’d be losing much.”

          If every school is responsible for its own curriculum, that would be enormous duplication of effort. Maybe you could save money by foisting the task onto the shoulders of teachers, administrators, care takers etc, but that has its own drawbacks.

          1. No it wouldn’t. The reason TX and CA (and they were the real drivers of going beyond district on stuff other than bonds) chose to force curriculum up to the state level had little to do with teaching itself but was done to pressure publishers into standardizing textbooks. Indeed they were really using their purchasing power in order to force everyone else into their preferred national DeRp vision. That has NOTHING to do with improving teaching of kids. The entire bureaucratic effort was for the purpose of politicizing education. It may not be ‘duplication of effort’ but it is precisely because there is no ‘duplication of effort’ that it can’t be opposed – aka competed away.

            1. ” Indeed they were really using their purchasing power in order to force everyone else into their preferred national DeRp vision. That has NOTHING to do with improving teaching of kids. The entire bureaucratic effort was for the purpose of politicizing education. ”

              I understand all this. I still think however, that having each school responsible for formulating its own curriculum, may be more desirable, but it will be costly, unless you expect those tasked with the job to work for free.

              1. See next comment. Schools themselves do not need to develop their own curriculum. They just need to see what’s already out there. And figure out a way for parents and kids to make the choices.

                Think of this like a college. There is no Dean of Curriculum. Bureaucrats never develop curriculum. They just spin the plates of academics, publishers, technologists, teacher/trainers, etc.

          2. As for how individual schools would deal with curriculum – they would likely purchase it rather than build it themselves from scratch. Just like they did in the old days when schools were individually managed – with eg McGuffey Readers and then the Dick and Jane books.

            Nowadays – there are so many freaking curriculum options – from Montessori to various homeschool ones to ‘International Baccalaureate’ prep. Not to mention all the possible ones that could easily be gathered together and benchmarked in an interstate compact form (which is precisely what we were doing before we federalized it and gutted the compact).

            It is not a matter of how to develop a curriculum but how to choose the ones that best fit the needs of your neighborhoods parents and kids and the capabilities of your teachers and facilities. This is precisely the sort of situation that could be Hayekian – even if it is entirely governmental. Just decentralize the decisions.

            1. “they would likely purchase it rather than build it themselves from scratch”

              How about downloading it free off a sketchy Russian website? Then what?

              1. If that’s what they want to do, then why should you or I really care?

                OTOH – On what basis do you think that would be the choice of parents for their own kids education? Why do you think some disinterested bureaucrat would be more motivated to do better for not-their-kid?

                I already linked above to the actual Interstate Compact for Education website. Set up the constitutional way – by an act of Congress – in 1965. For the purpose of simply sharing information/ideas among the states. Not mandating them. Imagine that that a)wasn’t gutted in favor of the DoE (and btw, it was Reagan who gutted the ECS) and b)used Internet technology to share ideas at the school level not just district or state.

                You say stuff would cost more or people would have to do it for free. Not only do I basically deny that. Even if it is true however, there are tens of millions of parents who would be quite willing to volunteer to do stuff like the above for their own kids benefit. It is how things used to work in the US. The mark of being ‘respectable’ in your community was taking your turn on school board. LONG before the BS of either egoist ‘libertarianism’ or education bureaucracies.

                The real cost of ‘professionalism’ is that when we put responsibilities in the hands of people who really don’t give a personal shit, then we have to pay through the nose in order to give the appearance that they give a shit.

                1. “Why do you think some disinterested bureaucrat would be more motivated to do better for not-their-kid?”

                  Because it’s their job. You could ask the same of a dentist. Parents could volunteer in their spare time to take care of their kids dental needs. I get the impression that you don’t think planning and organizing for children’s education is all that involved or difficult and requiring the full attention of knowledgeable people. I disagree. While education may not be as demanding as dentistry, and certainly doesn’t require all that fancy equipment, it’s still nothing to sneeze at. Drilling in the fundamentals, keeping students interested and busy, identifying and encouraging their strengths, shoring up weaknesses, guiding them as junior citizens etc, all the while making sure not to step on parents’ toes.

                  1. I get the impression that you don’t think planning and organizing for children’s education is all that involved or difficult and requiring the full attention of knowledgeable people.

                    Not at all. Individual school boards composed entirely of volunteers almost always hire a principal and asst principal and maybe a secy or two. And I see no reason at all why those folks would not have access to a wide array of educational resources at the district/state/compact level to help them do their job better.

                    The difference is that I think that sort of accountability structure is far more focused on delivering education to kids in the classroom. Even within a district – elementary school A will have a slightly different set of priorities/etc than elementary B. And at the district/state level, they will be focused on delivering the resources that are actually needed in schools rather than just their own agenda.

                    Professionals accountable to other professionals is always just bullshit. And you can see it in education where there are entire depts devoted to checking boxes from DC in order to get this or that funding which may or may not be spent wisely. Where actual teachers have over time become a much smaller % of total employees even within schools. That has not produced better educated kids.

                    1. JFree and trueman; two bullshitters supreme, shoveling it on from top to bottom

                  2. Is it, though? From where I sit the purpose of the bureaucracy is to expand the bureaucracy.

      4. >Doesn’t that result in the costly reduplication of tiny bureaucracies?

        Feature, not a bug.

        Tiny local bureaucracy is far more responsive to the individual. The more encompassing the bureaucracy, the more atomized the people caught up in it are.

        The worst thing on earth is “efficiency” in terms of one rule for everyone, with no possible redress. If its at a school or district level, the parents have all kinds of leverage over the school officials, for instance. Probably know them personally.

        Some jerk in Sacramento or Washington dictating what I can and cannot do not only has no concept of my personal needs or desires, and no empathy for me personally, but is also effectively shielded from having to deal with my complaints. That’s the stuff of Russian novelists right there.

        1. “Some jerk in Sacramento or Washington dictating what I can and cannot do not only has no concept of my personal needs or desires, and no empathy for me personally”

          You’ll still have to pay for some jerk down the street to organize the education of your children. And there is certainly no guarantee the jerk will care any more about your personal needs and desires than I do.

          1. Then I can choose a different jerk for that office.

            Or, since I know the guy, because he lives two streets over and his kid plays softball with mine, he knows he’s talking to a real person, not some nebulous “the public” or “the voters.”

            It has happened here just during the pandemic, and before. City council got too big for its britches (or a specific councilmember) and a hundred people show up at the meeting to tell them they are wrong.

            To get Newsome to pay attention it took 2 million signatures and the threat of recall, and he still doesn’t give a shit because we aren’t the Bay Area.

            There is literally no economy of scale on bureaucracy beyond a certain, quite small, point. It’s not a business. It’s not a factory that produces goods and so can run more efficiently by adding a shift and making twice as much without the capital outlay on real property and machinery. It’s paper pushers.

            But I’m guessing you know this and are being willfully obtuse.

            1. “But I’m guessing you know this and are being willfully obtuse.”

              No, I’m not being willfully obtuse. There are many problems with representative democracy, and overly large constituencies (or nations) is one of them.

              “It’s not a business.”

              That’s true, but bureaucracies do compete and need to be funded. It’s wasteful completion for funding and turf battles. It may be unrealistic to expect busy parents to navigate this minefield with an informed judgement. There is some argument to be made for consolidating them even at the expense of local autonomy, if only because it makes life a little easier, removing the burden of having the impossible responsibility of making decisions about complex and specialized matters. This is probably one of the strongest arguments for socialism. It’s unrealistic to assume for example that we can make informed choices on medical insurance, as we are neither medical nor actuarial scientists. The best we can hope for is a benevolent bureaucracy making these choices. One representative enough to give us a say in how it’s run, we hope.

              1. There are many problems with representative democracy, and overly large constituencies (or nations) is one of them.

                You are specifically arguing FOR overly large constituencies and centralization.

                My position used to understood by everyone. eg here’s part of a speech by FDR in 1930 – before he became president and did the opposite.

                On this sure foundation of the protection of the weak against the strong; stone by stone, our entire edifice of Government has been erected. As the individual is protected from possible oppression by his neighbors, so the smallest political unit, the town, is, in theory at least, allowed to manage its own affairs, secure from undue interference by the larger unit of the county which, in turn, is protected from mischievous meddling by the State.

                He is quite specifically arguing for the Cooley doctrine – not the Dillon rule or the totally perverted southern bullshit of ‘state’s rights’.

                1. I’m not in favor of overly large constituencies. Congress could easily be 10 times the size it is now and you’d still never know your representative. That’s not what I favor. Centralization? I wouldn’t take a dogmatic stand either way. Some things are best centralized. Think of the army, for example. There has to be some central coordinating body, if it’s to be effective. Same with the business world. McDonald’s can’t afford to let every franchise improvise its own menu, and has to maintain central control. There’s more leeway with children’s education, but as long as the national government believes it has a stake in guiding the nation’s future, some centralization will be inevitable.

    3. Great take.

  17. To continue my treatise from the last thread where someone was woefully confused about what CRT was, I shall continue.

    The late Derek Bell, the first tenured black professor at Harvard Law school is considered by many to be the “creator” of what we call “Critical Race Theory” in its current form.

    He had an area of speciality called “critical legal theory” and he inserted the word “race” into it. Bell was on the “materialist” side of the CRT theorists, (generally set apart from the post modernist side). Although both can be equally odious.

    He was an open advocate for historical revisionism. He’s also best known for his “interest convergence thesis” which came out of his 1970 book, “Race, Racism and American Law” (knuckle up kiddies, ’cause this is where it gets interesting). He posited that Post Jim Crow, whites have only allowed blacks rights when it was in their self interest to do so. He rejected any idea that any white person had any selfless or moral interest in aiding or improving the lot of black people.

    If you think that’s just an “interpretation”, he states this explicitly in his 1987 book “And we are not saved: the elusive quest for racial justice” .

    “Progress in American race relations are a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control”.

    Anyone who thinks that CRT is merely teaching that “Hey, there was some racism in our past like slavery and stuff… and oh, yeah, some segregation too… and there are still some racists kicking around the public sphere today” you’re either lying or being willfully ignorant. and the longer you keep up with this argument, I’m apt to put you into the latter category.

    1. And it should be stated, according to the Godfather of CRT, if you’re white and you support CRT, you’re doing it because you’re a racist and you believe it serves the status quo of white dominance.

    2. You touch on something important when you point out the various “types” of critical theory (like critical legal theory, critical race theory, etc.).

      The right is wrong jumping it all together as Critical RACE Theory. But they are right in recognizing Critical Theory… they don’t yet realize that there is an umbrella system that covers all these things like Queer Theory, Race Theory, Disability Studies, Gender Theory, etc.

      Critical Theory is the problem. It can and is deployed in various elements of life and in each one it takes a specific form, but at its core it is premised on the idea that all problems are the result of oppressors and that the oppressed are always innocent in the creation of their circumstances. And that anyone who is in the power group can never be innocent at an individual level. It also rejects objective truth as a system of the oppressor (the power group decides “truth” so as to entrench their interests so to realize this we have to reject objectivity because it won’t allow us to see the truth of the oppressor and their intent).

      It is a terrible ideology. It is rooted in Marxism (and even back to Hegel and his dialectics). It has spawned such evil ideologies as “Repressive Tolerance” which calls for the violent suppression of any non-leftist thinking (1960s essay by Herbert Marcuse). It explicitly calls for race/class/sex/gender essentialism (what we used to call racism or sexism etc) and ascribes guilt and blame on individuals for nothing other than their immutable characteristics.

      It. Is. Evil.

      1. We’ve got paid employees of the school system, teaching your children, publicly claiming that “Black people can’t think critically”, and they’re being cheered by the established liberal order.

        But nothing’s wrong, nothing to see here, quit with your “conservative backlash”. As someone said in a thread yesterday, quit screeching “both sides” when one side is 99% wrong and the other is just not 100% pure.

        1. My daughter’s prom date, not white or born in this country, once told her that he wished he was white because he wanted to be successful in life. This is what teaching this shit accomplishes.

      2. Yes.

        Critical Race Theory is a subset of Critical Theory.

        Critical Theory is Marxism v2.0

        There is a categorical difference between teaching about CRT and teaching in CRT. The former is scholarly, the latter is indoctrination.

        1. Critical Theory is Marxism v2.0

          Critical Theory is the ongoing and consistently failing attempt to save Marxism from Nietzsche and Sartre.

          1. Critical Theory is the ongoing and consistently failing attempt to save Marxism from reality.

            Utopianism always fails IRL.

            1. Sartre never apologized for being a Marxist.

              Which is rather telling for the Patron Saint of No Excuses

              1. Sartre never apologized for being a Marxist.

                No, but once he was a Marxist, he did apologize for having been an existentialist, even though he knew the latter to be the more rational position.

                1. ” even though he knew the latter to be the more rational position.”

                  I’m honestly curious what you base that statement on. Do you have something specific he said in mind? Because my understanding of his version of existentialism is that it was the sort that expressly rejected rationalism or reason in favor of the subjective consciousness. As such I doubt he would have even entertained an argument over which was more rational – instead dismissing the metric as meaningless.

                  1. Existentialism despairs in its sense of the impossibility of accessing objective truth by which to make statements into anything other than games played with symbols. It is the logical endpoint of a philosophical tradition obsessed with subjectivity, and is therefore arguably supremely rational, even though at its core is a statement about the uselessness of reason.

                    For Sartre Marxism was a leap of faith because (IMHO) he couldn’t face the nihilism inherent in existentialism (and a lot of post-Nietzschean philosophy generally), and like a lot of French philosophers of his and the following generation decided that there is a kind of obviousness to class struggle that grants it a sort of higher moral truth rather than being just another empty signifier in a system that never references anything outside of itself.

                    IOW, for Sartre, what’s rational and what’s moral are two different things.

                    1. Ok, but who actually said all that. Because JPS didn’t.

                    2. There is nothing rational about authenticity. It simply cannot be since no other person can claim knowledge about it.

                      “Supremely rational” is pure sophistry. Or too much dorm room weed too late at night.

      3. It also rejects objective truth as a system of the oppressor

        While simultaneously claiming for itself the mantle of “objective truth.”

        1. It’s truly bizarre how a philosophy that rejects objective truth will go on and on explaining how “wrong” you are.

          1. That’s the way those things work, though.

            The religious dogma of original sin — you are a sinner. This is a fact. You are a racist, period. You must repent, but you are still a racist and need to spend your whole life atoning, etc.

            The concept of “If you don’t believe, it’s because you’re a racist” therefore, you are a racist by dogma or a racist by the fact that you don’t believe hard enough.

            On and on, it’s all about either you believe the dogma, or the fact that you don’t believe in it PROVES what the dogma says. And if you don’t understand, or don’t care, you’re just privileged to be able to ignore it and so we’ll shove it down your throat over and over again because the fact that you are so privileged to be able to ignore it just proves that you’re the racist oppressor.

      4. You left out Gramsci and Adorno

        1. Do you every offer anything other than dropping a couple of names?

        2. I was thinking Kant, but my knowledge of german/marxist philosophers is a bit thin.

        3. Gramsci and Adorno are important… especially with Gramsci’s ideas about the Long March through the Institutions.

          I don’t think many leftists today know where their “teachers” got their ideas from. It’s so far down river now that people don’t realize where it came from. So when you say it’s Marxist, many leftists don’t actually know this and thus reject it out of hand incorrectly.

          1. Marxism is fundamentally: individual not as singular/unique personality, but as unit of abstract identity class; society is a perpetual state of warfare between identity classes, with each occupying the space of oppressor or oppressed.
            One can throw in all the theorists, treatises, or additional qualities one would like, but marxism ultimately reduces down to the above.

      5. It is rooted in Marxism (and even back to Hegel and his dialectics)

        If it goes back to Hegel then it is NOT ‘rooted in Marxism’. That is not just semantics. That is how time works. And in FACT it is rooted in Kant not Hegel and back to his three Critiques. Those are the explicit foundation of the idea of criticism of something else as a way of understanding.

        To say that Marxists have used that methodology to look at stuff other than class is obvious. That does not mean the methodology itself is Marxist.

        To say that conservatives really really don’t like the word/methodology ‘critical theory’ is also obvious. Conservatives defend the status quo. That is what Hayek critiqued about conservatives – though he didn’t call that ‘critical theory’. And indeed, even in this particular case of CRT, the purpose of allowable conservative discussion of race is – to defend the status quo. Yes things may have been racist then. But we changed. And now it’s not. Which just goes to prove how wonderful the status quo is now. So stop yapping about race.

        What is also less obviously obvious is that both conservatives and Marxists agree that the phrase ‘critical theory’ should be used for purely Marxist objectives. For the same reason. Conservatives want to attribute all critique to Marxists in order to demonize the one critiquing. Marxists want to attribute it all to Marxism in order to get credit for all of it.

        So maybe conservatives and Marxists should just get a room so the rest of can ignore their raucous public foreplay.

        1. “If it goes back to Hegel then it is NOT ‘rooted in Marxism’. ”

          Wut?

          If the roots go back to the Left Hegelians (and they surely do) then the only way they can get there is by going straight through the Marxists.

          “Conservatives defend the status quo.”

          No, that is a lame pejorative framing that would cost you points in an sort of academic discussion or debate.

          Conservatism, aka prudence, demands proper justification for proposed changes to that which has long stood. Declaring anything to be status quo, in and of itself, means effectively nothing more than a starting point for the discussion.

          Beyond that your attempt to equate Critical Theory with some sort of skepticism on steroids, which you really could have traced back much further, even to Descartes (But that would have given the game away, wouldn’t it?) is just silly.

          1. Contemporary Marxists don’t like to be reminded that Communist regimes treated serious Hegelians as enemies of the state.

            East Germany posted a reward for information leading to the capture of Heinz Hendrich, who went underground after Honecker denounced his lectures on Hegel. He escaped to Austria in a glider

        2. Conservatives don’t want racism taught in the classroom by a people who are largely leftist if not outright Marxist. It really is that is simple. Any group that is pushing for that is an enemy. An enemy that should be targeted and destroyed, or at least run out of town in this case.

          Is this not obvious to everyone?

          1. Maybe JFree can GFY in the room he rented for the Conservatives and Marxists, while enjoying his own farts in a snifter

  18. This is exactly why Kmele et. al. are dead wrong with their propose better curriculums and enforce existing civil rights laws solution. This shit needs to be tackled directly, forcefully, and now. Waiting for the courts to sort it out or trusting the already corrupted administrators to create “better curriculums” is a fools errand.

  19. Those that can do.
    Those that can’t teach
    Those that can’t teach preach CRT.

  20. That said, the National Education Association (NEA) appears to have accepted the conservative framing of CRT: namely, that it’s not merely confined to academia but is in fact also being taught in K-12 schools. And the NEA thinks this is a good thing that should be defended.

    So semantics on both sides, but one side fits the definition of the other side. Cool.

    1. Exactly. Then maybe it’s not a “Conservative framing”. Then maybe it’s the accepted view of CRT practitioners regarding how it is implemented. The mumbo-jumbo “definition” doesn’t matter a bit. It’s the real world applications that matter.

      1. It’s also a weird way of ‘framing the framing’. The NEA “accepted the conservative framing”. No they didn’t, they’re merely acting in the way that conservatives have observed. The NEA (and its ancillaries) have acted, conservatives noted the acts and hence described them… accurately.

        1. That’s the craziest part of this gaslighting that Robbie is pushing. He even called out Rufo who has dozens and dozens of links to actual primary material but then catches Rufo in an off hand remark where Rufo basically explains or discusses 2 thoughts on CRT recognizing the left prefers a very specific definition to hide behind.

          Robbie is basically yelling there have been no true communist countries in history. It is the same type of bullshit the left always pulls.

  21. Alternative headline: “Racists and Marxists Circle the Wagons.”

      1. Is it wrong that I read this as “Robbie and marxists circle the wagons”?

        1. Not materially. Your version also appears to be correct.

        2. Potato Tomato

  22. Proving once again that if you have kids in ANY government run school, you’re guilty of abuse.

    1. Depends on the location… This isn’t being taught in conservative/libertarian Northeast Montana schools. Maybe in Bozeman, Missoula and Butte.

      1. Possibly Billings and Helena also.

        1. Maybe also on the Rez.

          1. And New Jersey.

            (just kidding)

          2. To the extent anything is taught on the Rez it is identity politics and collectivism all the way down.

            1. That is unfortunately true. And I graduated from a Rez school in 1994 and it was becoming this way even back then.

  23. There’s a difference between teaching CRT and teaching CRT.

    For example:

    “Academics come up with lots of narratives to explain society. Here’s one of them: CRT.”

    vs.

    “Individualism is an example of systemic racism. Write that down.”

    I don’t mind the former. The latter has no business being taught to children below the age of 21.

    1. An addition to the first would be to teach competing theories, especially contrary ones.

    2. This is so on point. I have not met a single anti-CRT person who has advocated never teaching the evils of racism or slavery. Or to avoid parts of history where America either got it wrong or even may have got it wrong. They have never said don’t teach what fascism is or what communism is. They have no problem with helping students understand various ideas. They don’t want students indoctrinated into a singular (and quite evil) idea.

      Why is this so fucking hard for Reason writers to get?

      1. Why is this so fucking hard for Reason writers to get?

        Homey please. Rest assured they are all working very hard to not get it.

      2. They rely too much on Twitter and cocktail parties as their primary research vehicles.

      3. The brown envelopes are spreading

    3. Below the age of *21*? The fuck?

      1. If you’re not old enough to drink, you’re not old enough to deal with marxist propaganda guilt trips.

        1. I am assured that brains aren’t really fully formed until age 25. This has even been cited as a reason why we shouldn’t charge people as adults for their crimes until they reach that age. (For some reason, it never gets cited as a reason to raise the voting age to 25.)

    4. Why is it appropriate to teach BS to anyone of any age? Adults may have the agency and mental capacity to ignore it, but why is it appropriate?

      1. I assume, at a certain point, adults can sign up for it.

        You know: like I think they should be able to try crack.

    5. In my gender studies class in the mid 2010’s, it was definitely taught the second way.

      The straw that broke my camel’s back was when she tried to get us to write a paper supporting expanding the list of protected classes to include fatties, and to espouse on the intersectional plight of racial minority fatties. I wrote instead to support the counter point, and was pretty blunt about what I thought of fatties. (She was a fattie.)

      I got bad marks on most of my papers because I usually argued the counterpoint. I made sure to exceed the grading matrix in every way. The professor kept giving me C’s and bad marks on those papers. I let her know that she was violating her own grading matrix and that I would not accept a lower grade without a fight.

      Got a 4.0, no fight needed. Whaddya know?

      1. In my gender studies class in the mid 2010’s, it was definitely taught the second way.

        Let me guess–needed to fill the ‘multicultural” requirement for the degree?

        1. You guessed correct. Finance degree, needed one semester’s worth of social justice-y credits. I think I could choose from gender studies, afro-american studies, anthropology, and some others I cannot remember. The gender studies class was online with only weekly classes, and I kinda wanted to fuck with the gender studies professor’s head. Haha.

          1. Yeah, they’ve been doing this shit for ages. I had to take one during my sashay through undergrad in the mid-90s, too. I picked African Studies, although the main thing I really learned was how fucked-up Africans treat each other.

            In hindsight I should have taken Chicano Studies, at least there was a lot more local material to pick from.

      2. “In my gender studies class in the mid 2010’s, it was definitely taught the second way…”

        This explains a LOT.

        1. Yep. Guess it’s impossible to come away from that unscathed.

          1. Not sure if this lefty pile of shit was taught to lie there or just brought it with him.

  24. Consistent with its defense of CRT, the NEA will also provide a study “that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.”

    What’s funny is last night someone (I think Chemjeff) tried to claim that what was being taught was merely concepts of “structural racism”. It was late, I wanted to start my grill and have a white supremacist steak, so I didn’t bother responding.

    The argument (in the modern context) of “structural racism” is at the very core of CRT. And that core is the direct progeny of Michele Foucault’s post modernist theory of “epistemes”. That power is a “grid” that runs through all of society. You can’t see it, you can’t touch it, but it’s there. And the ‘intersections” are places where different threads of power and/or oppression meet.

    White is a line on the grid. Straight is a line on the grid. Woman, Man, Gay, Black, Trans, Lesbian… all various lines on the grid. Where these lines intersect are touchpoints of power or oppression. Straight might intersect with white and male. Gay might intersect with White and male. Trans may intersect with black and female. Or intersect with White and female. And so on.

    This shit wandered its way out of the academies and right into your kids classroom over the last 20 years, accelerating rapidly over the last 10, but hey, it’s not CRT (or Postmodernism– looking at you, Nick), it’s just solid, evidence based stuff!

    1. It’s Michel Foucault. Is it possible you got anything else wrong about him (and his connections to this) other than his name?

        1. Case in point? I mean, if you got the guy’s name wrong perhaps you got some other things wrong about him?

          I’m not much of a fan of what goes under ‘post-modernism’ or ‘CRT’ but from what I know both are quite broad undertakings and it’s not as easy to tie it up in a bow.

          1. The typo in the letter of a name of foreign origin is proof that his ideas have been wholly misrepresented. I shall not provide any evidence of this misrepresentation, only the typo as prima fascie evidence.

            You are the very definition of a hack.

            1. It might be a sign that you’re not as familiar with the person as you think. Maybe, like with the Gramsci review below, you’re relying on a single secondary source to sum up a big, broad body of work?

              1. Say, why don’t you explain it all for us?

              2. LOL. I sure you’ve never had spell check change a word on you without you noticing it.

              3. Yet you haven’t posted anything that refutes it. Because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, you’re a 2 bit troll.

                1. “Yet you haven’t posted anything that refutes it.”

                  Lol, you don’t get my point about the burden of proof on complex claims.

                  But, then again, you almost never can manage more than two sentences in your posts.

                  Troll. Projection is a hell of a drug!

                  1. Again, I ask why don’t you explain it all for us?

                    Seriously; I think you have a max of 1500 words.

                2. One of the funniest things I’ve noticed about it, other than it’s ignorance and stupidity, is that it eagerly posts new terms and concepts it learned in whatever stupid class it is in/pretends to be teaching. The trolls here are mentally deficient, I never thought I would say it, but I miss Hihn.

              4. She his raping children in Tunisia have been mentioned?

            2. “…You are the very definition of a hack…”

              And a lefty pile of shit willing to try Bile-level mental gymnastics to justify bullshit on stilts.

              1. So, if you don’t accept someone’s several paragraph tying up of Foucault, post-modernism and CRT that person is a lefty pile of shit willing to try Bile-level mental gymnastics to justify bullshit on stilts?

                Oh, and buckleup

                1. Considering you haven’t actually refuted anything other than noting a typo, your lack of education on the subject other than what you probably heard on NPR in the last week is rather telling.

                2. Oh, and buckleup

                  If a typo refutes Paul’s argument, then your inability to form a complete sentence refutes yours.

                3. You also have a history of being a leftist, lying, trolling shitweasel. So anything you say is taken with disdain and suspicion until proven otherwise. That’s on you.

                  For future reference, don’t be a leftist, lying, trolling shitweasel.

                  1. Whose go to response is “lol!”
                    15 years old? Maybe.

      1. What a powerful rebuttal.

        1. Look, if you’re going to make an argument of a grand theory of communist march through the institutions tying together a bunch of thinkers with broad, complex bodies of work in a few paragraphs, starting by misspelling the name of the chief theorist focused on is not a plus and may spur someone to say ‘are you sure you know what’s going on here?’

          1. So one typo forever ends a thesis?

            Sure Tony.

            1. That’s of course not what I said.

              1. “…misspelling the name”

                Well, what did you mean?

                1. Look, if you’re going to make an argument of a grand theory of communist march through the institutions tying together a bunch of thinkers with broad, complex bodies of work in a few paragraphs, starting by misspelling the name of the chief theorist focused on is not a plus and may spur someone to say ‘are you sure you know what’s going on here?’

                  1. “Look, if you’re going to make an argument of a grand theory of communist march through the institutions tying together a bunch of thinkers with broad, complex bodies of work in a few paragraphs, starting by misspelling the name of the chief theorist focused on is not a plus and may spur someone to say ‘are you sure you know what’s going on here?’”

                    Try that in English, lefty pile of shit.
                    WIH is a “grand theory of communist march”? Is this the ‘grand march’ to ultimate failure in the ’80s, or just some lefty bullshit from you?
                    And Gramsci is a ‘chief theorist’?
                    Brain damage warning!

                    1. Lol, you not only have no idea what I’m talking about, you don’t about what you’re talking about! Your comments misunderstanding our communist march discussion is comedy gold.

                    2. “…Your comments misunderstanding our communist march discussion is comedy gold.”

                      Your comments assuming lefty cant approaches ‘discsussion’ doesn’t quite rise to comedy.

                    3. “you don’t about what you’re talking about!”

                      Oops, bad grammar. I guess this means everything else you’re saying is bullshit.

                    4. We’re well aware of your communism Queenie.

                  2. Again, I ask why don’t you explain it all for us?

                    Seriously; I think you have a max of 1500 words.

                    1. Let’s hear your reasonably concise take on the issue; otherwise it’s all just trolling and invective.

                  3. Your focus on a misspelled name says much.

            2. Tony isn’t *this* stupid.

              1. With so many over the years who can keep track?

              2. “Tony isn’t *this* stupid.”

                Damn!

              3. That’s cold man.

              4. On a scale of Queen Analthea to ten, you’re saying Tony is a 2?

                Queen – sorry bout the typo.

                1. Don’t be, it thinks its screen name is clever.

      2. GFY. This forum is hard enough to use

      3. Jeff… It’s obvious this is your sock when you only reply to Diane since we know you stalk him. And especially right after he calls your dumbass out.

        Like I’ve said before. It’s easy to tell the socks/trolls now with the mute feature. The patterns of your posts, only replying to (cyber stalking) certain commentors, like Diane, that you perceive to be intellectual threats or to your other socks to make it seem like your dumb ideas have a modicum of consensus, are glaringly obvious now that we can see the Grey mute squares always clustered in the same groups. And clearing their clutter makes it obvious your posts always respond to the same subset of regulars because youre ideas are threatened by them. And you’re almost always made to look like a moron, which gives away that you’re Jeff too.

      4. Nope, I’ve read Foucault, and this is on point. But sure, a typo discredits everything.

    2. ” but hey, it’s not CRT (or Postmodernism– looking at you, Nick), it’s just solid, evidence based stuff!”

      Fundamentally it is all a revolt against (classical) liberalism of the enlightenment.

      Cicero was right. Human nature tends towards three forms of governance – monarchy (and its debasement, tyranny), aristocracy (and its debasement, oligarchy), and democracy (and its debasement ochlocracy).

      Collectivism, every time it gets tried inevitably results in some sort of oligarchy and often then devolves into a tyranny. This is no accident, it is an inevitability when the individual is depersoned. And intersectionality is the epitome of depersoning.

      Like Orwell said, a boot, stomping on a face, forever.

      1. Nice Cicero tie in. Well said.

      2. Which is why it is imperative to crush these people as quickly as possible. We are already far down the road. It is going to take brutal decisive action to stop them.

        Elections and courts are failing us.

    3. Just because Foucault thought about social structures in a certain way doesn’t mean that everyone who mentions some concepts related to social structures is invoking Foucault or his ideas in doing so.

      The basic idea of ‘structural racism’ is very simple and does not require invoking intersectionality or anything like that. Here are just two examples.

      Consider the Native American reservation system. The original idea was to put those troublesome Indians on land that White people didn’t want (and the moment White people did decide they wanted the land, because gold/silver/oil was discovered on the land, the Indians were chased out yet again). The entire idea of reservations was racist to the core: White people are entitled to all the land, and Native Americans are only entitled to land that White people assign to them. Even if we now assume everyone in the Bureau of Indian Affairs is not a bigot and has nothing but good intentions and well meaning towards Native Americans, the reservation system put in place by dead White people over a century ago remains. How much of the observed modern day disparity between Native Americans and the rest of the population is derived from the reservation system itself, and its historical legacy?

      Here is another example: redlining. Back in the 1930’s, the New Dealers designated certain areas as “too risky” for banks to lend for mortgages, and they drew literal red lines on maps. These areas were unsurprisingly filled with mostly Black populations. Now, the red lines are gone, but those same areas which were redlined are still mostly quite poor. Why? And how much of that is due to the downstream effects from redlining – i.e., because individuals in those redlined areas couldn’t buy houses as easily as others, they had a more difficult time building wealth and getting ahead.

      One does not need to invoke Foucault or epistemes to understand these examples.

      1. Hate to tell you fatty but we learned about both of those in public school in the 1970s. It was called American History.

        No need to change the curriculum to fit some standard invented today that restructures the world into political class, race, and ideology. Just teach the facts.

        1. This is just the motte and bailey again:

          Motte = “What you call CRT is just teaching that slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, and confining Native Americans to reservations are injustices with effects that persist to this day; how could you be against teaching these things”…which no one is against, and which have been taught in schools my entire life.

          Bailey = “White people are all racist by default, everything that benefits them in any way is racist even if it helps others, and anything that has been promoted as a path to success and a healthier society until now (not only values such as hard work and honesty, but also anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, and the rule of law) are racist obstacles to justice”…the ideas people attacking CRT are actually attacking.

      2. Everything you mentioned above is taught and not banned by the anti crt laws going into place.

        You keep lying as a means of hiding reality.

      3. There’s a lot of poor white trash with bad loans.

      4. “Now, the red lines are gone, but those same areas which were redlined are still mostly quite poor. Why?”

        Because of leftists in general and democrats in particular. Is this not obvious to you?

    4. C’mon man! It you were a real true White Supremist, you would not have wasted the marches to start the grill, you would eat your steak raw.

  25. What happens when you demonize the majority of the country the way some used to demonize and oppress minorities? We may find out sooner than later, and I doubt it will end well.

    1. Especially for minorities.

      1. Given that white homeowner sexual men are a minority, who is the majority?

        1. I am sorry I invited you for this drivel. I think you meant to say white heterosexual males. The answer is whites and heterosexuals. Your problem is you can’t see other whites, such as white females, joining with their male brethren. But white females, especially hetero ones are low on the list of oppressed under CRT, barely above white hetero males. God you are stupid and earned yourself back on the mute list.

          1. First they came for the Jews… Etc.
            It’s a good analogy.

          2. He apparently can’t see white non-homeowners either.

            1. You’re not going to get in good graces that easy; come one, let’s see the “grand theory of communist march through the institutions tying together a bunch of thinkers with broad, complex bodies.”

              1500 words; and no misspellings or it’s all kaput, capiche?

              1. “grand theory of communist march through the institutions tying together a bunch of thinkers with broad, complex bodies.”

                Marx published Das Kapital in 1877, by 1905 von Bohm-Bawerk had demolished the LTV, underlying communism.
                The ‘grand march’ was a series of stumbles from one pot-hole experiment to another, ending in total disaster just barely beyond 100 years of Marx’ publication…
                What remains are ‘theorists’ still trying to explain away the pile of shit which it is.

                1. BTW, the system which Marx hoped to replace with government coercion (regardless of his idiotic claim that governments would fade away after his bullshit was accepted) has been functioning in various degrees of freedom for at least 2500 years ago (see “Athenian Economy and Society”, Edward Cohen), and such market activities lead to, at the time, world-wide trade (“The Silk Road: A New History”, Valerie Hansen).
                  Stuff your ‘grand theory of communist march” up your ass – your head wants company.

                  1. You do realize, Sevo, that I was trolling Queen, right?

                    Though I do appreciate your Cliffs Note version, don’t help her out.

          3. *unmuted.

            1. Similar to ‘unshunned’?

          4. “Your problem is you can’t see other whites, such as white females, joining with their male brethren.”

            More to the point, is that the nation’s problem is that it can’t see blacks joining with their white brethren. The racial divide has been there since the very beginning and to this day there is not an issue of consequence that isn’t imbued with a divisive racial dimension. In this case the matter of educating our children. I’d almost call it original sin at the risk of muddying the metaphor. In any case, whites of any sex or orientation are expected to become a minority by the time the children of today come of age. Adapt or die, the cruelest law of the universe.

            1. “Adapt or die…”

              How about you expand on the “adapt” part, because from what I’m reading it sure looks a lot like pay back.

              1. There are certain to be consequences when a previous majority slips into a minority position as will inevitably happen. What do you think all this CRT hand wringing is about? Folks here are almost unanimously against any change to the status quo.

                1. Here’s trueman at his most profound:

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

                2. “There are certain to be consequences when a previous majority slips into a minority position”

                  That’s what I thought, pay back, Damned good thing we have all of those anti discrimination laws, right? So when do “my kind” get affirmative action, hiring and admission quotas, and make a prima facie case out of an allegation? Because up to now it looks pretty damned good to be in a minority.

                  And lay off with your fucking virtue white man; you are not better for it and no one here is buying what you are selling.

                  1. ” So when do “my kind” get affirmative action, hiring and admission quotas, and make a prima facie case out of an allegation? ”

                    This will be up to future generations to decide. Your task is to wring your hands and whine about the impending loss of the majority status of the white nation.

          5. But admittedly, “homeowner sexual” was pretty funny. I think I’ve actually known a couple of those.

            1. By the time most people will be able to afford to be homeowners now days they will be so old they will have given up on sex. The “homeowner sexual” might indeed become a minority.

        2. The Government.

        3. Queen Amalthea says you can no longer discuss this

  26. “It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory and excluding any other theory, historical interpretation or thought.”

    FTFY

  27. Another thought: if whites truly do everything possible to protect their “power” wouldn’t the loss of this power result in violence? So, if whites truly are oppressors, teaching CRT would result in more not less oppression as whites took drastic measures to maintain their power. Oppressors rarely voluntarily give up power over the oppressed, especially when in the majority. The Nazis didn’t slow or stop the Holocaust in the waning days of WWIl, in fact they accelerated the effort, even as the allies closed in on the concentration camps.

    1. A big part of CRT, BLM, and Anti-Racism, is that a lot of affluent white progressives are unable to comes to terms with the fact that this nation has gotten past most of racism. And except for a few holdouts in the deepest South and furthest Northwest, racism will be gone in a generation.

      We have won the war and what remains is just the panicked retreat of the losers. But the worldview of affluent white progressives is unable to exist without that white guilt. Which is one reason why they keep trying to link racism with capitalism, meritocracy, and independence. Because they will still need something to enrage them to their core when all the microaggressions have been vanquished.

      1. This is also true, thus the logical inconsistency inherent in it all.

        1. I just told mtrueman I muted him yet he continues to reply to me. Must have a need to get the last word in. Oh he is to stupid to understand the concept of being muted. I can’t see your replies so they are in vain idiot.

          1. “I can’t see your replies so they are in vain idiot.”

            The nation has gotten past your muting.

      2. “the fact that this nation has gotten past most of racism”

        How do you account for this whole discussion if you believe that the nation has gotten past racism? I can’t think of a single issue the nation faces that doesn’t have a racial dimension. How can you discuss prison in the US without acknowledging that 1 in 20 young black men are behind bars?

        1. “I can’t think of a single issue the nation faces that doesn’t have a racial dimension.”

          I believe you just summed up CRT in a sentence.

          And no I do not agree with you; racism is too powerful a cudgel in a world where identifying yourself as a “victim” results in such inverse power. And CRT guarantees that it will never, ever end. Just look, its everywhere, in every thing, and in every [non BIPOC] person!

          1. “And CRT guarantees that it will never, ever end. Just look, its everywhere, in every thing, and in every [non BIPOC] person!”

            It may become a moot point when the whites of the nation are in the minority. That should happen in the next couple of decades, sooner perhaps if non-white migration picks up the pace. Not everything stays the same. Some things, like a nation’s demographics, do change.

            1. How’s that working out in the heavily bipoc neighborhoods of our inner cities? Pittsburgh public schools have a graduate 12th grade proficiency level of about 12% in English and under 5% in math. And a recent study found that nearly 45% of adults living in Detroit are functionally illiterate.

              That’s the educational future we should all strive for. Who needs skills like reading or speaking, bleh.

              1. “How’s that working out in the heavily bipoc neighborhoods of our inner cities? ”

                If American families don’t see the advantage of education, they will focus their energies elsewhere. Education has to pay to make it attractive.

                1. “Education has to pay to make it attractive.”

                  One year of technical school [welding, plumbing, construction…] = $50,000+ a year. Say, that’s about 2 X what people have been getting for sitting on their asses over the past year; is that enough?

                  1. I don’t know. I’m not a welder and I don’t plumb.

        2. I can’t think of a single issue the nation faces that doesn’t have a racial dimension.

          Your lack of creativity is striking.

          How can you discuss prison in the US without acknowledging that 1 in 20 young black men are behind bars?

          That discussion is irrelevant if you are not going to discuss why such a significant percentage of young black men are willingly engaging in serious criminal activities. Which cannot happen in the current political environment.

          1. “Which cannot happen in the current political environment.”

            That time has passed. Blaming black people for their stupidity, sexual lasciviousness, laziness, propensity for violence, love of watermelons, and that whole laundry list was all the rage in the 19th century. You missed your chance.

            1. Blaming black people

              As if prison sentences are never linked to serious and continued criminal activity and black people are only ever convicted because of institutional racism.

              You are the one refusing to think critically here and displaying a kneejerk reaction to something I never said.

              1. “As if prison sentences are never linked to serious and continued criminal activity ”

                Like smoking weed or chasing the dragon? I’m not persuaded.

        3. “”How do you account for this whole discussion if you believe that the nation has gotten past racism?””

          He didn’t say that.

          1. “He didn’t say that.”

            It doesn’t matter. The point is that the nation hasn’t gotten past racism and won’t as long as the black population feels itself to be aggrieved victims. Complaining about school curricula isn’t going to change anything. Neither is stigmatizing black people as stupid, lazy, sex crazed, communist or violent.

      3. “And furthest northwest”?

        Do you mean Seattle and Portland?

  28. (CRT) is in large part a semantics argument,… thus the argument is quite tedious.

    Pretending the dispute is semantic is tedious.

    Reds: Stop discriminating in schools!
    Blues: It’s supported by CRT!
    Reds: Then CRT sucks, stop it!
    Blues: You don’t even know what CRT is!
    Reason: It’s just semantics.
    Reds: Who cares what you call it, it’s discrimination!
    Reason: We can’t take sides even when you’re right you fucking racists.
    Reds: See item 1. Who are the racists again?

    1. The people who are defending CRT engage in semantics to avoid taking responsibility for the related terms that fall under the umbrella; anti-racism, grievance studies, etc. Robin DiAngelo may not be CRT, but the stuff she’s promoting is destructive and wrong, and the CRT concepts creeping into the curriculum are likewise destructive and wrong for reasons that overlap.

      1. Yes, disputing the definition is a distraction so they can pretend it isn’t a big deal. This enables Reason writers to support bigotry and discrimination in schools.

        1. It’s all a big conspiracy and Reason is in on it!

          1. The only takeaway from your comment is that you should learn what conspiracy means.

            1. Uh, people posing as one thing pretending something to further something else doesn’t fall into that?

              1. Obviously not. If it did we’d conclude all of politics and marketing (among other efforts) are conspiracies.

  29. “At its yearly annual meeting, conducted virtually over the past few days, the NEA adopted New Business Item 39, ”

    The link is broken.

    1. The theory is broken.

    2. GFY

  30. Just know that Antonio Gramsci’s long march on the institutions won.

    Cultural hegemony is maintained by the capitalist ruling class through the institutions that make up society’s superstructure. Gramscian Marxists define the superstructure as everything not directly having to do with production such as family, culture, religion, education, media, and law.

    1. Gramsci’s counter-hegemony is also deeply rooted in today’s theory of intersectionality. It seeks to dismantle the existing cultural hegemony by ideological subversion and opposition, challenging the legitimacy of existing super-structural institutions like family, religion, and political power. Saul Alinsky describes the modus operandi for such an enterprise in the introduction to his book Rules for Radicals: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

      The language of obscure Marxists that only lived in dusty corners of academia is now the daily throwaway phrase used by the person teaching your children.

      1. This solicitor might not know what he’s talking about.

        1. Such as? You know you do this shit posting on Volokh a lot too.

          1. Black hole calls kettle black

            1. So you admit to being a shit poster

    2. A counter-hegemony, in essence, is an alternative ethical view of society that seeks to challenge, undermine, and replace the existing bourgeoisie power structure. It has been described by Neo-Gramscian theorist Nicola Pratt as the creation of a rival hegemony on the terrain of civil society in preparation for political change.

      In Gramsci’s own words, he viewed the task thus: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

      Ok, everyone, I’m going back to sleep because there’s nothing to see here that’s of any interest or relation to what’s going on in the culture.

      1. This really just says ‘idea movements will advance via winning over institutions that deal with ideas.’ I’m not sure what’s supposed to be so remarkable about this. Is it a ‘they admitted it!’ moment? I mean, most movements who want to change society admit (realize) this.

        1. Ideas are just neutral bits if discourse, floating through the ether, occasionally bumping other ideas out of the way.

          1. Not sure how this is an answer.

            1. You really are dumb, or being willfully obtuse.

              Hey man, Eugenics just successfully bumped out liberal and enlightenment ideals of equality and egalitarianism through the marketplace of ideas. It’s just the churn of ideas, man.

              1. You know what, you’ve just supported critical aspects of what ‘CRT’ or post-modernism is all about. The idea that eugenics was something separate and opposed to ‘enlightenment ideals of equality and egalitarianism’ (you do know those ideals came up not only during mass enslavement and genocide but were used to *justify* it, right?) that overcame the latter through, what, some underhanded subterfuge, is exactly the naive view that CRT think’s it’s bursting (I don’t think they are, but there’s that).

                1. There’s a ton of scholarship that the eugenics movement was populated by a great many people who *thought* they were carrying out Enlightenment ideas. That shouldn’t be odd to accept, the same Founders who embraced Enlightenment ideas went home and ordered their slaves to be whipped at night.

                  The Enlightenment was about embracing what Kant called ‘the Kingdom of Reason.’ However, it carried a corollary, that those ‘insufficient’ in reason were not members of the Kingdom and could be treated in ways we today would find horrible. Kant himself endorsed some quite horrible things as he worked out his ethics.

                2. Remember the uber-eugenics moment in US history, the Buck v Bell case. It was an *8-1* decision. The majority included the vaunted ‘Four Horsemen’ considered some of the most libertarian justices on the Court during the New Deal. The only dissenter was the lone Catholic on the court. Catholics often opposed eugenics, but to argue they did because of their deep commitment to Enlightenment ideals is laughable (they were the font of the counter-Enlightenment).

                  1. You post modernists have fallen pretty far in that you have to push eugenics as a capitalist and objective thought to make yourself look better. Never mind that eugenics is highly predicated on moral relativism which is steeped in post modernism.

                    1. “Never mind that eugenics is highly predicated on moral relativism which is steeped in post modernism.”

                      This. Selective breeding has been well studied by the scientific method. Eugenics, meanwhile has not, and will never be. Because, as a term, it encompasses far too much of a subjective or moralistic nature. This is by design.

                  2. Amazing. Please tell me more.

                3. You do know Eugenics was a tentpole of the Progressive movement, right, idiot? It represented a cutting edge Science! approach to rebuking the icky religionists who saw value in all human life. The same icky people who started the abolition movement. Moron.

      2. “challenging the legitimacy of existing super-structural institutions like family, religion, and political power”

        “In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

        In your list of institutions, you consistently fail to mention America’s corporate institutions, Wall Street and big business, like Nike and the kneelers, for example. I would have thought given the influence the corporate world has on the nation, it would have been worthy of your attention. If the center of capitalism is happy to swallow socialism, then isn’t it already game over, bar the shouting?

        1. “Republicans buy shoes, too” Michael Jordan, 1995

          “Fuck them Republican kids” – Nike management 2020

        2. Businesses are downstream from the culture of the consumers. Infiltrate the institutions that can control the ideologies of the populace and everything else falls in behind. No need to attack capitalism when you can poison the consumers. In fact, it was the failure to overcome capitalism directly that led to the idea that culture, not economics, needed to be destroyed to bring about “liberation.”

          1. “Businesses are downstream from the culture of the consumers.”

            Where’d you get that idea? Hollywood, the music and fashion business etc are where the culture is formed. They hire the most creative people and put them to work shaping the culture of consumers.

            “In fact, it was the failure to overcome capitalism directly that led to the idea that culture, not economics, needed to be destroyed to bring about “liberation.”

            I don’t know about any culture being destroyed, especially as a result of some failure to destroy economics. Cultures change and it’s really no surprise to see them embrace inclusivity, whether it’s toilets for trans, black lives matter, etc, causes which traditionally have been seen as belonging to the anti-capitalist left.
            That’s not what Gramsci was on about. I’m only very vaguely familiar with his work, but his march

  31. in a weird way makes this an example of the activist left basically accepting the activist right’s new working definition of CRT as “all of the various cultural insanities.”

    It’s very strange – but revealing – that even when the left admits the right correctly identified them all along Robby manages to conclude the right was and is still wrong. This is much like how leftists continually lie about their goals and policies with the right correctly identifying them. But as the left are proven liars and the right correct leftists – and their allies including many “libertarians” – continue to believe the conclusions based on now discredited claims.

    Affirmative action was the camel’s nose in the tent for race preferences and quotas. Legalized gay sex was an effort to create gay marriage. Misrepresentations about rape on campus were an effort to create an extra-judicial process so radical feminists can punish anyone who makes them unhappy. CRT was a fig leaf justification for racial bigotry in schools and employment.

    Just keep moving fast Robby, pay no attention to the reality you’re missing.

    1. And gay rights lead to men in women’s locker rooms and sports. Now some are pushing for acceptance of pedophilia. It’s a small movement but if recent history shows anything it may very well be the next crusade for “acceptance”.

      1. Skipping polygamy and going straight to pedophilia?

        1. Pretty much. Polygamy doesn’t seem to be edgy enough.

          1. So, my point is that many opponents of gay marriage raised a good deal of Cain that it would spur polygamous marriage. That not happening I guess it’s that now it will spur pedophilia? That’s not happening either. But, I guess this is inevitable with ‘slippery slope’ arguments.

            1. There actually is a movement to mainstream pedophilia and get it included in the alphabet soup of sexual orientations. Polygamy has a movement also but I think polygamy has been replaced with non-monogamy movements such as polyandry. I could be wrong of course.

              1. There’s always been a ‘pedophilia’ movement in modern times (NAMBLA). Can you provide a citation of how this movement has gained any significant ground because of gay marriage?

                1. A celebrated movie depicting the gay affair between an underage male and his 40 something lover. Movements to decriminalize homosexual sex between of age partners and underage partners. Those are two recent examples.

                  1. I don’t know what the former refers to, but the latter has, as I mentioned, been around for decades (really, look up NAMBLA). It’s not recent.

                    You might as well go full-Santorum and cite bestiality…

                    1. You obviously have made an, false in this case, assumption about my argument. I know perfectly well what NAMBLA is and as for you not getting the first reference maybe that’s a clue you aren’t as informed as you believe yourself to be on the subject.

                    2. The difference is it’s been a yually introduced as legislation in some states referring to the latter.

                    3. *actually.

                    4. You know I said “Can you provide a citation of how this movement has gained any significant ground because of gay marriage?” early in this?

                    5. I did provide a citation, just it wasn’t in Chicago or ASA format. I think you know you’ve lost the argument and that is why you are falling back on the canard of quibbling with my citation methodology.

                    6. Can you identify your ‘citation?’ Not asking for APA (nice strawman!), just…something? Perhaps I missed it, if so I apologize.

                    7. Citing APA or Chicago is not a straw man. A citation gives enough information for the reader to find the information themselves without having to provide all the information. Which is what I did.

                    8. Can you point me to what you think is a citation?

                    9. celebrated movie depicting the gay affair between an underage male and his 40 something lover. Movements to decriminalize homosexual sex between of age partners and underage partners. Those are two recent examples.

                      Provides an outline and information enough for you to find it on your own.

                2. Not that you’re really asking, but minor-attracted persons (MAP). This is the current rebranding of pedophilia he’s referring to, which unfortunately is really a thing the “queer community” is trying to make happen, along with normalizing the idea that teaching children kink and showing them porn are totally normal, prosocial activities that only kink-shaming bigots could possibly object to. Any reference to “queering” anything from the left involves erasing any boundaries against overt sexuality, especially kink and porn, and especially when erasing these boundaries involves exposing children to these things. The left is definitely down with pedophilia; I mean, look up Michel Foucault’s ideas about children and sexual consent if you want to be nauseated.

            2. That not happening I guess

              People in the 70s and 80s made this claim about race preferences. It turned out it was happening just as critics described. You can always tell who is just defending the shield because they claim issues are settled long before that can be demonstrated.

              Polygamy took a back seat to trans hysteria. It will be back.

              1. It’s now polyandry and is sort of mainstream already just not legal.

                1. Polyandry is perfectly legal, it’s just that the rights of the parties involved regarding mutual assets and offspring born during the relationship are not legally codified as they are in marriage.

                  The SCOTUS could have gotten rid of the whole legal mess by pointing out that the government should not be in the marriage business and instead recognizing any civil union in the same way as they do other contracts. They decided to go a different way…

                  1. Agreed. I meant in the eyes of government it’s not a true marriage because polygamy is illegal.

              2. “People in the 70s and 80s made this claim about race preferences. It turned out it was happening just as critics described.”

                Are you sure? Because in Bakke the school was, iirc, pretty upfront that they were engaged in preferences.

                1. A celebrated movie depicting the gay affair between an underage male and his 40 something lover. Movements to decriminalize homosexual sex between of age partners and underage partners. Those are two recent examples.

                  1. Don’t know the movie you’re talking about. Do you want to argue that only happened after (and because) of gay marriage? As to the latter, those movements have been around for a long time. Do you have evidence they’ve become more powerful after gay marriage?

                    1. I didn’t say it was directly related to gay marriage,I was arguing that there is an overlap between some of the activist in both movements. I supported gay marriage btw.

                    2. Did you write this or did someone hack your account?

                      And gay rights lead to men in women’s locker rooms and sports. Now some are pushing for acceptance of pedophilia.

                    3. Yeah, I wrote it. Gay rights the movement did lead to those things, as the movement grew out of the original movement. Some in the movement are now pushing for acceptance and even legalization of pedophilia. All of that is true. It isn’t directly related but an outgrowth by some in the movement. Not a difficult concept to grasp really

                  2. So it’s just sort of related to gay rights (which you totes support!). What percentage of those pushing for gay rights are involved in the pedophilia push?

                    1. A minority as I already stated.

                    2. I gave that to you as an option rather than an exact percentage and you refused even to classify it as a majority, plurality or minority argument.

                    3. And why did you facetiously state I totes support? Do you know me or what I support or don’t support? Or are you making assumptions and generalizations? I am betting on the latter based upon your facetiousness. I am a long time poster on here, you can read my previous posts to see what I do and don’t support. To be more accurate, I want the government out of marriage period. I could care less who you fuck as long as you are of age and they are of age. As long as it doesn’t impact me why should I care who you fuck?

                2. Because in Bakke the school was, iirc, pretty upfront that they were engaged in preferences.

                  I’d say you recall incorrectly but it’s obvious what you pretend is a “recollection” is merely what you think is easiest to argue. In reality schools admitted they engaged in affirmative action but hid the nature of this. For example they explained AA meant outreach to majority black schools to ensure students took specific classes required by the universities, carefully excising any admission of quotas or race preferences.

                  1. Uh, i’ts not a recollection, it’s in the opinion I would imagine.

                    1. I would imagine.

                      It’s interesting to note you argue from fantasy while whining the slippery slope is illegitimate. Truly you have strong standards. No doubt tomorrow you’ll argue the exact opposite.

            3. And define many.

              1. adjective
                determiner: many; pronoun: many; adjective: many; comparative adjective: more; superlative adjective: most

                a large number of.

                1. A large number is an ambiguous statement with no way of measuring it empirically. Was it 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% etc? It’s a cop out to paint the argument of a large group of people by using a weasel word such as many.

                  1. “Reliable anonymous sources say. . . . “

                  2. As I mentioned below a percentage request is silly. Many isn’t a ‘weasel word,’ life doesn’t lend itself to exact percentages in, well, many contexts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made this argument, for one.

                    1. A percentage is a valid request and many is a weasel word used to paint the argument of some of the movement as the argument of the entire movement or the majority. If not percentages can you state if it was a majority, a plurality or a minority argument?

                    2. What’s pedantic about this is that it was a *significant* argument. The Chief Justice used it in his dissent in the gay marriage case.

                    3. And you assume I agreed or even read the chief justices dissent? Was it a minority, plurality or majority of the anti gay marriage movement who made the polygamy argument. Come on just answer.

                    4. “Was it a minority, plurality or majority of the anti gay marriage movement who made the polygamy argument.”

                      Holy shit, this proves the pedanticsm. And you actually don’t know it, do you?

                    5. I don’t know it because I have never seen empirical evidence as to how many of the movement made this argument do you have that data. Again, I also don’t know because you refuse to use any sort of empirical data to support your thesis. Common can be one person making an argument repeatedly or 10% making an argument repeatedly. Ten percent can be many. Would you describe it as a majority argument, a plurality argument or a minority argument? And if so how do you conclude this?

                    6. Many isn’t a ‘weasel word’

                      That would depend in the context. In the context you are using it, it definitely is.

                      The definition of many that you provided was ‘a large number of’. The ‘of’ is important. Using many to describe a small minority of a population is disingenuous even if the overall number is not small.

                      4 out of 10 can properly be described as many. 4 out of 20 stretches the definition to weaselly lengths. 4 out of 100 does not equate to ‘a large number of’ and is without question misleading.

                      Likewise, it may seem that ‘many’ could always be used as a descriptor for a sub-group of 1,000,000. But 1,000,000 out of a population of 330,000,000 is not many. It is few.

                      Soldiermedic is being honest in describing the number of advocates for pedophilia out of those arguing for gay marriage. You are not being honest in describing the number of people using the slippery slope argument in regards to gay marriage.

                2. By define I meant for you to provide a percentage, an unambiguous empirical data point not a textbook definition that proves my pint about how ambiguous the word is.

                  1. That’s pedantic in this context. To illustrate, let me ask you, what percentage of supporters of gay marriage are now supporting pedophilia?

                    See how pedantic your point here is?

                    1. The percentage is small but growing. I would label it as a minority movement at this point but evidence suggests it is growing. As to the extent of that growth, only time will tell. You could easily have stated majority argument, or plurality or a minority but you chose many, which is ambiguous to ridicule the argument of a large, diverse movement. This gives no context and implies it was the main or a main counterargument. That isn’t being pendantic (and what is wrong with being accurate which I am sure you consider being pendantry)? Didn’t you take issue with a misspelled name to discount someone’s argument and yet you have the nerve to label others pedantic.

                    2. Oh, good grief, you really need it, don’t you?

                      Google gay marriage polygamy.

                      It was a common argument against gay marriage. As in ‘many.’

                    3. Common again by whom, a majority, a minority or a plurality of the movement? A minority can make a common argument, e.g. as in repeated often, but that doesn’t make it the view of the majority. Common is another weasel word to get around providing empirical evidence. Ad a scientist I reject the terms many or common as they are ambiguous.

                    4. And can’t be measured empirically.

            4. I guess this is inevitable with ‘slippery slope’ arguments.

              And yet we see the slippery slope exists. That’s how we end up with left wingers claiming expecting blacks to show up on time or whites having a positive attitude toward work and accomplishment ae white supremacy. It is revealing though that so many left wingers deride things that obviously happen. Sometimes I suspect their support or denial of any statement is based solely on whether that statement helps their political goals without regard to reality.

              1. But *it doesn’t!* That’s my point. There’s no more significant move to polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia.

                This is why slippery slope arguments are classified as a logical fallacy.

                1. There’s no more significant move to polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia.

                  There was to race preferences, gay marriage, sex inquisitions, and CRT leading to bigotry and discrimination.

                  1. What percent was that movement? Or else soldier guy will swoop in here because he’s totes principled and not motivated to pedantic statements!

                    1. I backed up my statement by stating it was a minority movement at this point. Notice you haven’t done even that but changed many to common. And what exactly is wrong with asking for accuracy and empirical data? What you label as pedantry I label as being accurate and empirical.

                    2. What percent was that movement?

                      Why? Do you believe race preferences only exist if a certain percentage of people support them?

    2. I would agree with the “revealing” part, not so much the “strange” part.

      1. I think it’s strange for people who set so much store by “reason” they name their magazine after it to refuse to engage it. But I agree it’s not strange as in “unusual”.

  32. But the NEA is an extremely powerful union and one that works on behalf of whichever set of politicians promises to pay them more.

    Fixed that for you.

    1. Wrong. It is an explicitly leftist organization
      that does not support Republicans in affluent suburbs who pay their teachers more than in the D Machine controlled inner cities.
      Their primary focus is not even education, which is why they get involved in Trans rights, BDS, etc. They are just a propaganda wing of the D party

  33. If only crackpot right-wing extremists and the NEA believe all the nonsense about what CRT means then I assume we will soon be hearing protests from the teachers who are being forced to teach this abhorrent, bastardized version of CRT? If, on the other hand, we don’t hear of massive protests from the teachers over the NEA’s ridiculous assertions about what CRT means, can we assume that most teachers are on board with this definition of CRT and you’re full of shit about what CRT “means”?

    And just for the record, my understanding of CRT is that race and racism does not just play a role in history and human relations but that it plays a critical role, that is, you cannot possibly understand history or human relations without reference to race and racism, that race and racism is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history. And what isn’t racism isn’t anything important enough to be worth knowing. Which is why you aren’t going to be learning about anything that happened prior to 1619.

    1. And just for the record, my understanding of CRT is that race and racism does not just play a role in history and human relations but that it plays a critical role, that is, you cannot possibly understand history or human relations without reference to race and racism, that race and racism is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history. And what isn’t racism isn’t anything important enough to be worth knowing. Which is why you aren’t going to be learning about anything that happened prior to 1619.

      See my descriptions above, and in the ENB morning thread.

      1. “that race and racism is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history. And what isn’t racism isn’t anything important enough to be worth knowing.”

        There’s a warp drive level shift between what came before this excerpt and this excerpt.

        I mean, good fucking grief. The idea of ‘intersectionality’ which is blamed on CRT all the time by conservatives, on it’s face blows up this claim.

        1. I tried to follow your logic. But it turned out to be impossible.

          1. OK. There’s a gap between saying ‘X plays a critical role in explaining something’ and ‘X is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history.’

            1. Yet there isn’t. You’re striving to make a distinction without a difference.

              1. There’s no gap between saying ‘X plays a critical role in explaining something’ and ‘X is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history.’

                Lol, explain! I mean, something=/=every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history to start, right?

                1. Yes, you are making a distinction without a difference based on pedantic reading of a comment section post.

                  When you have to go to this level of pedantry, you’ve already lost the battle.

                  1. Upthread she takes me to tasks for asking for a definition of “many” that is empirical and not ambiguous.

                    1. I saw that! She also goes off on Diane for misspelling a name. When a person has to resort to being a grammar nazi in arguments, they have already lost.

                    2. I am betting she is a social science major because she debates like one. No hard scientist would quibble with asking for a percentage or even just asking for a simple definition such as majority, minority or plurality.

                    3. “‘X plays a critical role in explaining something’ and ‘X is a necessary and sufficient explanation for every single thing that has ever happened in all of human history.’”

                      Can you not see the difference? Lol.

                    4. It’s a minor distinction without a difference. You can keep hammering at your pedantic grammar claims, but it really just shows you have no argument.

                    5. You can keep hammering at your pedantic grammar claims, but it really just shows you have no argument.

                      This is what leftists resort to, time after time after time, when any kind of active resistance is made against their agenda.

                      Well, that and screeching “fascist!”

        2. You put an apostrophe in “it’s” where it doesn’t belong. By your logic everything else you say is suspect. [see comments above]

          1. Lol, except I’m not opining on a grand theory of contractions (nice ‘logic’!).

            1. The analogy stands. It is a logical analogy based upon the fact that your main thesis was if the original poster misspelled the name maybe their whole argument is wrong because maybe they got more information wrong as well.

              1. I’m still waiting on a 1500 word abstract on the grand theory of Marxism as it relates to social theories of the day; and no misspellings.

    2. Weve already heard the prorests. Quite vociferous, indeed, in Loudon County, and elsewhere. It says a lot about your chosen sources of information that you havent

  34. It will always be an amazement to me that the most progressive institutions in this country are schools and academia. Yet, progressives continue to demand more and more progressive bullshit all while they are the most prominent people who complain about how stupid students in this country are and how bad our education system compares to the rest of the world.

    If there was a semblance of introspection, things would get fixed pretty quickly.

  35. Chemjeff, Tony hardest hit.

    I feel like there were a good 40 comments at least between the two of them that “this stuff isnt being taught” to “this stuff is only being taught to graduate students / law students who sign up for it”

    Looking forward to the next goalpost move now that they have had a plethora of examples of it being taught, encouraged, and adopted for teaching (indoctrination) in the K-12 period. Also that it always results in straight up racism where these activist teachers adopt it. Thats a tough one to get around too.

  36. Idaho’s K-12 civics and U.S. history standards ranked ‘inadequate’ in new report

    Rep. Adam Kinzinger suspects fellow GOP lawmakers knew what…
    Costco Is Getting Rid of This at the End of the Month

    Jun. 30—Idaho’s K-12 U.S. history and civics standards are “inadequate” and should undergo a complete revision, according to a new report.

    The report, called “The State of State Standards for Civics and U.S. History in 2021,” from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, gave every state across the country and Washington, D.C., a grade to evaluate the quality of their K-12 civics and U.S. history standards.

    Idaho got a D for its civics standards and an F for its U.S. history standards. Both subjects got low scores for clarity and organization, as well as content and rigor.

    I’m sure public schools will succeed at teaching CRT just like their success at teaching other subjects.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. I have faith that the school system will be highly successful at CRT because it doesn’t require anything empirical. It merely makes assertions without fact. Racism is there, it’s everywhere, white people perpetuate it. You can’t see it, you can’t touch it, but it’s there. Test tomorrow.

      1. Right. Political loyalty is easy compared to production or excellence in any field. That’s why it’s embraced loudest by mediocrities and dissenters tend to be much better thinkers.

  37. The solution is simple. Get rid of government schools. Don’t try to get Republicans in charge, they will still be government schools. Don’t try to get all charter schools, those are still schools under government control. Instead focus on the real problem which is not tribal identity but the fact that the government is in charge of schools.

    We can get there from here, but we can’t do it in one step. First step will be to fully legalize private schools and homeschooling. Second is to move to a tuition voucher or tax credit system. Make it so parents don’t have to pay twice. Then we can start ramping down government schools.

    Attack the real problem instead of this endless tribal warfare. As a kid it was “change agents in our schools”, then teaching godless evolution, then new math, etc., etc. Now it’s CRT. But the problem is not CRT, the problem is that they are government schools.

    1. “The solution is simple. Get rid of government schools.”

      Agreed. But until that is done we also need to prevent this pernicious racist claptrap from being taught to students.

    2. Its so simpke indeed. How many weeks do you think it will take?

  38. https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/06/chicago-fourth-4th-july-fireworks-injuries-police-officer-crime-stats-data/

    Seems like the vast majority of those arrested in Chicago were NOT celebrating America’s birthday. And yet, Mayor Lightfoot continues to claim white racism (against blacks) is the cause of most violence in the city.

    1. I doubt if Cook County DA (who refused to charge Jesse Smollett for faking a racist attack and lying about it) Kim Foxx will actually prosecute any of those arrested in Chicago on July 4th, which is likely why the criminals decided to commit the crimes.

  39. More racists running for the exits as the light is shined upon them.

  40. Today in libertarian news and commentary.

    The divisive plan to ‘decolonise’ our schools

    The National Education Union claims that every aspect of the school day perpetuates racism.

    The National Education Union (NEU), Britain’s largest teaching union, has lost the plot. After spending the past year demonising children as vectors of disease, ‘who are mucky, who spread germs’ and need to be ‘sprayed front and back with disinfectant’, it is now coming after education itself.

    In a new report out this week, ostensibly focused on tackling racism, the NEU says there is an ‘urgent’ need to ‘decolonise’ every subject and every stage of the school curriculum. It wants teachers trained and equipped with tools to ‘make white privilege and colonialism visible’ in schools.

    NEU high-ups are happiest when children are not in school and not being taught at home, either. But if teachers are to be forced to sit in classrooms, the NEU would prefer them to indoctrinate their young charges with ideas about ‘white privilege’ than do anything as ‘hierarchical’ as impart knowledge. Its latest divisive project not only racialises children, by pushing them to see each other as members of distinct ethnic groups, but it also gets in the way of teaching knowledge that could have a truly transformative impact on young lives. As always, it will be children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds – those reliant on education to improve their life chances – who will lose out most of all.

    1. It’s not happening.

      Ok… we’ll… ok, it’s happening but it’s not like you say.

      Fuck you, it’s happening, and you better get on board.

      1. Rinse, repeat.

  41. Conservatives have to torture the definition of CRT to make it sound evil. But they are good at demonizing the opposition for political purposes.

    I have read four definitions of CRT today and none of them espoused Marxism. Maybe the Wingnut.com definition does – not sure.

    That said CRT is not a suitable topic for K-12. It just isn’t important enough.

    1. From the guy who thinks the 3/5ths rule was a racist act.

    2. “they are good at demonizing the opposition”

      But enough about progressives

    3. You don’t need CRT. All schools need to do is get the BIPOC kids straight As if they can write their name and the white and Asian kids no grade higher than a C-.

    4. Seriously, how long can you play ignorant on this before it becomes too intellectually dishonest even for you?

      1. “Opposition to liberalism” is a self-admitted core tenet of CRT, but that doesn’t make it Marxist or anything.

        Why, just compare this:

        As his thinking developed, Marx became skeptical of transhistorical appeals to values like freedom, contending that liberalism was unreflective about its own roots in changing economic relations. This blinded liberals to how the freedoms guaranteed by liberal law were still constrained by the inequality and exploitation of capitalism.

        To this (from the CRT deck I linked to this AM):

        The idea of meritocracy allows the empowered—the status
        quo—to feel “good” and have a clear conscience: many would ask why the powerful would not have a clear conscience since they maintain a majority of the wealth and power in society

        Totally unrelated!

    5. “I have read four definitions of CRT today and none of them espoused Marxism.”

      Case. Closed.

    6. A complaint about demonizing the opposition from the side that calls EVERYBODY that disagrees with them racist and fascist. Self awareness isn’t your strong suit is it?

  42. The good thing about CRT is, we can easily identify the real racists. All you need to is sit quietly and wait for the usual suspects to come out defending it.

  43. The implication is that these critiques are aspects of critical race theory, which in a weird way makes this an example of the activist left basically accepting the activist right’s new working definition of CRT as “all of the various cultural insanities.”

    The activist right seems to have been informed by the activist left’s various leaked documents, so it’s possible all agreed on the definition early on.

    1. It’s an almost pathologically bizarre way of describing what’s going on.

      1. This new framing started 3 or 4 weeks ago… “That isn’t critical race theory”. Then it became “the right wing construction…”

        This is just another version of “Republicans Pounce”. Just as the left is now trying to blame republicans for refunding the police, no torture of language or human memory is too great. After all, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

    2. new working definition of CRT

      And that gave me a chuckle.

    3. “The activist right seems to have been informed by the activist left’s various leaked documents”

      Leaked is a funny way to say published.

      There is nothing esoteric about any of it, nor are their goals a mystery. Critical Theory was expressly created to ‘solve’ the shortcomings of original Marxism. Which even avowed Marxist recognized to be a complete and utter failure.

  44. I’d have more respect for the left if they didn’t constantly lie about everything. They’ve been pushing CRT leftist orthodoxy for years and when people wake up they deflect.

    At least the really far left people I know are so radical they don’t know they are supposed to lie. They’ve literally told me in person that the whole reason for government schools, free college, etc, is to unlearn students from what their parents have taught them, and to only teach students their worldview.

    1. I’d have more respect for the left if they didn’t constantly lie about everything. They’ve been pushing CRT leftist orthodoxy for years and when people wake up they deflect.

      Just look at any thread on this here over the last week.

  45. I can not help but wonder if we could be heading to a new version of the Scope’s trial with some teacher accused of teaching CRT? Who will be the new Clarence Darrow and new William Jennings Bryan? Could be interesting.

    1. Can we go ahead and start teaching children Objectivism in public schools?

      1. No. What’s wrong with you?! You actually want children to learn and grow intellectually from schooling?! That is not what schooling in the US is for.

    2. Once again, we have ways of dealing with this that aren’t particularly controversial.

      We don’t need a law that says “don’t teach kids that having two dads is ‘immoral'” because when that happens, the school system can deal with it.

      But when they start teaching that “critical thinking” is a phenomenon of white people and a way to perpetuate white, European hegemony, no one knows what to do.

      1. It goes back to the culture’s inability to deal with these ideas, for fear of opposing them. If a paid, functioning teacher who is an agent of the state, publicly gets on a stage and says, “Black children are incapable of thinking analytically”, it shouldn’t be controversial to forcefully condemn those remarks (at minimum) and at maximum, sanction or fire the teacher who made them. The fact that we all sit around, nod, then tie analytical thinking to white, European hegemony and then create a workshop to fight white supremacy by dividing the children into racial subgroups, tells you all you need to know about how far we’ve fallen.

  46. As usual, it is the throat clearing that draws the objections.

    The NEA accepted the conservative framing? Really? Do we really believe they made any of this stuff up?

    Robby is quite fluent in the issues involved here.. so why does he pawn off the crazy-town Kendi and DeAngelo versions as some right wing construction? When we are talking CRT in education and business in 2021, we are talking about these folks, not some alt-version of the framing of US history in academic journals.

    “White people are inherently racist” is a core tenet, not some crazy right wing canard. “Science is racist” is also a core tenet, as is “logic is a tool of whiteness”.

    Why pretend that they are pushing something else? What is the point of claiming that they don’t really mean what they say and it is all just a nutty right wing conspiracy theory? All you have to do is visit their websites or look at the curriculum they push.

    1. No no, ignore the clear, easily found references in the canonical texts of CRT theorists. It’s all made up by Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson!

    2. CUCKER CARLSON MADE UP HIS OWN DEFINITION OF CRT, AND THE NEA UNWITTINGLY PARODIED IT! OMG, THOSE REPUBLICANS ARE SO DASTARDLY, THAT THEY CAN MAKE THE LEFT DO STUFF WITH JEDI MIND TRICKS!

  47. Oh good grief. Robby gets it wrong.

    The statement literally says:

    “It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory,”

    Yes, curriculum should be informed by academic frameworks, INCLUDING critical race theory. Not “CRT as the only literal truth”. Not “CRT is the only academic framework that is worth considering”. But CRT as ONE OF MANY academic frameworks.

    This is what all of the anti-CRT people have been saying all along that they support, right? That they are fine with teaching CRT, or anti-racism pedagogy in general (in an age-appropriate manner), as one of many items of discussion, but not with teaching CRT as if it were the single and only literal truth that is out there. That is exactly what the NEA is saying. They are not defending CRT as literal truth. They are defending academic inquiry, and defending the idea that CRT is one of many ideas that deserve to be discussed in the classroom.

    Robby is just giving cover to the grifters and demagogues on the right who don’t have an original idea about racism or race relations, don’t care, and only use the issue cynically to scare people, demonize the opposition, and gain power for themselves. To them, every angry parent who shows up at a school board meeting thinking that their kids are being taught to “hate whitey” is a potential voter for their tribe. That’s all this is.

    1. ^ Bargaining Phase

      1. LOL! They had to pivot to that phase quickly when they realized how toxic actual CRT is.

      2. Coping and seething from conservatives pouncing.

      3. Half year CRT, half year intelligent design.

      4. I like the parenthetical ‘age appropriate’ Jeff has inserted, adding it to the NEA intent. If one is going to lie, lie big, right?

        1. Strike that, It was him expressing his desire. Equally foolish, but I own my mistake.

    2. It’s funny watching you leftists squirm with CRT getting so called out like it is.

      What’s even better is making an argument that CRT is only one of many academic frameworks to use. Yet, this shows either you don’t understand CRT, or that you are cool being intellectually dishonest about it.

      Tell me, how can there be other academic frameworks incorporated when CRT is specifically built to impact all frameworks and systems?

      1. 1. I’m not a “leftist”, I’m simply someone who doesn’t buy in to the mindless hysteria of Team Red.

        2. How can there be other academic frameworks? I don’t know, maybe because not everyone subscribes to CRT, and that’s totally okay? Yes, CRT tries to explain everything in the context of its framework. Other frameworks also try to explain everything in different ways. That a theory tries to explain everything doesn’t mean that the explanation is necessarily correct.

        1. If you defend the teaching of a marxist framework, sorry, you are a leftist.

          And you equating teaching about something with teaching using a particular framework is a bit of what’s wrong with the argument. I have no problem if people want to teach about what CRT is. I have a problem if people want to use CRT as the basis for their teaching. Two very different things.

    3. You’re interpreting NEA’s use of the term “academic framework” as if they’re willing submit to a fair and neutral regulatory system that governs discourse. Given how much muscle the teacher’s union flexes their muscle to threaten, dismiss or demonize parents’ objections, I’d say they’re just blabbering word salad.

      CRT will teach FORMATIVE minds that racism is baked into every aspect of society, that free market and capitalism is bad, and gap in social tiers can be explained by bigotry of every description – ableism, transphobia, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, the list can go on and on. This is different from some left wing college professor spreading propaganda to 20 year olds, who can choose not to attend any “theory” courses if it’s not mandated and can scope out the professor and the course using online resources.

      Would you let public schools teach 8-13 year olds that immigration is bad and undocumented aliens can hurt you? A curriculum pushed and designed by restrictionist activist? As long as they’re also taught the other side of the debate? Why do young students read Aesop’s tale and picture books, and not exposed to Ayn Rand or the communist manifesto?

      CRT is barely academic theory, it’s simply an ideological position. Look at how NEA omitted Marxism, communism, and anti semitism from the LONG ASS LIST of “powers of oppression”. You think that’s by mistake? Indeed, the CRT crew is already on board as characterizing Israel as a apartheid state. The whole concept drips of bias and agenda.

      It doesn’t matter what CRT was or how it was intended to be taught. It will be used to indoctrinate young minds by ideologically driven teacher’s union. Look at how they spit at parents who raise concerns, you think these people can be neutral and encourage dissenting point of view? They’ll instill the notion in the minds of young minority students that the white kids next to them are racist, will be successful by default due to race while any shortcoming that falls on POCs is due to structural society.

      It will sow distrust and division all throughout the nation, starting from the earliest age. You either think this is fine or you’re sticking to your schtick of “the other side is just as bad” rather than recognize evil from the progressive establishment.

      1. CRT will teach FORMATIVE minds that racism is baked into every aspect of society,

        And here we have the BUT FOR THE CHILDREN rationale for banning ideas from the classroom. OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! Yes I want students exposed to different ideas and different positions, and have to think critically about them. Don’t you?

        And the rest of your drivel is just anger against public teacher unions. Fine you hate public teacher’s unions. Then it doesn’t matter what the topic is, you’ll object to whatever they do.

        1. Sure. I want 2nd graders exposed to the idea that if they’re white they should be ashamed of themselves and should apologize for their part in slavery. Taught that their parents are racist, and that if their parents deny being so it proves that they are. Seems totally reasonable.

          Have you openly apologized for your part in the Tulsa Massacre yet?

          1. I want second graders taught age-appropriate lessons on the topic. Sound good to you?

            1. There is no age-appropriate lesson plan on the topic for children that young. Further, since the entire theory is a social theory, not a set of facts, it has little place in primary school until high school. Any defense saying otherwise is little more than capitulating to indoctrination of the young, which seems to be the point.

        2. Hmmm, I dont recall your defense of exposing children to Intelligent Design, Spontaneous Generation, 5 Point Calvinism, Original Sin and the need to be Born Again, or American Exceptionalism

    4. Robby is just giving cover to the grifters and demagogues on the right who don’t have an original idea about racism or race relations, don’t care, and only use the issue cynically to scare people, demonize the opposition, and gain power for themselves. To them, every angry parent who shows up at a school board meeting thinking that their kids are being taught to “hate whitey” is a potential voter for their tribe. That’s all this is.

      There’s that good faith about the out-group that we’ve all come to expect from you. Thanks for keeping things civil around here.

      1. Yeah I don’t think Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are arguing in good faith about CRT. So sue me.

        1. The cultural Marxists have about a 55-year head start on them.

    5. So why did they forget to teach Objectivism in k-12?

  48. The two valuable functions CRT to society go unnoticed. CRT is an ad absurdum essay, of gratuitous exaggeration; this is inferiority complex’s Swan Song.

    CRT will become a case study for Logic101 classes: spot the spurious, pop quiz.

  49. That said, the National Education Association (NEA) appears to have accepted the conservative framing of CRT: namely, that it’s not merely confined to academia but is in fact also being taught in K-12 schools. And the NEA thinks this is a good thing that should be defended.

    On a personal note, I was thinking some time ago… wondering why so many people were drawn to CRT, and why people enter into these bizarre, contorted arguments in an attempt to defend it. And I would assume that if I met these people, I would probably find them otherwise intelligent, reasonable people. Then it hit me. They’re not drawn to CRT at all, they’re merely terrified of opposing it.

    Being drawn to a set of ideas is a very different thing than being terrified of opposing them.

    For me, it didn’t take long for me to internalize that when you’re discussing CRT with one of its proponents, you’re not getting out of being called a racist, you’re already a racist. That part of the discussion is done before it started. That knowledge helps free you up to forcefully oppose CRT without having to go into any obsequious apologetics, with but-fors and to-be-sures and to-be-clear recognitions of this or that obvious injustice that you certainly oppose and are totally against…

    You can call this what it is: a racist shitstorm of stupidity.

    Just get yourself into the headspace of a Tarantino-esque dialog. If you’re white and you’re defending CRT, YOU’RE A RACIST, and “there ain’t no way you’re talking your way out of this shit”. Trust me, it makes it easier to liberate yourself to discuss this ideology on its merits– or lack thereof.

  50. CRT defenders, this article was written for you

    White People, Please Stop Declaring Yourself Allies
    Here’s why I’m troubled by the resurgence of ally culture: You don’t get a badge of honor for helping to dismantle the racist system you’re complicit in.

    There is no other way to put this than bluntly: Racism is a white person’s problem to solve.

    While racism harms Black and brown people directly, it is caused solely by white people’s actions and cultural influence. Racism manifests in various forms that include anti-Blackness, microaggressions, colorism, white privilege, white fragility, white supremacy, and implicit bias. These routine abuses, which have been instituted and normalized by white people over hundreds of years, have produced slavery, Jim Crow laws, mass incarceration, redlining, voter suppression, police brutality, gaps in education and wealth, and numerous other human rights violations. White people unconsciously and subconsciously perpetuate racism to the point that the simple act of declaring “Black Lives Matter” is seen as a political stance rather than the statement of an incontrovertible fact.

    1. White people say they want to be an ally to Black people. But are they ready for sacrifice?

      If the White people in my life could hit a button and instantly remove the privileges afforded to them along racial lines, would they hit that button?

      1. DiAngelo could start by donating all of her book proceeds to black organizations and humbly live in a 1700’s type shack.

      2. I’ve read plenty of screeds along these lines from black activists, and I know plenty of white progressives who would agree with every word. None of them have given up their wealth to black people yet.

  51. Racism is learned it cannot be inherent. Watch children play and make friends.

    Science has proven that race as we think of it does not exist.

    Racism exists and I can accept that it can manifest in subtle ways. I can accept that white dominance in America still has traces left. So show me what those are and let’s change it. It stops there for me.

    In history the concept did not exist as we know it until relatively modern times. People identified by clan, tribe, place of origin, nationality, religion, but race had little or nothing to do with it.

    So I grew up in the era when we thought civil rights had triumphed, or close to it. This is not new and not a revolution in discourse. It should be dealt with on an intellectual level without all this fuss.

    Drove through some of the Deep South last week and saw names familiar to me, Selma, Tuskegee, Montgomery. All that happened there was just in my lifetime. One generation. It will take longer. This is just another flare up,

    Malcom X was a controversial person he said this.

    “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, my brothers and sisters—Plymouth Rock landed on us.”

    He was right about that.

    He also said

    “I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color.”

    He was right about that too.

    1. Racism is learned it cannot be inherent. Watch children play and make friends.

      Kind of. Racism as we define it, based on the best historical research popped up around the 15th century, and then became more codified in Europe around the 17th century. As some have posited, a possible system of justifying things like slavery and other forms of human exploitation (See, diane, all you’re doing is teaching CRT, ’cause that’s all it’s saying, maaan!).

      But as human beings, it’s kind of in our DNA to spot ‘differences’. It’s a survival mechanism. The human mind kind of can’t help but sort and categorize things. So the act of ‘noticing differences’ and acting upon them in any way could be construed as a form of racism. (In this context, racism is to be wholly separated from the context of “white supremacy”). Two things that are very different, but overlap on a venn diagram.

      1. “Kind of. Racism as we define it, based on the best historical research popped up around the 15th century, and then became more codified in Europe around the 17th century. ”

        To a certain extent, yes. But we should also recognize that when Churchill spoke of “the English speaking peoples” he too was considering them as a particular race.

        One certainly of a shared culture, but one NOT limited by color of skin.

    2. JFC what an incredible load of shit

    3. Race, ethnicity is genetic, thus the serial liar Liz Warren’s DNA test to attempt to prove 1st Nations lineage. Your experience’s I can’t speak to. X is always on point, but it is important to recall that he realized that white leftists were damaging the black communities more than any other issue, exactly like today.

  52. Just as it doesn’t matter what “True Communism” is, it matters what people do in the name of Communism. True Communism has never existed, and never will because it is impossible, but people are still trying and getting people killed along the way to achieve the impossible.

    It does not matter what “True Critical Race Theory” actually is, it matters what people do in it’s name. The people spouting they are true believers are also teaching racism, inequality, and victimhood.

    The left will play word games any opportunity they get. Don’t let them.

    1. Very well said.

    2. Double plus good.

      Now report to room 101.

  53. Just like the USSR, we keep doubling down on stupid-think under the presumption that if “plan A” isn’t working it must only be because we haven’t enough of it.

  54. CRT should be taught. The IDEA of CRT and what it is, not teaching through the lens of CRT.

    If you don’t know what CRT is then you won’t know when someone is using it on you.

    But rather than CRT specifically, teach the students what critical theory is at the broader level so they can understand when someone is using the lens of race or gender or class, etc. in order to lie or mislead them later in life.

    Everyone should know what CT and CRT is so they can spot it. A school should not allow a teacher to teach through the lens of CT / CRT.

  55. His can anyone think teaching this to children is reasonable or acceptable. Does anyone see hope on the horizon? Anyone?

    1. Rupert Murdoch will presumably die sometime soon, so that’s something.

      1. You first

  56. There is a lack of reason in this Reason bit by Robby. He weirdly attempts to find a middle ground of acceptability for the left view while joining their cocktail party claiming the right’s CRT conspiratorial problem. But he goes on to confirm that the right is correct while never leaving the left cocktail party.

    1. Mrs Soave is federal government Human Resources. Robbie has to say “Latinx” at home.

    2. Where? Where in his article did he try to go for middle ground?

  57. I’m old enough to remember one week ago when Robby wrote “Savvier liberals are correct, for instance, that CRT, as defined by the people who actually coined the term, mostly exists in academia, not K-12 classrooms. This means that Republican legislative efforts to protect kids from CRT are actually targeting a wide swath of only semi-related progressive concepts.”

    Perhaps that was a claim by Robby that could’ve used some more scrutiny. The left loves to hide in the semantic weeds when their bad ideas are exposed to sunlight.

    1. “I’m old enough to remember one week ago when Robby wrote…”

      It’s always year Zero, comrade.

  58. We were taught the first slave owner was a black man, very few slaves were ever “captured” by the Portuguese and the vast majority were bought at slave auctions owned by Muslims, less than 10% even came to the colonies and U.S., conditions on ships were terrible, slaves were used on farms and plantations, they were also used for manual labor on in other areas used to fill in when there weren’t enough other workers, the number of slaves dropped until the Cotton Gin was invented, there were laws passed which supported slavery, the economic value of cotton was around 6% of GDP every year, free black men helped in the Revolutionary, War of 1812, Mexican American, Civil and every other war afterward even though they were segregated, the Big Red One and Tuskegee Airmen, some plantation owners and the overseers were god awful, after the Civil War and Reconstruction southern states passed Jim Crow Laws and courts upheld them, a LOT of white people who never owned slaves or fought were utterly destroyed by Reconstruction, the “Confederate Flag” was never the Confederate flag and was used in one battle, it was flown by white and black people alike all over the south to show defiance to the “Carpetbaggers” who came and took everything they could from everyone, some black men and women became very wealthy including the woman who licensed her likeness for Mrs. Butterworth, the KKK and Democratic Party were almost synonymous, cops in the south could be brutal to black people, there were lynchings, many white Republicans were also hung or shot, Hoover shut down the KKK lasting years, the end of segregation began with Brown vs. Board of Education, KKK rose again in the 50’s in opposition to civil rights marches, they took the “Confederate flag” for their use and always flew it next to the U.S. flag, until the Civil Rights Act was passed black unemployment was 6% for decades, the more well known Civil Rights activists, thousands of black owned businesses went under after the act was made law. There were still KKK members in Congress in the 80’s, as well as many of the black people who made substantial contributions to the country but received little recognition, if any. This was most of my history lessons about history involving black people in high school in the mid-80’s. So what did I miss? As I understand Critical Race Theory, and it is still recognized as a theory, nearly the entire existence of the United States was nothing more than an exercise to suppress black people. Even though there was no where near enough population of black people to do so, everything in the country was built by them until the end of slavery. No white people ever worked. The economic value of cotton approached 3/4 of the entire value of all economic activity in the country, including the value of gold, silver, copper, iron, coal, being mined, by the beginning of the Civil War. Unless I am missing something, I think it is a little far out there from reality and even the records kept by educated free black men and women at that time.

    1. ” So what did I miss?”

      Check this book out:
      http://library.lol/main/4BB561929371CC0431F5934D11E85D81

      If you’re not familiar with Jesse James and his gang and what they did during and after the civil war in Kansas and Missouri, it was truly and repellently vicious, with scalping, accessorizing with the ears and fingers and fingers of dead Republicans, and so on, you won’t be able to fathom the pervasive rancor that America’s racial divide carries with it.

      1. Holding out the most extreme example in a set as a useful learning tool goes against the scientific method.

        1. They made the civil war truly civil. ie Brought the war to the civilians, as opposed to leaving it to the generals like Lee and Grant. Check out the comments that gush forth here on a daily basis about the next civil war, and tell me then how the James gang has nothing to teach us.

          1. You’ll be amongst the first against the wall, turd.

  59. It’s not a theory it’s an indoctrination of a certain perspective that does not admit competitors, like Marxism itself. If you want evidence then let schools mandate that it be taught by people who take exception to it and watch the hue and cry heard round leftist social mediate. They don’t want education; they want converts. It’s cultish.

    1. It is cultish. Marxism is cultish. That’s why communist regimes murder dissenters. You MUST believe as the cult does.

  60. A study of teachers nationwide that I read yesterday said that no, it’s not being taught in most places, and the vast majority of teachers are not under any pressure to teach it. One big conclusion of the study was that this is a big red herring being pushed by the Trumpers to rile people up and generate donations to their cause.

  61. Gotta love that the NEA just took the progressive argument out back and shot it.

  62. When republicans come back into power, mandate the use of cameras in the classroom. We make police officers wear them cause they are public officials, we can do the same with teachers. Moreover, they have been teaching via cameras for over a year now in some cases. There is no real reason to oppose it. The fact that they were being monitored would keep them inline.

  63. So – for those of you looking for the required Marxism in CRT, please point it out in Frederick Douglas’ speech on July 5, 1862 to the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester NY

    What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?

    1. We don’t want Marxism, we want chattel slavery like God intended!

      1. “If the White people in my life could hit a button and instantly remove the privileges afforded to them along racial lines, would they hit that button?”

        1. John Brown hit that button.

        2. Our culture permits rather a lot of latitude in tolerating those who keep what they didn’t earn, but that’s not what libertarians are supposed to believe.

          1. The CDC’s eviction ban receives little criticism.

            If only Obama’s logic would be applied to the squatters, “You didn’t build that.”

          2. So you wouldn’t actually hit the button. Thanks for confirming that.

            1. I know my share of oppression. I had to lie about a core part of my identity for my entire adolescence, to everyone, in a culture that might bash my head in for my mannerisms, ostracize me from my family for my deviancy, or treat me like an untouchable because of a disease some friends of mine had.

              I’ll keep my white male privilege, thank you very much, and I’ll cherish it like the most valuable thing I own. I also inherited a Hummel figure. Didn’t put any effort into either one, and that’s OK, because life isn’t fair.

              But I will also not actively participate in the continued oppression of other people because of the random circumstances of their birth. That’s where my disgust reaction kicks in. Yours?

                1. What kind of monster thinks that being ethically correct is the same as pointing out perceived hypocrisies in other people?

                  Your mistake is assuming that anyone wants to take anything away from you. You’ll be left with uncountable unearned privileges. Just not the privilege to oppress. Sorry.

                  1. I’m still laughing at your previous post. That may be better than the collectivist one or the one about “white culture.”

                    To be fair, part pf me thinks you are one-upping OBL in a Kaufmann-esque way. And if you are, you’ve fooled the room.

                    1. It would be a mistake to take my posts too seriously, as I have no deeply held beliefs.

              1. I know my share of oppression.

                Not according to the golem you’re trying to point at other white people.

                I’ll keep my white male privilege, thank you very much, and I’ll cherish it like the most valuable thing I own.

                Dare you to say that to a black person’s face.

                1. Except for the specific phrase itself which reeks of pretentious outside a sociology class, there is nothing wrong with that at all. You think they don’t already know that? FFS that’s the goal – to get some of that – not to take it from others.

                  The most useful conversation I ever had re race was during drinks after a round of golf. We were all just out of college, working at the same company, hi income, no kids yet – and we all had niceish sports cars (before SUV’s killed those off). The conversation got around to getting stopped by cops. It wasn’t like the Four Yorkshiremen but basically we were enjoying one-up type stories about getting stopped once or twice or three times a year for this or that. Maybe complaining about that and mouthing off to the cop to see what we could get away with – getting off with a ticket or so. Notably quiet were the two blacks in the group. Someone pulled them into the conversation – and suddenly the one-up game found winners. They were getting stopped twice a month – one had just been stopped on the way to the golf course. They were getting stopped in the suburbs not the crappy part of town. They believed (correctly prob) that the police assumed they were armed crack dealers so most stops turned into pat downs and vehicle searches. They had both tried the ‘complain a bit’ routine – one had gotten arrested for that.

                  THAT is white privilege. That is still relevant today. No one is looking to take that away. No one is looking for a round of Kumbaya. They do not want everyone to be treated like them – they want everyone to be treated like me.

                  The only way that can happen is for the conversation to take place and for people to realize experiences are very different. And that can’t happen when people like you are in continual denial – like your general ilk (yesyes I know you are Sitting Turkey) has been since ‘our slaves are perfectly content and if they’re not they have drapetomania’.

          3. why not start yourself by giving away all your possessions to minorities? You would never do it

    2. The CRT people love Frederick Douglass, they especially love his post-Civil War speech:

      ‘In April 1865, as the Civil War was reaching its bloody climax, the abolitionist leader and escaped former slave Frederick Douglass stood before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society and delivered a rousing speech entitled “What the Black Man Wants.” “The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us,” Douglass told the crowd. “I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief.” In fact, he continued, “if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall.…All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!”‘

      https://reason.com/2012/07/17/frederick-douglass-classical-liberal-3/

      Ha ha, I would be really surprised if the NEA wants this part taught.

      1. Well, not *post* civil war as you can see. But you could see the postwar from there.

      2. Quoting Martin Luther King is now racist.

        1. What’s racist is appropriating the American cultural symbol of MLK and pretending that he’d be an ally of the modern right. He was a socialist more radical than any Bernie Sanders, and he was murdered before he could really get into it.

          To you, he’s essentially Mickey Mouse, though, right? A happy cartoon safe for children’s consumption.

          1. You are a fucking cartoon, toejam. Fuck off you lying sack of dog shit.

          2. Do you know how dumb you sound to normal people?

            1. Not at all. In a world where Tucker Carlson’s worldview is considered normal, it’s hard to define normal and dumb.

          3. He was a socialist more radical than any Bernie Sanders, and he was murdered before he could really get into it.

            No. He wasn’t. The fact that you are willing to promote Hoover’s lies shows how desperate you are to win an argument by any means possible.

            MLK was a profoundly religious man and a staunch conservative by today’s standards. The left is not abandoning him because he was a socialist, they are abandoning him because he was not.

            Calling out their opponents for cultural appropriation when they quote Dr. King is a betrayal of everything for which Dr. King lived and died. They do it solely in an effort to silence their critics.

            1. He was both religious and socialist:

              “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”

              Funnily enough, white people were perceived to be suddenly disinterested in his civil rights movement when it started talking about redistributing wealth. And now his words on economic policy are virtually whitewashed from history so that his brand and image can be comfortably used by the conservative right, who apparently felt it was too much trouble to try to turn MLK into a frightening caricature they way they do most black activists.

    3. Woof, if I wanted red herring I’d just go to the local fish market.

    4. Perhaps a speech given while Slavery was still the law of the land (1852 — and a very respectful speech, I might add) where the speaker was in essence, attempting to redress the evils of a system which was still a mainstay of the nation’s existence, is a far different thing that what CRT pushes- something that (by most accounts) gelled into existence around 1970.

      1. for instance, this scathing passage about the Fourth of July, elicits no contempt from me, because I am uniquely able to contextualize:

        But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

        This is a black man, escaped from a plantation, commenting on the currently existing state of slavery, pressed upon black people in America at the very moment the speech was given.

        I post a lot of video and news links that I think people will find informative. Once in a while, someone gets back to me in the comments and says they now follow x or watch y based on my recommendations. I’m always pleasantly surprised to find anyone pays much attention to these links– considering many are long-form podcasts or articles.

        I ran across this channel recently and thought this one is definitely worth passing on.

        This is an interview with Glenn Loury, one of the preeminent (black) intellectuals of our time. Prepare to have your hair blown back.

      2. Perhaps a speech given while Slavery was still the law of the land (1852 — and a very respectful speech, I might add) where the speaker was in essence, attempting to redress the evils of a system which was still a mainstay of the nation’s existence, is a far different thing that what CRT pushes- something that (by most accounts) gelled into existence around 1970.

        Glad you read the speech and yeah thanks for pointing out my typo – 1852 not 1862. This speech is to abolitionist women in an anti-slavery state. Douglass’ allies in the fight against slavery. He was their ally in the fight for suffrage. He’s not addressing them as allies. He’s not addressing them as someone with whom he agrees or on specific issues – eg the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which required the people in that room to cooperate with slave hunters – in NY – on pain of imprisonment – where he could easily have riled them up into cheers for resisting that legislation. a la Harriet Beecher Stowe (a white woman) who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin in response to that Fugitive Slave Act.

        No in that room on that day, his audience is WHITE. On the other side of his ability to experience the same day (Independence Day) – because he is BLACK. And he is not making friends here. This is critical race theory fundamentally about both a cultural division (where the races have a different experience because of their race) and a requirement of cultural unity and shared understanding (Independence Day).

        Douglass spoke about slavery because that was his time. But WEB DuBois talking about the color line – or Billie Holiday singing Strange Fruit – or Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael talking about Black Power and the Black Panthers – or Black Lives Matter re police and George Floyd.

        THAT is the descent line of ‘critical theory’ as applied to race here in the US. Painting it as alien – as Marxist via Frankfurt School and other people who are mostly white and foreign and tenured academics – is precisely an attempt to ignore all of this. Unless filtered through a white mouth. And yes – both Marxists and conservatives want the phrase ‘critical theory’ to be owned by Marxists. THAT is the problem.

  64. “It remains the case that giving families greater choice and control over their children’s education vis-a-vis school choice is the best solution to fundamental disagreements about curriculum and teaching practices.”

    So the default setting on our education system should be “racism.”

    Why not apply this more broadly? Teach that the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery but was defending its domestic institutions against Yankee imperialism. Anyone who doesn’t like it can school-choice their way out.

  65. Alternatively, just because the neo-Nazi teens who write for Tucker Carlson come up with some bullshit to get people hysterical about, that doesn’t mean we actually all need to be talking about it.

    There are actual problems in the world, you know. The thing about children is that they grow up and read more books. Or do all of you think history is what you were taught in kindergarten? It would explain a fuck of a lot.

    1. So you’re saying CRT is bound to fail so we should stop paying for it?

      1. You’re not paying for it and you should pay attention to things you understand, presumably outside of academia.

        1. You not only got up on the wrong side of bed this morning, you got up in the wrong dimension.

          A dimension where

          – I give a crap what you think

          and

          – Nobody’s spending a dime on racist teaching in government schools.

          1. It’s all rather odd how much you guys seem to think that the job of children is to be indoctrinated.

            Pedagogy is largely a mystery to me, but I appreciate those who work in it. Educating everyone in a large country is an amazing technological feat. Maybe the most impressive ever devised. I’d leave the methods up to the experts, same as with building a bridge.

            1. “It’s all rather odd how much you guys seem to think that the job of children is to be indoctrinated.”

              Prog-jection. The bills which anger you so much prohibit certain forms of indoctrination.

              On education, I’d return authority to parents – to do the job themselves or to hire schools or teachers they trust. What would you do?

              1. Have universal high standards, leave parents with as few decisions to make as possible, and leave the methodology to experts in academia.

        2. If it is taught in public schools I am paying for it.

          1. So run for the school board.

            1. Just be simpler if each of us keep the money we earn.
              This would free up folks that support CRT to pay the tuition to schools that teach it.

              1. I think children should be freed from the burden of their moronic parents’ great ideas about education as much as feasible.

                1. Because you know better.
                  I’m fine if you don’t want to participate in your children’s’ education.

                  1. Many children have shit parents, I’m sure you’ll agree. Your idea of a free market is to hobble the children of the poor and ignorant for life, for no reason whatsoever, and then blame them for their relative lack of success in adulthood?

                    It is true that democracy plays a role in how children are educated, and thus that how children are educated is considered a social concern. We are having a political debate about it, after all, and you think you should win that and impose your will instead of mine (though I doubt you care if 50%+1 agrees with you).

                    1. And yet I know and work with folks that had shitty parents, attended garbage public education systems and they turned out great. They are happy, productive and successful.

                      There is a reason and it is simple: I’m not responsible for other people’s kids as they aren’t for mine.

                      If you are incapable of being responsible for yourself do you think you should be in an institution? Would you accept a democratic vote of commentariat here on that?

                      I have been in roll call votes where I cast the lone vote regarding an issue.

                      I think you should live your life without imposing your financial needs on others. Or forcing your pet indoctrination on the children of others unless they agree. The two Germans and a Jew voting on who goes to the gas chamber is bad system for making decisions. It is thousands of years old. You’d think humans could get beyond that. Perhaps if schools taught something other than CRT we’d be on that path.

                    2. You assume that there can be a historical narrative free of bias, but that’s just what a person who cherishes his cultural biases to the point of erroneously calling them objective would say.

                      The worldview you are expressing is Darwinian natural selection. Who your parents are and how much money they have not only matter to how successful you are in life, they are practically determinative, anecdotes of success stories notwithstanding. That’s what the data say, and it’s hardly surprising that it does. The children of wealthy parents get not only access to better schools but cultural values that direct them into wealthier sectors of the economy.

                      What is the value of a free market if everyone enters it either privileged or hobbled through 100% random chance? Just suck it up and die, life isn’t fair? Okay, that’s certainly simple, but you can’t suggest there aren’t better alternatives, the entire project of civilization being to mitigate the risks and disparities in a state of nature.

      2. You are weirdly obseeswd with Tucker Carlson. Exactly what about him do you have trouble with?

    2. Alternatively, just because the neo-Nazi teens who write for Tucker Carlson come up with some bullshit to get people hysterical about, that doesn’t mean we actually all need to be talking about it.

      There are actual problems in the world, you know.

      LOL, like clockwork:

      “It’s not actually a problem.”
      “If it’s a problem, it’s not that bad.”
      “If it’s bad, there are worse ones we need to worry about.”

      1. Some people think CRT is a problem. Some people think the way history was being taught before was the problem.

        The former are hysterical theocratic FOX News addicted loons who suborned the overthrow of the United States.

        I don’t give a whole lot of a crap about history, but I do know whose team I want to be on right now.

        1. And some people think false equivalency is awesome.

          1. If you don’t like CRT, you want to teach about Washington and the cherry tree and ignore slavery. It’s either/or.

        2. And it’s hilarious you choose the team without guns, eh toejam.

        3. The former are hysterical theocratic FOX News addicted loons who suborned the overthrow of the United States.

          The latter are getting nervous that their agenda is being challenged.

        4. It’s obvious you don’t know history, period. It’s unfortunate you and your ilk lack the self awareness to realize how ignorant you are.

    3. I’m sorry, but if you really care about society and good policy, “I don’t care what we teach children” isn’t a good starting point.

      1. I genuinely don’t think it matters as much as you seem to. Teach the basics, of course, and I have a thing or two to say about the methods used for those, but even then you can relearn whatever you want.

        You aren’t afraid of the children being taught something dangerous. You’re afraid of them being taught something true.

        1. I’m completely convinced that teaching children pseudo-historical bullshit is a form of child abuse.

          If you’re going to pick narratives to force down children’s throats, yo could pick:

          1. One that’s actually consistent with historical fact, and
          2. One that doesn’t ultimately endorse the worst economic system in modern history

          I’m not afraid of teaching truth. I’m a little concerned that the revolutionaries will repeat the October revolution expecting different results.

          1. If your ideas are so great, surely these children will grow up to be teenagers who are perfectly capable of appreciating their truthfulness and practicality.

            1. Propaganda works or it wouldn’t exist.

              1. It only works as long as it stays on. That’s why you build statues.

                Children keep taking history as they grow up. In theory, radical Marxists could impose totalitarian control over academia. In practice, the people agitating to purge academia are all on FOX News, and they ain’t communists.

                1. That’s great. I want children growing up knowing that we cared enough about them to teach them facts and truth, not convenient mythologies aligned with our political objectives.

                  If you don’t care about teaching children bullshit: noted. How convenient for you politically.

                  1. We couldn’t agree more on that platitude. We do seem to be struggling to come to an agreement about what the facts are. I’m not even sure you’ve articulated a fact you think is being suppressed by CRT.

                    1. I’ve explained it multiple times, but I can’t make you understand.

                      I’m satisfied that I’ve convinced most all of the people who are open-minded, can think, and embrace objective facts as the foundation for knowledge and wisdom.

                      I understand that you’re not interested because it doesn’t satisfy your selfish self-interest, but then maybe you should sit public policy out.

                    2. I scrolled up a lot and can’t find your specific objections. A lot of moaning about how bad CRT is, not a lot of explaining why.

                      One of the things you have offered up is the idea that it teaches that all white people have individualized guilt over stuff that happened before they were born.

                      I’d strenuously object to what you’re describing as you describe it, but, and I’m no expert, I don’t think you’re describing the actual thing but some hysterically distorted version of it meant to make you angry.

                    3. Try scrolling down.

  66. Conservatives say that schools are teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT), pretty clearly meaning teaching lessons very heavily influenced by the conclusions and assumptions of CRT.

    Progressive polemicists – Reid and Legum – insist this is a lie intended by conservatives to create a controversy where none previously existed.

    The actual union representing the actual people teaching the material identify it as teaching CRT and encourage partnering with multiple radical groups to further CRT in the curriculum.

    Now, which is the more plausible analysis:
    1. Dang, those Republicans must have gotten to the NEA and tricked them into supporting their characterization of matters.
    or
    2. The progressive polemicists were less than honest with you in their characterization of matters.

    Which does Occam’s razor suggest is the more likely?

    As to a free market in education, I’m a big supporter. Which is why I favor banning CRT-based doctrines in the public schools. There’s a high correlation between the biggest supporters of the government education monopoly and advocates for CRT. Allowing them to make the government education monopoly more to their liking seems rather foolish if your goal is to diminish support for the government education monopoly.

    1. Which does Occam’s razor suggest is the more likely?

      Trump is pulling the strings in a false flag operation.

      1. I thought it was Colonel Mustard, in the study, with a fiber optic cable.

    2. It’s so obvious what’s going on, and it’s so tedious that they pretend it isn’t so.

      1. What is CRT, and what are your objections to it? Be as specific as you like.

        1. I could start with wikipedia:

          Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States that seeks to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.

          Emphasis added. That’s a good starting point right there.

          Common themes that are characteristic of work in critical race theory, as documented by such scholars as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, include:

          Critique of liberalism: Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse.[25]

          I’m sorry, but I like rational thought, equality under the law, etc. Call me crazy. Also, we throw away equality under the law to the peril of minorities.

          Storytelling, counter-storytelling, and “naming one’s own reality”: The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression.[43] Bryan Brayboy has emphasized the epistemic importance of storytelling in Indigenous-American communities as superseding that of theory, and has proposed a Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribCrit).[44]

          Declaring wide swath’s of society guilty of your “story” and “your own reality” is… problematic. If we can make up our own reality for anything, then exactly why am I supposed to care when you disagree with my reality? And why do you care? I wish they could answer me that question. Apparently, “we all have our own reality, but mine’s right and yours is wrong!” I’m sorry, but I reject gaslighting as a philosophy.

          Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress: Criticism of civil-rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Derrick Bell, one of CRT’s founders, argues that civil-rights advances for black people coincided with the self-interest of white elitists. Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice and concluded that U.S. government support for civil-rights legislation “was motivated in part by the concern that racial discrimination harmed the United States’ foreign relations”.[45]

          I’m fundamentally against teaching children mythology and calling it “history”.

          Standpoint epistemology: The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have, and that this can expose the racial neutrality of law as false.[1]

          I reject the notion that minorities can declare themselves the only ones allowed to think.

          I could go on, but I won’t.

          1. “challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.”

            The horror. We wouldn’t want academics challenging any orthodoxies. Laissez-faire capitalism is a fringe academic movement too. I suppose you don’t want that crammed down children’s ears either?

            Declaring wide swath’s of society guilty

            Not something happening in anything you’ve quoted. Perhaps you missed that one.

            Standpoint epistemology

            I think this is a fruitful approach to a lot of things. White heterosexual Christian men do tend to think they have the most objective perspective in the world, but that itself is evidence that they probably don’t. And there’s plenty of science that shows alarming unconscious biases in a whole range of behavior. (Unconscious means you’re not aware of it. It also means you’re not morally responsible for it.)

            You may value rationality and enlightenment principles, as do I, but you don’t see any of their fundamental weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is that all of those things were defined by European men. Now, I don’t think that makes them flawed, but I do think that the telling of history, never an objective project, ought not to be restricted to the assumptions you grew up with as a child. You’re just as propagandized as anyone else. The more you call your history “objective,” the more that is obvious.

            1. Bullshit.

              You’re equating “objectivity” with “the assumptions you grew up with as a child”. Those aren’t the same thing. Perhaps you missed something in your quotes?

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

              The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1][2] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was heroic, just, and not centered on slavery. It is also known as a myth or a mythology.

              By CRT standards, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy is just “someone else’s reality” defined by “their epistemological viewpoint”. So I assume the advocates of CRT will be endorsing it’s instruction in k-12 schools, correct? After all, who’s to say the Lost Cause is objectively wrong in some way?

              Basically, that’s my problem: you reject objective thought itself as propaganda just because it disagrees with your own preferred narratives and political goals. And then declare whatever made up mythologies you endorse “the real objective thought: just as good as the others!”

              I already told you: I reject gaslighting as a philosophy. If you don’t have anything better to offer, I don’t see the point. Just repeating the same mythology over and over again?

              1. I somehow doubt that this issue will be resolved by figuring out the answers to the deepest questions in philosophy, such as “what is objectivity?” Maybe I could eat a weed gummy and really get into that kind of thing. I’m not sure your average FOX News junkie could keep up with further complicating matters by asking “what is objectivity in history?”

                Nor would they benefit very much from what I would consider to be at the height of interesting conversations: To what extent is history education propaganda? Is it all propaganda? If you’re insisting on a status-quo patriotism or white-centric narrative, and concerned that children are going to be harmed in some way if they deviate from that, you admit to some degree that what’s bothering you is that you don’t get to choose the propaganda. Whoever told you history was supposed to make white children feel good about themselves?

                The answers here are too complex for the real question being asked here: “How do we scare FOX News addicts enough to motivate them to vote for Republicans for, once again, rescuing their precious threatened culture from the…. whatevers?”

                1. I somehow doubt that this issue will be resolved by figuring out the answers to the deepest questions in philosophy, such as “what is objectivity?”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

                  Pro-tip: if you need someone to define objectivity for you, you’re not doing it.

                  1. Oh, so your problem is not that the question wants for immediate resolution despite its obvious complexity, it’s that you think it’s already been resolved.

                    Which history text do you suppose is the most objective? Any particular authors you’d recommend?

                    Everything humans believe about the universe is a narrative. Our brains are story machines. History is a narrative. Science is a narrative too, but we’ll leave that aside. But history is quite obviously a narrative.

                    We need not even get into the problem of people confined to subjective bodies believing in objectivity. We can just admit that history is a story told in books written by people who weren’t alive at the time.

                    How can you think there even can be an objective version of that?

                    1. Weren’t you the same silly bitch who got assmad when I proposed teaching about all the people the communists have killed?

                    2. I would merely object to the claim that abstract concepts can kill.

                      If you’re teaching children that the big thing about Stalin and Mao was their progressive welfare states, then I do call foul.

                      You’re admitting to a political motivation with your every word.

                    3. I would merely object to the claim that abstract concepts can kill.

                      That wasn’t what you said at the time.

                      You’re admitting to a political motivation with your every word.

                      Consider it an in-kind contribution.

                    4. This is why I could never be a fascist. I just openly admit my political motivations and don’t pretend they are rigid truths about national identity.

                    5. This is why I could never be a fascist. I just openly admit my political motivations and don’t pretend they are rigid truths about national identity.

                      Oh, I’m quite clear about my disdain for white liberals and how much they need to suffer.

              2. I mean for God’s sake, how many years in a row did you fall for “The War on Christmas”?

                A red-blooded, rational, objective European-American man would see through this bullshit as if it were a lens.

                1. But, by your own logic, you can’t claim it’s bullshit, because that implies objective standards of truth.

                  This is why your rejection of objectivity is not accepted: it’s not that I think the issue isn’t complex.

                  No, the issue is that you already assume objectivity and asset it. Why should you then turn around and question your own assumptions? And why should I take such questioning seriously?

                  Unless the answer is that you’re a mendacious cunt, in which case, the same questions of seriousness apply.

                  1. This whole “I will destroy objectivity for your facts while retaining it to endorse mine!” is just the pseudo-intellectual shell game of an immature mind.

                    1. Let’s go with immature, pseudo intellectual, mendacious cunt and you have toejam in a nutshell.

                    2. It’s hilarious how he can’t even stay consistent with the bullshit he proposes.

                      He can’t even go 5 minutes without providing his own counter-proof.

                  2. You’ll note that I’ve not endorsed any particular historical narrative. I’m content to sit back and see what stories people tell each other. I am not inclined to teach myself the ins and outs of pedagogy tonight, and I’ve already spent more time on CRT than I would have if I weren’t debating Tucker Carlson crypto-fascists all the time, so I’m also content to leave the method of teaching children to teachers of children and pedagogists. I certainly don’t want Tucker Carlson getting his Nazi hands on it.

                    I don’t know about you, but my childhood history lessons were very Euro-centric and American-centric. I can’t think of a reason in the world why it would harm children to learn of the goings-on in Asia and Africa, or to be taught that being a European doesn’t automatically give you the highest perch of objectivity.

                    I will reiterate that young American children may not be ready for some of the bloodier qualities of American history, and that it’s all right since children do grow up to gain a more sophisticated appreciation of knowledge. They also grow out of Santa Claus. The only thing you have to fear is your lies not being believed, not your truths. Truth gets out.

                    1. You know you’ve won the debate when the self-impressed smart ass who knows everything suddenly can’t know anything for sure anymore.

                    2. “The only thing you have to fear is your lies not being believed, not your truths. Truth gets out.”

                      Now do Citizens United.

                      And then explain why it’s so critical to control was adults can see and hear, but it’s totally Ok to teach impressionable children anything.

                    3. Because adults can vote.

                    4. And the truth doesn’t get out when people vote?

                      What happened to only fearing lies?

                      And children eventually vote, and you know this.

                    5. That’s why we get them with the truth early.

                      The only people agitating to blow up the status quo in education are the Christian theocrats who want to replace facts with religious mumbo-jumbo and have taxpayers pay for it.

                      If you’re not objecting to that, and to its tacit endorsement on these very pages, at at least the same volume, then you’re not objecting to what you claim you’re objecting to.

                    6. And now you’ve been reduced to rambling talking points of accusations at vague Christian enemies somewhere, doing something bad.

                      How tedious. I suppose that means we’re done.

                    7. Teaching creationism in biology class may be old news to you, but religious groups are half of the equation when it comes to all this push for charter schools. You think lower standards across the board will increase objectivity?

                    8. You don’t give them a pass for their epistemological viewpoint?

                    9. I reject the notion that we should teach children any mythology, left or right.

                      Can you pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize this isn’t
                      about deciding which political tribe is more evil than the others? That this isn’t about choosing the right set of lies to believe?

                    10. I’m going to keep saying this because I think it’s important to get across: I am not equipped with the knowledge of how best to teach children anything. I don’t understand children or how their brains work. I haven’t thought through in enough rigor the benefits and drawbacks of the apparently necessary process of teaching children some amount of lies mixed in with the truth. I think it’s a very rich question, one that implicates nationalism and democratic will in interesting ways. So if I don’t have enough to offer on the right way to teach children history, I apologize for my ignorance.

                      Adults need not be taught any dogmas at all, including absolute epistemological relativism. I studied philosophy, and I encountered all sorts of contradicting theories about how the world works, and not once was I ever asked to formally adopt one as a belief system. It suffices to know that certain people wrote certain things in books, and isn’t that interesting? As for belief, proportion them to the evidence and you’ll die an honest man.

                    11. And suddenly the know-it-all knows nothing.

                      The surest sign of defeat.

                      When you have to destroy the concept of objectivity because you can’t stand the light of facts: you could just say “I concede your points.”

                    12. I’ll gladly accept your comparison of me to Socrates, one of the first to articulate the Dunning-Kruger principle. The more you know, the less certain of you are in your knowledge, except in cases where you can confidently call yourself an expert. I’m an expert in a few things, but certainly not youth instruction methodology, unlike 40% of the country all of a sudden.

                    13. But Tony you act like a self-impress know-it-all in a variety of subjects, from economics, to racial issues, to gender issues, to concepts of rights, etc.

                      You’re just saying you don’t know what to believe because you can’t think of a counter-argument anymore, much less a good one.

                      You’re not humble; we’ve known you too long for that.

                      You’re a liar.

                    14. The word is polymath.

                      Alas, while I do have things to contribute to the questions of history teaching and national mythologies, I’m largely in my comfy place on those subjects: curious incertitude. I do know more precisely how things should be taught at the university level, since we’re dealing with adults, but children are like sports to me, one of the few subjects I cannot seem to summon an interest in.

                    15. I suppose we were done along time ago, when we had to jettison objective thought and reason to save you.

                    16. “You’ll note that I’ve not endorsed any particular historical narrative.”

                      No, shitstain, we’ll note you’ve endorsed every pile of lefty shit which has been offered as ‘history’
                      Did you hope that wasn’t noticed?

                    17. All you’re doing is shouting “objective thought” over and over without offering a single example of what you consider an objective thought.

                    18. Oh, I’m sorry. I missed all your examples of how truth is only subjective and why that is. All I hear you screeching over and other again how much you hate objectivity.

                      “The Civil War was fought largely to preserve slavery as an institution in the south.”

                      To me, that’s an objective fact. I think you can actually look that up and document it, and that’s why I say true.

                      To a CRT advocate, that’s a subjective interpretation that may be some people’s lived reality. Supportive facts are convenient but unnecessary. However, they will speak about it as an absolute truth that you should embrace, your own subjective experience be damned.

                      That’s fine when their “facts” correspond with real facts, but then, I ask them to show their work when they say the country was founded on slavery, which many of them propose. But as far as their concerned, no work is needed: subjective interpretation is good enough.

                      In other words, I have to go through the rigor of analyzing facts to reach conclusions, while CRT advocates work backward from their conclusions and explain the facts. That’s how people grow up believing bullshit.

                      In case you missed it, I just explained yet again another objection to CRT and why, with an example. Did you miss it again?

                      Could you go ahead and explain how there’s no objective way to know that the Civil War was fought to preserve slavery? Is part of the fun of subjective historical interpretation that you endorse ridiculous people’s bullshit?

                    19. While keeping things that simple might be a good idea when teaching children (again, a subject I’m not comfortable having strong opinions about), I don’t think it’s necessary for grown adults to grow attached to simplistic historical narratives and slap an “objectivity” label on them. I’d be perfectly thrilled for university students to learn about what Southern propaganda taught people the Civil War was about, for example.

                      But the Civil War is perhaps the most already woke subject in American history. CRT asks us to examine historical events in the context of white supremacy and black oppression. The traditional Civil War narrative has that in spades.

                      So it would perhaps be more interesting to examine, say, property rights in the CRT frame. Or the nation-state. Or policing, the social welfare state, infrastructure, or what have you. Things everyone missed the racial story on.

                      And if the CRT-based stories are flat wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time people were flat wrong. Most of the history we teach children is flat wrong, and it’s so broad and simplistic as a narrative, that you simply must examine which cultural assumptions you’re throwing in there, mustn’t you?

                    20. There’s a huge difference between what’s objectively true and what you subjectively consider interesting, so that seems completely irrelevant.

                      Most of the history we teach children is flat wrong

                      … a statement which makes an objective claim of wrongness, thus conceding my point.

                      Really, I don’t know what you’re problem is. When you’re not claiming that history can’t be right or wrong, you’re claiming how wrong it is. Can you see that you can’t even stay consistent with your own assertions about subjectivity? Not even in the same post?

                      I’ll give you one more chance at this. If you agree to the statement:

                      “Brian, history and culture are completely subjective. There is no objective right and wrong. Therefore, I have never been objectively right about any of this in which you were wrong, and vice versa. All of this time I’ve been posting about how wrong people are, it was a complete misinterpretation. There is no right and wrong culturally, historically, etc.”

                      When you claim that statement, I’ll take you seriously. Otherwise, this is the pseudo-intellectual shell game of an immature mind. It’s only consistent to the degree you embrace complete irrationality, which I have also indicated as one of my criticisms of CRT.

                    21. Just because you really like something like objectivity doesn’t mean it exists.

                      If you want the best shot humans have at figuring out how the universe works, I’d stick to science. Even that we’re doing from inside the skull of an evolved ape and nowhere else. The very color and quality of an object in front of your face is a story your brain is telling itself.

                      But, to paraphrase Freud, surely our evolution as a part of the natural world means our interactions with it are, in some sense, real, if only for the sake of expediency.

                    22. That’s really neither a good nor relevant response to your blatant self-contradiction.

                      Will you try again, or are you done and stuck on repeat?

                    23. There’s a difference between “uncertainty”, “unknowability”, “narrative”, and “subjectivity”, and progressives conflate these issues constantly as a means of ignoring inconvenient facts and embracing unsupported conclusions.

                      Yes, we use narratives. “You’re a mendacious cunt” is a narrative. “The South fought the Civil War to preserve slavery” is a narrative. “The universe began from the Big Bang” is narrative. That doesn’t make it subjective. These are objective historical facts.

                      “No one knows what happened to Amelia Earhart” is a narrative with uncertainty, and possibly unknowability. That doesn’t mean that whatever happened to her is subjective; she experienced a true reality, no matter what your preferences or opinions are.

                      And it’s the same for history and motivations: if you don’t know why someone did something, that doesn’t mean your opinion can be treated like a fact. The appropriate thing to do in that context historically is to communicate the uncertainty and offer multiple likelihoods for consideration.

                      “I don’t know with absolute certainty, so I can make up whatever truth about it I want from my favorite perspective of convenience and treat it like objective truth” is just lazy immature bullshit, trying to skip the hard work, using history merely as a tool to arrive at pre-conceived ideological conclusions.

                      That’s nothing we should be teaching children to do, I’m fairly certain.

                    24. “The only thing you have to fear is your lies not being believed, not your truths. Truth gets out.”

                      “ *Update: Shortly after this story was published, the NEA deleted the New Business page from its website. I have added a link to an archived version of Item 39”

                      Hmmmmmmm.

              3. There is no such thing as genuinely “objective history”. There can be recitations of facts and historical events, but that is not ‘history’ the discipline, which is concerned with things like making connections and trying to find patterns in historical phenomena and understanding the reasonings and motivations of the principal historical actors of the time. All of those things require interpretation and judgment calls. And the result depends on the person making the interpretations and the judgment calls and cannot help but be biased in some way.

                1. “There is no such thing as genuinely “objective history”.

                  Oh horseshit you brainwashed simpleton.

                  The Treaty of Versailles is a real thing, at it was signed on a particular date in time. There is absolutely nothing subjective about that, or trillions other facts that are equally known.

                2. So explain to me how we’ll never really know whether or not the Civil War was fought largely to preserve slavery.

                  1. Your logical fallacy is false dilemma.

                    1. I’m not presenting any dilemma, much less a false one.

                      He clearly stated that we cannot be objectively sure of anyone’s historical motivations.

                      If this does not apply to the Lost Cause, then your fallacy is special pleading.

                    2. Tony employs false dilemmas often but doesn’t understand what they are. Or much of anything else.

            2. Many CRT victims now believe the police murder thousands of black people every year, and Southern states make it purposefully hard for blacks to vote, therefore Stacey Abrams was denied the Georgia governancy.
              Their lived reality is not, in fact, reality

              1. But Donald Trump was a great president and recessions are caused by black people being poor financial planners and climate change is a hoax.

          2. “Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice and concluded that U.S. government support for civil-rights legislation “was motivated in part by the concern that racial discrimination harmed the United States’ foreign relations”.”

            I thought that was true, without benefit of her research, and I didn’t know we have the critical race theorists to thank for this piece of knowledge.

            I don’t think it was a secret, at least not a *well-kept* secret, that Cold War considerations motivated the feds during the Civil Rights era.

            This is inconvenient to those who want to give the credit for civil rights *directly* to communist activists, rather than indirectly, in that civil rights was part of a strategy to fight the communists by winning hearts and minds in the nonwhite world.

    3. Occam’s razor? More like Occam’s *racist.*

  67. You know who else imposed racially based theories on school children?

    1. Jimmy The Greek?

  68. Imperial troops have entered the schools. Imperial troops have en…

  69. Public sector unions are usually led by either the mob or communists/bolshevik types…in this case the mob would be preferred. The solution is an easy one..just ban public sector unions once and for all..they are a threat to liberty..especially the educational lobby full of the usual suspects (cultural marxists)…..

    1. Did you take that word-for-word from Mein Kampf, or is it more of a paraphrase?

  70. Never underestimate the hopeless naivete of some libertarians. When ideologues dominate the academy, the press and politics, thinking there is going to be some fair and open debate on the indoctrination of young children is asinine. At some point you just have to fight, dummies.

    1. Sometimes it’s not naivete. Plenty of them really are on the other side.

  71. You want to see examples of Critical Race Theory?
    Here’s your CRT: 106 shot, 16 dead over 4th July weekend in Chicago!
    That’s just in Chicago alone. More than 400 people shot in major cities this weekend.
    There’s your fucking CRT!
    Now cram it where the sun doesn’t shine!

    1. Blacks don’t suffer from systematic oppressions, and as evidence I present an extremely sociologically pathological ghetto their grandparents were shoved into against their will.

      1. The more you blame problems on vague systemic theories and inescapable pseudo-historical narratives, the less you will actually help solve any real problem.

        1. They don’t want to solve problems, they want resentful voters they can manipulate.

          1. As opposed to the very serious concern of the people whining about elementary school history class in perfect harmony with Republican politicians and their media mouthpieces.

            1. I love that Tony – who has never had a thought that didn’t arrive in his email from the DNC – criticizes others for opposing teaching lies and racism as if they aren’t important.

          2. They don’t want to solve problems, they want resentful voters they can manipulate.

            Like manipulating voters into thinking that teaching kids about race and power is equivalent to “blaming Whitey”?

            1. teaching kids about race and power

              Teaching kids that expecting blacks to show up on time, have a positive attitude about work, or plan ahead are racist is not “teaching kids about race and power”.

              People lie when the truth doesn’t support their political preferences. That’s why left wingers lie about everything.

          3. That’s pretty much the dive right there.
            Liberal progressives have been the worst part of the problem.

        2. My only alternative is to blame entire races of people for social pathologies that could much less genocidally be explained by oppression. Communities kept poor have pathologies like violence, single parenthood, and criminal justice entanglements.

          Maybe it’s because black people genetically don’t know how to have a healthy culture. Maybe that’s it. Now, the interesting question, how do you propose to solve this problem?

          1. Show them a better way to live?

            I assume in the same humility that you recognize you don’t know how to teach children, that you won’t presume to solve complex social problems with something as stupid as your vote.

            1. Show them a better way to live. Does that include hanging out of the moonroofs of limousines holding wads of cash as you drive through their neighborhoods?

              It’s not entirely your fault you’re only now learning of the Tulsa race riot and similar instances all over the country in which any success by a black community in acquiring wealth is snuffed out by white mobs with a conscious depravity that would be at home in the Middle Ages.

              It’s not a controversial claim that communities suffering centuries of tribal oppression might have a few social pathologies. The mental gymnastics are required for hand-waving away the raw numbers on wealth with some inherently bigoted collective assumptions about cultural inferiority.

              1. Shitstain, in his lefty stupidity, is convinced this pile of lefty shit means something other than:
                Shitstain is a steaming pile of lefty shit!

              2. I will accept none of the blame for the problems in black communities but this is what the CRT hucksters want to push onto myself and others.
                They can go to hell.
                The problem lies with charlatans and race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Joy Reid. It’s amazing what you can get away with when you put the word reverend in front of your name.
                The other problem as Ben Shapiro bluntly stated is black culture. It is the gangster culture promoted in gangsta rap and throughout the communities by young black males. It is the culture that promotes dropping out of school and joining a street gang where by the time that young black male has reached the age of 17 or 18 he has murdered someone or has been murdered by someone else, or has taken part in multiple car jackings or other dangerous criminal activities that do nothing for the black communities other than further destruction.
                Then blame it all on the nebulous idea of systemic racism and white supremacy. An idea those promoting it cannot even come up with proper examples of it.
                This is how entirely lame and bloviated CRT is proven to be.
                People like Sharpton, Jackson and Reid don’t want to see improvements in black communities. Neither do liberal progressives. It’s against their own personal gain when improvements actually take place. They begin to lose power and what ever credibility they have.

                1. Name another culture in the world whose poverty and lack of access to social institutions is caused by their musical tastes.

                  I’m no expert on rap music, but I do know that while it’s less melodic than some other forms of music, its lyrics are vastly more poetic. I always thought American pop suffered from a sort of lyrical laziness, and the best songs combine good music with poetic lyrics, and that these aren’t mutually exclusive.

                  Maybe your life problems are caused by the simplistic lyrics of the Beach Boys?

          2. “My only alternative is to blame entire races of people for social pathologies that could much less genocidally be explained by oppression.”

            And why are your options so limited again? Lack of imagination?

            The only choices you’re capable of grasping are bullshit, therefore, we should embrace bullshit?

            1. I don’t consider “Just pull your pants up!” to be a serious contribution.

              1. “Throw money at them until they act different!” isn’t very serious either.

                1. Way more serious than it sounds.

                  Besides, you already agree with that, if we’re talking about wealthy people. Throw money at them and they will make a more productive economy!

                  1. They have tracked lottery winners. The result is, yes, they do what they usually do with money.

                    And that makes make point, not yours.

                    1. It suggests some lack of overlap between people who win lotteries and people who are educated financial planners. You’re right, it’s not just about dumping money on people, though my unshakable libertarianism biases me in favor of letting people make their own decisions rather than bureaucrats nitpicking their lifestyles.

                      Wealth of a community isn’t a lump sum check, it’s infrastructure and education and healthcare and safety and all those other things that governments spend money on. Those are the kinds of things the white mobs would burn to the ground if they ever got too uppity.

                    2. Yeah I remember that huge rash of white mobs burning down clinics and shooting out traffic lights in Harlem and Detroit.

                      Aren’t you at all embarrassed when you say such idiotic shit?

                    3. I have no complaints about how lottery winners lose their money. I don’t buy lottery tickets.

                      And now you’re reduced to vague accusations of guilt of white people for future crimes.

                      See, this is why subjective interpretation is bad: once someone believes they can make up the past, they start making up the future.

                      It’s not very persuasive.

                      And it all comes down to how evil white people are.

                      I’ll never get this moralistic obsession with grouping people into “good” and “evil” categories. After that makes you feel better, you’re not about to solve any real problems. But, then, that wasn’t ever the point.

                    4. You can keep insisting that this is all about making white people into Team Bad Ape, but I’ve not said that, and that’s not what this is about.

                      It’s actually just an interesting academic project to examine history in a new light. You’re only offended by it because you were instructed to by your preferred media figures.

                      That you keep bringing up your emotional reaction to a tribalism that is only present in your mind suggests you are the one with the tribalism problem. Nobody expects anything out of you. And you’ll not be forced to do anything. That’s the beauty of having white privilege!

                    5. I’m sorry, but you’re the one making vague claims about the future crimes of tribes and the future guilt we know they most have.

                      I’m merely suggesting that we stay fact-based.

      2. Nobody systematically oppresses black people than other black people.

        1. Is that because black people are morally inferior to white people at a genetic level?

          1. Are they?

              1. If shitstain posts Nope!, the answer is Yep!

                1. Chalk Sevo down for believing that black people are genetically morally inferior to white people.

                  1. Yeah Sevo’s the one who thinks blacks are inferior, not you who thinks they are too stupid to comprehend their own best interests or to perform the basic functions of an adult in western society and need a white savior like you to shepherd them through the travails of living in a white man’s world.

                    I bet you get into all sorts of race play too you fucked up faggot. Be honest now, how many times have you shouted the word “NIGGER!” at the top of your lungs with a throbbing African American cock up your ass?

                    1. You seem like you’ve considered these issues with a thoughtful and critical eye.

              2. Better scold them for all that shooting, then.

        2. Democrats oppress them quite a bit

      3. For someone fixated on Tucker Carlson and Fox News, you sure as fuck channel Kos and Vox bullshit. Any empirical proof of forced sociologically pathological ghettoization, or did you just need something you thought was clever to say?

  72. “the organization is essentially validating conservative parents’ concerns”

    That’s an odd way of saying it.

  73. From all I have read about it it seems to be little more than an anti-American, anti-white smear campaign, effectively leftist propaganda. The history of slavery in America is and has always been taught – it’s no secret. CRT seems to be a focused effort to discredit the USA – a divide and conquer strategy by those who seek to reduce the USA to yet another third world country. Without knowing, I’d bet that the CRT folks never address issues such as the derivation of the word “slave” (from European Slavic people enslaved in droves and carted off to Africa) by the same folks there who still have slaves. I’ve heard many of the CRT supporters rant about how people were brought here to be slaves – hmmm… they were already enslaved in Africa. Surely the CRT crowd discounts the tremendous price the USA has made and keeps on making to atone for past misdeeds – many 1000’s of lives and umpteen billions in welfare. Is Liberia addressed in the CRT bible? Is the fact that the USA was NOT the last country in the America’s to free their slaves, and the only who fought to do so ever mentioned? Yes, I see the CRT movement as a purely devisive and self-serving.

    1. It’s like you people have never even considered that people have access to the internet and literally all the information in the world. If they’re being taught lies, it isn’t possibly sustainable.

      What you should be arguing is that it’s good to teach children from a patriotic frame, and it may surprise you to know that I don’t dismiss that idea out of hand.

      We can all agree that teaching them from a whites-only perspective is flawed.

      1. You admitted last week that you hadn’t even read about it.

        1. Strategic ignorance, try to keep up.

          1. Fucking lefty ignoramus, try to keep up, shitstain.

            1. I think I got it. I’m a shitting leftoramus fuckstain.

              Crap, I got it wrong didn’t I?

  74. Astrology should be taught in primary school. After, all:

    White folks was in the caves while we was building empires. We built pyramids before Donald Trump even knew what architecture was…We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.
    Al Sharpton

  75. If we are going to teach CRT, perhaps we should teach CWT (Critical Wealth Theory) as well, and use it to explain how the wealthy do not see the world the same as the rest of us. They have ‘afluenza’ as a get out of jail free card, even for manslaughter. They pay a lower percentage on their taxes than the middle class Americans (20% on their stocks, vs. 22% income taxes), and they have at their disposal the best politicians money can buy. They have seen their holdings increase by over five-fold in the last 50 years, while the working class spending power has dropped. It’s a different world for them, and I think that is important for the American students to know that.

    1. Tax rates on high earning middle class are indeed a crime, but even few of those approach an effective 22% annual rate. Marginal, yes, but not effective. The fundamental problem is not that the wealthy pay too little, it’s that we all pay too much.

      The solution to racial Marxism is not your alternate version of Marxism. So fuck off slaver.

  76. Nothing says rugged individualism and free thought like everyone screeching about the exact same obscure subject at the exact time their TV pundits are screeching about it all in lockstep.

    No wonder Trump was able to dupe you.

    1. Trump isn’t the one who put the White Fragility chick on the talk show circuit.

      1. No but he did invite the neo-Nazis and his slimeball children and associates.

        1. And you’re already done here, too?

          1. If violent mobs burned your grandparent’s neighborhood to the ground because of the color of their skin, each and every time they dared achieve some measure of wealth, where would you be now?

            1. Black families were within statistical parity with white families in total household wealth in the early 1960s. Who came and burned down all the black neighborhoods since the 1960s and set back black wealth accumulation? And why were they so devious that they did it at precisely the same time Lyndon “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years” Johnson signed into law a series of welfare policies designed to obliterate low income families and nurture welfare dependency? They must have been some pretty smart cookies. It’s no wonder they won.

              1. Explain how the government giving money to poor people creates dependency, but giving money to wealthy people increases economic productivity.

                “Just adopt the culture and manners of the rich!”

                I’ve never seen a group of unwashed hillbillies express such a devotion to noblesse oblige.

            2. each and every time they dared achieve some measure of wealth

              Citation needed.

                1. That’s one event from 100 years ago motivated by a lynching of a black man accused of a crime against a white woman.

                  Can you at least provide one example on the way to “every time they dared to achieve some measure of wealth”?

                  This is why objectivity is important: you’re completely wrong and better off knowing it.

                  1. Didn’t even click the link?

                    1. It’s behind a paywall. I read wikipedia.

                      I’m sure, though, that you can find a citation for such an important historical fact from a source that doesn’t charge $4/month.

                    2. The title of the article is “Tulsa isn’t the only race massacre you were never taught in school. Here are others.”

                      Here’s a helpful image it includes to illustrate the point:

                      https://twitter.com/common/status/1399425644375822342/photo/1

                      I suppose one question for you is how long ago does the last systematic obliteration of black wealth have to be before they are on an even playing field with people whose neighborhoods were never burned to the ground for the crime of being too successful.

                    3. Can you please cite the connection between these events and:
                      1. The wealth of black Americans in general at the time
                      2. The current wealth of black Americans?

                      This is exactly what I’m talking about: “Race riots happened in the past” becomes an excuse for you to blame anything on anybody, as long as it “feels” right. The problem with that is, when you’re wrong (and when you’re making up connections, you probably are), then you’re actually standing in the way of solving any real problem.

                    4. Seriously, this is the essence of the “truthiness” critique from years ago when Bush was doing it.

                      Somehow, truthiness become the new standard of the woke left. Convenient, but terrifying.

                    5. I don’t know why it’s so difficult The United States has been, for black people, a place of centuries of various creative forms of oppression, happening at the same time you and your ancestors were enjoying the bounty and creating the modern world with your plans and their labor.

                      So now we’re in 2021, and I think the burden of proof rests with the person who says that the big problem with black people is that they are lazy and uncultured. It is, however, an awfully convenient excuse for not having to think about the justice of the current wealth distribution.

                      Add instances of white mobs literally burning to the ground the neighborhoods of prosperous black people, actively forcing them into shit neighborhoods to keep them away from Jade and Skyler, and then not hiring them for jobs, and your pretensions of a “free market” seem like a whole buncha bullshit.

                    6. I don’t doubt the claim that black people have suffered oppression.

                      I doubt the claim that white people destroy the wealth of black people each and every time they have it.

                      Otherwise, you could come up with an example that’s less than 100 years old.

                    7. I agree, though: we could use a much more free market.

                    8. My family was poor whites trash in the 20’s. Coal miners, mining right next to Black people. It was called The Great Depression.

                      If you think that white people are doing so well off now because they were so well of then, you’re doing subjective pseudo-history again.

                      I’m the first generation in my family that isn’t a coal miner or a military man. There are opportunities there for all races and genders.

                      I’ll never understand why you think all white people are the heirs to the Great Privilege, as if life was just handed to them by the Big White God.

                      Again, this obsession with lumping everyone into some simplistic, moralistic collectives, merely for political convenience. At least I care about minorities and individuals too much for that.

                    9. It’s even more nuts than that, because not only are all white people inheritors of white privilege, you can be a fresh-off-the-boat Zimbabwean in America and still get pulled over more often by cops. Not a cotton picker in that guy’s entire lineage, yet he still gets black oppression.

                      If you want rational human behavior here, you’re barking up the wrong planet. The idea is that you and a similarly situated black person will have some measure of social status conferred entirely by your skin color. That’s all. You need to figure out how to stop stepping into this discussion with a bunch of moral assumptions I’m not referring to. You’re not bad because you’re white, and nobody’s good because they’re black. This is just a thing from history and justice we’re talking about. You’re welcome to change the channel, because there’s no way on God’s green earth it’s actually ever going to affect you.

                    10. I’m sorry, but accusations of oppression are moral claims, and you made them against me and my family.

                      You accused me and my descendants of “enjoying the bounty” of this country by exploiting minority labor.

                      One minute, you’re a Marxist class warrior, and the next, you just don’t know why the conversation has to involve morals.

                      I already told you: I reject gaslighting as a philosophy.

                2. Tulsa is a hoax and you know it.

        2. “No but he did invite the neo-Nazis and his slimeball children and associates.”
          And shitstain showed up!
          How…………..
          predicable that lefty piles of shit would invent reasons to justify their assholic claims as shitstain does here.

    2. Nothing says “fucking lefty ignoramus” like a shitstain post.
      No wonder your such a fucking TDS-addled asshole.

    3. Nothing says rugged individualism and free thought like everyone screeching about the exact same obscure subject at the exact time their TV pundits are screeching about it all in lockstep.

      THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN! IT’S THE BEGINNING OF THE END! RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA! PEE PEE TAPE! CHILDREN IN CAGES!

  77. So okay, Team Red, ball’s in your court now. What is the Patriotically Correct curriculum about race and identity and power to teach kids? And no I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about the modern day. What do you want schools to tell kids about why Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated? What do you want schools to tell kids about why there is a correlation between race and poverty? A lot of people sure did get upset about George Floyd’s murder, didn’t they. What do you want responsible and patriotic teachers to tell kids about what happened and why there are so many protests and why police reform is a ‘thing’? I guess ‘structural racism’ is right out. So what then?

    According to the right-wing narrative, the Civil Rights Act ended pretty much all forms of structural discrimination against Blacks, there are very few anti-Black bigots nowadays, all the bigots that do exist are on the left and they are anti-White bigots, the only structural forms of racism that do exist are affirmative action programs that favor people of color, and so the reasons why so many disparities still exist between the races today must be – what? I guess it must be because Blacks have failed to live up to the expectations that Whites have placed on them. I mean, I guess that must be the answer, right? They just aren’t trying hard enough. Maybe they need bigger bootstraps. Is that it? If only they would behave more in line with the cultural norms in this country that has been established by White people, then everything would be fine. Oh sorry, I can’t talk about “White culture”. That’s racist and bad. It’s just that Black culture is too out of step with the cultural majority in this country. They need to stop acting like they are separate from the rest of us and blend in like everyone knows they are supposed to do.

    Perhaps that’s what Patriotically Correct teachers can teach kids about race, identity and power. That race is immaterial and irrelevant as long as people’s identities aren’t all that different from each other, and not much different from the cultural norm [that was established by White people – but shh, can’t say that!]. The solution to the race problems in this country is conformity. If there were no substantive cultural differences between Blacks and Whites, then there would be no substantive power differences either based on race, and we would expect outcomes among races to become more equitable. Maybe that can be the Team Red curriculum. Conform, don’t rock the boat, obey the cultural majority, and everything will be fine.

    1. What do you want schools to tell kids about why Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated?

      That they disproportionately commit crime? Is it even typical to teach 6 year olds about incarceration rates? Maybe we should focus on making sure that kids can fucking read before we start them on a steady diet of Marxism you pathetic sack of authoritarian bootlicking shit.

      What do you want schools to tell kids about why there is a correlation between race and poverty?

      Is there? Asians as a group are wealthier than whites. Jews as a group are wealthier than Asians. If race is a social construct with no basis in biology or reality, how do we even establish those correlations? What exactly were you taught in the public schools in Toronto where you grew up and were educated, cytotoxic? Maybe since you’re such a stupid sack of shit we should avoid that sort of pedagogy and teach kids HOW to think instead of WHAT to think.

      A lot of people sure did get upset about George Floyd’s murder, didn’t they. What do you want responsible and patriotic teachers to tell kids about what happened and why there are so many protests and why police reform is a ‘thing’? I guess ‘structural racism’ is right out. So what then?

      So “teach the controversy” is back in style now? Cool.

      The solution to the race problems in this country is conformity. If there were no substantive cultural differences between Blacks and Whites, then there would be no substantive power differences either based on race, and we would expect outcomes among races to become more equitable. Maybe that can be the Team Red curriculum. Conform, don’t rock the boat, obey the cultural majority, and everything will be fine.

      Coming from somebody who rationalizes shooting unarmed protesters in the face for misdemeanor trespass, who finds himself on the side of the ruling party that controls all 3 branches of the federal government, academia, entertainment, business, and Big Tech, and insists that children in elementary school must be inculcated with racial hatred and Marxism lest they fail to subscribe to the exact same orthodoxy, this is pretty fucking rich.

      1. Wow. A thin-skinned shriveled CUNT. Makes sense in this context, huh? Just keep firing off those ad hominems. Renders your critiques completely worthless. Good job, fucking LOSER.

    2. Oh btw, did you think you were going to show up 8 hours after the fact and corpse-fuck the thread with your retardation and get in the last word? Lmfao. What a pathetic sack of shit you well and truly are. A racist, hate-filled, bigoted, historical revisionist, Marxist piece of total fucking shit.

    3. Dont need cultural conformity and dont need equity. In fact equity is garbage, and striving for it is collectivist, anti individualism.

      You can teach about the bad things that happened done by past white people. Its part of our history. But it stops there, it doesnt get to count as a get out of jail free card for a race for eternity. At some point personal responsibility has to take hold.

      You can be very successful without absolutely completely adopting white culture. I know a few people who have first generation immigrant asian parents. They keep their customs, they are very asian, they do lots of asian things. But their parents, while immersing them in Asian culture, constantly are involved, encouraging, and pushing them all the time to excel in STEM fields (maybe to a fault, they are STEM obsessed, these specific parents).

      There are a lot of Jewish families that immerse their kids in their religion and culture. They also are very involved and push their kids to excel in school.

      Seeing a trend here bud? Anyone can keep their culture and traditions. But if you want your kids to succeed you have to be present, involved, caring, and push your kid to be involved in things that will make them thrive. Its not a coincidence that this is absolutely lacking in the black community. Is part of that from locking up too many black fathers for stupid weed crimes? Absolutely. But that’s not the whole story.

      The problem is part of the “culture” nowadays for young black kids has been anti-academic, being well read is “white / nerdy”, kids are more likely to be in a one parent home (already a huge handicap), parents aren’t as involved in pushing education (esp STEM), kids are left unsupervised, and being “tough / hard” is so important to these kids.

      So here is how the curriculum should go. Let’s talk about what people did hundreds of years ago. Let’s talk about slavery and how horrible it was (maybe we can mention that slavery actually still happens…in Africa, and kind of China too). Let’s talk about Jim Crow and what people did to try and hold black people down. Let’s talk about how blacks were dealt a really shitty hand. We can also talk about how half the white people in the country went to war with the other half, in a bloody battle, partially to free black people from slavery. It didnt magically occur, and black people didnt free themselves, a large amount of white people with enlightenment thinking eventually did the right thing.

      Then we can talk about how to succeed in life. Nothing cultural, you dont have to “act white”. But just facts. You can keep anything from your culture you want. But if you are a young guy and you knock up a girl, your life is likely going to suck. You will likely lose your career chances, and have limited financial ability (same for the kid). If you are a girl and get knocked up, same story, and if the guy doesnt stick around, your kid will be severely behind in terms of their chances at a good life. If you want to make money and get ahead, you need to be at the grind, preferably in STEM fields which give you access to the best jobs. If you manage to do all that right, and you then have a kid after, their best chance is for you and mom to stay together, being highly involved in teaching them, guiding them, and encouraging good behavior and hard work so they can get ahead. If one of the parents is absent for any reason, your kid will automatically have a crippled financial future they have to overcome. And finally, if you live in a lower income / poorer community, you are more likely to see or be surrounded by crime. You have to do everything to avoid it, and not be a part of it, as it will financially cripple you. White parents, Asian parents, Jewish parents all teach their kids this stuff and are very present in their lives. This is why they succeed.

      Black people represent half the violent crime despite being 10-15% of the population. Im sorry, thats not just white supremacy. That has to be fixed, or things wont change. Im sorry no amount of “whitey was bad to you” is going to remedy that high of a crime rate, no matter what you want to indoctrinate kids with. Black people have a disproportionately high rate of single parent households, and its hard to make sure kiddos homework is done when you are raising them alone. These two things alone are the largest factors in why blacks are struggling.

      The answer isnt this bullshit “equity”, equity is a cancer toward individualism and meritocracy. The answer is not to infantilize them, telling them everything is due to the oppressors in their life, and this racial determinism that is present in CRT that their race alone (and that of the white oppressor) is the biggest determinant of their outcome (and according to CRT, not changable), when we know the sky high crime rate and single parent households are infinitely more responsible…these things also have solutions.

      So no, beating white people over the head with guilt, and coddling black people with victimhood will not change anything. It will further divide us, and most likely result in worse outcomes for blacks. You know how people DONT get out of a bad situation? When they think they were dealt a bad hand, cant do anything about it, its all someone elses fault, and the only solution is for those bad people to make it right for me.

      1. Then we can talk about how to succeed in life. Nothing cultural, you dont have to “act white”. But just facts. You can keep anything from your culture you want. But if you are a young guy and you knock up a girl, your life is likely going to suck.

        See, there we go. Just “facts”? Those are not facts, those are the result of cultural choices made by the cultural majority. “You must conform to our way of thinking when it comes to families.” Where is it stated as a natural law of the universe that having a child out of wedlock should doom your career prospects?

        Here is just one link of the subject, there are countless more:

        https://www.educationnext.org/international-look-single-parent-family/

        From the conclusion:
        Single parenthood is prevalent in virtually all OECD countries, but the share of single-parent families is particularly high in the United States. Students from single-parent families perform significantly lower in math than students from two-parent families in virtually all countries. To a large extent, however, this achievement gap reflects differences in socioeconomic background, as measured by the number of books at home and parental education, rather than family structure alone.

        In other places, kids aren’t doomed for life if they come from a single-parent household. Why can’t the US cultural majority make these types of cultural choices instead?

        1. “See, there we go. Just “facts”? Those are not facts, those are the result of cultural choices made by the cultural majority. “You must conform to our way of thinking when it comes to families.” Where is it stated as a natural law of the universe that having a child out of wedlock should doom your career prospects?”

          They are facts. These kids are competing against a “cultural majority” that has 2 parents that are involved. It is well documented that having 2 parents gives you a better shot and better outcomes on average than 1. Having a child out of wedlock shouldn’t doom your career, but it will be a large obstacle to overcome. If you have a culture where people are having more children out of wedlock, or more importantly not having 2 parents present, they will have more obstacles to overcome.

          Im sorry you have some utopia in mind where unicorns make it so peoples poor choices have no consequence, but they do.

          1. Jeff is clearly a product of the Participation Trophy Society.

        2. Furthermore, what if instead of single parenthood, what if it was alcoholism. What if hypothetically blacks were 50% more likely to be raging alcoholics and whites were unlikely to.

          Would we say “no one should be doomed for life if there parents are raging alcoholics”. Frankly yes, they shouldnt be doomed. But would that be something we need to understand, address, and try to change to give them better outcomes? Would we try and tell them that they should drink less, and if that was in the culture, that the culture might need to change if they wanted better outcomes? Or would we find reasons that whites are to blame, and tell them they dont have to change, they are perfectly fine the way we are, society just needs to be more ideal for them to thrive?

        3. Where is it stated as a natural law of the universe that having a child out of wedlock should doom your career prospects?

          weird, then, how it generally works out that way.

          a natural consequence of having a child is caring for that child. Which means taking a job one may not prefer in order to immediately obtain resources for an immense responsibility.

          me, personally, I’d rather the State protect and encourage reproduction among the most qualified of parents and secure for them quality, well-paying work. I know that’s not popular here, but denying the natural, commonsense framework for how certain decisions unfold is just unbecoming for anyone intelligent.

    4. ‘Conform, don’t rock the boat, obey the cultural majority, and everything will be fine.’ This is the Team Blue byline, with the addition: failure to conform often results in loss of job, doxxing, bank accounts terminated, inability to open bank accounts, tax exempt status denied or revoked, IRS audit, assault or battery, arrest under any variation of perverse hate crime laws. Self-awareness not your thing, and you continue to claim you don’t support, and only support left-leaning and progressive policies and laws versus those that are neutrally libertarian?

    5. I guess ‘structural racism’ is right out. So what then?

      how about the truth?

      If there were no substantive cultural differences between Blacks and Whites, then there would be no substantive power differences either based on race, and we would expect outcomes among races to become more equitable. Maybe that can be the Team Red curriculum. Conform, don’t rock the boat, obey the cultural majority, and everything will be fine.

      yeah we wouldn’t want any radical ideas like personal responsibility, family, localism, respect, rule of law and order to break out. might be catching.

  78. Education should be as local as possible. Abolish the Department of Education or at least diminish their influence greatly. Probably abolish the State Departments of Education or diminish their influence as well.

    The more local education is the more accurate it will be for the citizens and students attending each local school. If citizens attending a school want CRT then they should be allowed and conversely another school should be allowed to not teach CRT.

    Allowing students to attend the school of their choice and any funding traveling with the student would allow the citizens to vote with their feet.

    Unfortunately, the current crop of Democrats in power want to force people to fit into their world view and live according to their rules. Not that the Republicans are any different, but the systemic problems we have are largely due to how deeply left leaning partisans have embedded themselves into the bureaucracy including education.

    Having friends in both political camps, I find that Democrats have a patronizing type of racism and constantly accuse others of racism. I find that Republicans are more of less oblivious of race, but rile at being accused of being a racist and sometimes are goated into saying something stupid in an attempt to prove that they are not racist.

    1. “Probably abolish the State Departments of Education”

      Unpossible. At least not without major revisions to each state consitution. All power within a state derives from the state. Every lesser authority is a creature of state government.

    2. DoE did some good work under DeVos in countering 44’s horrific title IX overreach. Which, admittedly may not have come to pass were it not for the DoE under 44.

  79. The long and short of it is, public schools in the USA are maggoty with lefturds who are trying to sow hatred and division, and couldn’t care less about educating kids. Write them off, they’re a total loss. If you have kids, either home school them or find a private school that won’t teach them the depraved marxist party line.

    -jcr

  80. so the Right is correct but somehow wrong.

    this is why “Reason” should have never left for D.C.

  81. CRT is itself racist since it ascribes negative stereotypes to a broad group of people (all whites are inherently racist) with no regard for individual words or actions. This is no less racist than saying ‘all blacks are criminal’ or ‘all Mexicans are lazy,’ and should not be taught in schools. If you want to teach CRT to your kids, that is your choice but I don’t want my tax dollars used to indoctrinate my kids with hateful and harmful Marxist theory against my will. The NEA certainly does not have the interests of children and parents (their customers and employers) at heart. Public employee unions should simply be banned.

    1. that assumes you think of racism as a negative personality trait.

      granted, most people do.

  82. Ok, boys and girls, here’s the final tally for the July 4th weekend:
    shootings: 540
    People killed: 189
    So let’s get CRT in every school and watch the numbers drop.
    Yeah…right.

  83. Now that it’s been reported that Donald Trump praised Adolph Hitler for doing some good things, I expect a full endorsement by the FOX News crowd of Critical Nazi Theory, where we reexamine the cultural biases in history texts that cast genocidal fascists in a negative light.

    1. At this point, I’m going to need evidence first.

      I remember the trick from last time where Trump was a Russian spy.

      Fool me once…

      1. The strawman that united far right and far left. The Mueller Report didn’t necessarily say Trump was an actual double agent, not that you’ve read it, and no serious person ever claimed that. There is a spectrum between “Russian spy” and “free of Russian influence,” of course.

        The Hitler thing is claimed in this book by a Wall Street Journal reporter:

        https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/153873480X/reasonmagazinea-20/

        You can judge his sourcing as you will.

        1. It certainly didn’t say he was a Russian spy, too.

        2. Yep a ‘story’ reported 3rd-hand as were most of the TDS-addled assholes claims and shitstain does no better.
          Imagine my……………..
          boredom

  84. CRT is like Flat Earth Theory.

  85. Author assumes the language that it is reasonable to teach, means it is taught.

    1. This was a recent agreed proposal.
    2. It is and unfunded and therefore not enacted proposal.
    3. Unions don’t make State curricula, States do.

    The soft wording isn’t much different than the NEA’s or AFT’s poorly worded prior statements. NEA has clearly said it is NOT being taught in K12.

  86. What NEA has since been clear about is it is NOT taught in K12. This soft language used here has been used by them and the NFT before.

    What they proposed in this unfunded resolution was it ought to be able to be mentioned specifically within types of frameworks. And it should, why not? The reason why it can’t be is because adults are acting like children.

    Everyone jumps from the mere phrase as if it’s indoctrination, without even thinking what that implies. Teaching its existence is not only not teaching to use CRT, it isn’t indoctrinating no more then mentioning what Nazism or Hinduism or Communism is.

    There’s no more sense in legislating against it, then there is in legislating against teachers explaining the latest theory of noninvasive surgery. CRT requires a vast amount of base knowledge not possible to be taught in K12.

    At any rate:
    1. An unfunded proposal not enacted
    2. Unions don’t make Curricula, States do.
    3. chill the F out.

    Everyone desperate to try to find one instance in the entire country, where someone mention the boogeyman words, to prove a nonexistent problem.

Please to post comments