Critical Race Theory

'Equity,' 'Multiculturalism,' and 'Racial Prejudice' Among Concepts That Could Be Banned in Schools by Wisconsin Bill

A bill touted as banning "critical race theory" in schools would actually ban a huge array of speech around culture, race, and sex, its sponsor says.

|

Equity. Multiculturalism. Patriarchy. Social justice. White supremacy. Uttering any of these words or phrases in a school could land Wisconsinites in trouble, if the state's Republican-led Assembly gets its way.

On Tuesday, the Assembly passed legislation that Wisconsin Republicans are touting as a ban on teaching "critical race theory."

Lately, such bills have become a popular—and problematic—conservative agenda item, despite the mockery they sometimes make of free speech and free inquiry. Often, these proposals ban so much as discussing certain concepts related to race and cut off educational examinations of historical events and injustices. In other cases, the measures seem largely performative, purporting to ban the buzzwordy "critical race theory" while in reality prohibiting much narrower and more controversial concepts that there's no evidence schools are actually condoning (such as the view that one race is better than another).

At first blush, the Wisconsin measure—Assembly Bill (A.B.) 411, passed by a party-line vote of 60–38—seems to fall into the latter category. The bill would ban public schools and independent charter schools from teaching students "that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex," that "an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex," and several related concepts. It would also ban schools from training employees in these concepts.

But the bill would actually go further than most, allowing parents to sue "a school district or operator of a charter school for violation of the prohibitions" and, according to co-sponsoring Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R–Muskego), banning nearly 100 words, phrases, and concepts related to culture, race, and sex.

Last month during a joint hearing on education, Wichgers shared a list of terms that could violate A.B. 411 if taught.

These are "terms associated with critical race theory or…part of the praxis of the theory," he told colleagues in an August 11 letter. "Yes, it's extensive and you can tell a lot of this was created in legal academia, but the point of this legislation is to prohibit it from being taught in our government schools."

The frighteningly broad list includes a plethora of perfectly neutral or basic terms—the kinds of words or phrases used to teach about ideas, not necessarily advocate for any particular ones. Wichgers' list is also rife with concepts far from the academic or political fringe.

For instance, multiculturalism—which just means the presence or support of "several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society," according to the Oxford English Dictionary—and cultural awareness (being cognizant that cultural differences can exist) make the list.

Equity, defined as "the quality of being fair and impartial," is also on there, along with equitable. So are diversity training, hegemony, intersectionality, marginalized identities, normativity, patriarchy, racial justice, restorative justice, structural bias, systemic bias, and woke.

Wichgers told colleagues his proposal was meant to "prevent government schools from violating" the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, not prevent educators from simply teaching about racism. But it's hard to see how this assertion jibes with the long list of words and concepts—colorism, racial prejudice, race essentialism, white supremacy—that he claims his legislation could ban.

You can find the full list of words that Wichgers submitted to the Wisconsin Legislature here. These are "terms and concepts…that either wholly violate the above clauses, or which may if taught through the framework of any of the prohibited activities defined above, partially violate the above clauses," states a note at the top of the list.

Fortunately, Wichgers' overreaching bill has little chance of becoming law, for now. It's not yet passed the state's Senate and—even if it does—would likely be vetoed by Wisconsin's Democratic governor.

NEXT: Venom: Let There Be Carnage Might Be the Worst Movie of the Year

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. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGJ And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it!…READ MORE

        1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocghked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

          So I started……… https://bit.ly/3u3ryIo

          1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.JHg I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now. Open this web…… ­­­­WorkJoin1

            1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to ODS generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

              Try now…VISIT HERE

  1. Thought experiment:

    Could a teacher or school district teach Eugenics, Naziism or explicit white supremacy in their classrooms, if not, what’s the mechanism to stop them?

    1. Scopes taught eugenics. The textbook he used to teach evolution was entirely a work of progressive indoctrination. <a href="https://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/scopes/id/125/"Hunter's A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems.

      The Wisconsin law would ban the Monkey Trial evolution textbook!

      The Races of Man.—At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

        1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.CTb Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

          Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

      1. -Scopes taught eugenics-

        Ditto “Harvard” ca early-mid 20th century. Writ large. Oliver W Holmes gave us the classic ( jurisprudential) line: “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” See Buck v. Bell.

    2. This law strikes me as pretty stupid. Banning terms is not going to be effective because it is easy for these people trying to infiltrate schools to change those terms. They’ve already started doing it as soon as CRT became a toxic, triggering word.

      It is more important to focus on the theories behind CRT, which seems to be correct.

      On the other hand, ENB is being deliberately coy in her review of the terms. Equity as used in racial studies is specifically used as a “hey it sounds benign” mechanism for arguing for “Equality of Outcomes” instead of “Equality of Opportunity”. And it should be made clear that the former requires evil infringement on liberty while the latter is a laudable goal.

      1. The law, as far as I can see, doesn’t ban any terms. I don’t know why that idiot wants to make it seem like it does unless he’s trying to sink it. It rather bans teaching of prejudice or discrimination based on sex or race in ways that I can’t imagine anyone outside of nutty academia would have objected to 10 years ago.

        1. “But the bill would actually go further than most… according to co-sponsoring Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R–Muskego), banning nearly 100 words, phrases, and concepts related to culture, race, and sex.”

          That was the part I was taking from ENB’s article. Is that incorrect? It doesn’t ban specific terms?

          1. Nope. No mention of any terms that can’t be used in the actual text. And I can’t see anything that could really be interpreted that way. I’ve learned to always read the text of the bills like this when people make claims like that. The interpretation is almost always bullshit. This one took about 5 minutes to read.

        2. Follow the link and read the terms. Besides the fact that banning words in education should be a red flag for everyone, there are a whole lot of words on the list that are … questionable.

          Link: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ab0411_2021_08_11.pdf

          1. Except they’re not banned, as has been mentioned repeatedly.

        3. It bans liberal politcal indoctrination. Reason would be agains that as a woke, liberal, socialist arm of the Democratic party.

    3. A teacher should have enough academic freedom to construct a curriculum that professionally and age-appropriately discusses the topics within the teacher’s area of expertise.

      No professional teacher is going to teach eugenics because it’s (a) false and (b) unprofessional.

      If a teacher IS teaching eugenics *as fact* in the classroom, then the solution is not to ban teaching eugenics, but to fire the unprofessional teacher.

      The reason why legislators shouldn’t ban specific topics in the classroom is because (a) it creates a chilling effect on the free inquiry that a classroom is supposed to foster; (b) it opens up a huge can of worms about which topics should/shouldn’t be taught (if something isn’t explicitly banned, does that mean it is now endorsed?); and (c) it is literally turning schools into indoctrination centers, for teaching kids the “correct” ideas.

      1. No professional teacher is going to teach eugenics because it’s (a) false and (b) unprofessional.

        As is Critical Race Theory, so I ask my question again, what’s the mechanism?

        1. The state determines what is true or false!

      2. “A teacher should have enough academic freedom to construct a curriculum that professionally and age-appropriately discusses the topics within the teacher’s area of expertise.”

        No. K-12 teachers don’t need “academic freedom” to discuss topics. They need to teach kids the curriculum demanded by their parents. And since the state has declared that they will handle the hiring, managing and processing of Teachers on the behalf of Parents, then it is fully within the right of the state to administer that.

        “No professional teacher is going to teach eugenics because it’s (a) false and (b) unprofessional.”

        Here in California, a teacher was caught indoctrinating kids with communist rhetoric. He was straight up communist, and was caught on camera explaining how he pushes communism on middle schoolers. It is an utterly discredited ideology (aka False) and teaching it was unprofessional. And yet here we are with commies pushing their ideology on middle schoolers!

        CRT is a crypto-marxist ideology and has no place in any elementary school- and parents overwhelmingly agree with this. Since school boards and administrators appear unable to stop it (and indeed some seem to support it), I see nothing wrong with the state stepping in to prohibit it in state run schools.

        1. No. K-12 teachers don’t need “academic freedom” to discuss topics.

          Yes they do. Do you want kids to get an education, or do you want kids to go to daycare/indoctrination camps? Because if all you want is for teachers to just serve as proxies for parents, then you are asking for the latter not the former. Education is about LEARNING and EXPLORING new ideas which sometimes contradict the parents’ dogma.

          Here in California, a teacher was caught indoctrinating kids with communist rhetoric.

          Congratulations, you cited an example of an unprofessional and irresponsible teacher. He was fired. Good. What else is there to say? Do you mean to suggest that there are commies hiding everywhere?

          CRT is a crypto-marxist ideology and has no place in any elementary school-

          EVERY idea has a place at SOME school at SOME level in SOME manner, if only for the sake of critique. I flatly reject the idea of banning ideas from the classroom. Do you want critical thinkers, or do you want robots who regurgitate the ‘correct’ ideas?

        2. “They need to teach kids the curriculum demanded by their parents.”

          That isn’t how it works. Parents don’t choose the curriculum for the school.

          “CRT is a crypto-marxist ideology and has no place in any elementary school- and parents overwhelmingly agree with this.”

          CRT is a weak theory, but it isn’t crypto-marxist. Nor do “parents” overwhelmingly agree with that. Conservative culture warriors? Sure. But not your average parent.

          I’m not sure what all the pearl-clutching is about CRT, but it just isn’t worth this kind of angst. And the false equivalence between teaching and endorsing is just evidence that it isn’t a good faith argument.

          I was taught a lot of bullshit as a child. Somehow I wasn’t indoctrinated into a cult or whatever it is you think CRT is doing.

          1. I’m Looking at your posts. Yeah you are in a cult

          2. I totally agree. CRT is a crypto-marxist ideology. Vomited up by a crypto marxist.

      3. “No professional teacher is going to teach eugenics because it’s (a) false and (b) unprofessional.”

        Professional teachers teach all kinds of false crap, from global warming to critical race theory. They would push eugenics again if it hadn’t fallen out of fashion.

      4. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?
        In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

  2. A bill touted as banning “critical race theory” in schools would actually ban a huge array of speech around culture, race, and sex, its sponsor says.

    Because we can never hear enough of this shit, right?

    1. And its a lie. These bills often target the teaching of racial inferiority or primary differences based on race. It does not stop the teaching of culture, race, etc. The sponsor is lying. Just like Jeff does on this subject.

      1. Just more pearl clutching, dishonest, anti-conservative social signaling from this particular writer.

      2. Jeff runs so much interference for CRT, you’d think he was a defensive lineman for the Bears.

  3. This is “anti racist” in much the same way rioters were “anti fascist”

  4. Schools should only teach political items in politics classes that kids choose to take. Those classes should have equal representation of all political thought if they are funded by the state.

    Not sure why ENB is so hurt by this? Schools should not be breeding grounds for activists.

    such bills have become a popular—and problematic—conservative agenda item,

    Meanwhile McCauliffe is saying parents should have no say in schools. Where’s your article on that ENB? Are you as equally mad at the left for pushing their radicalized concepts in schools? Or just that conservatives “pounced?”

    1. Equity, defined as “the quality of being fair and impartial,” is also on there, along with equitable.

      LOL. Is ENB serious? Equity, as taught (see slides by Rufio), is the idea that all outcomes should be nearly identical. Wow ENB. What a fail by you. Equity is just softened up socialism. It focuses on outcomes.

      1. Yeah. That is a definition is some dictionary somewhere. But everyone knows that the CRT/woke/SJW/whatever people have very particular meanings for works like “equity” and “racism” that don’t align with the conventional usage. “Equity” as they use it is a very destructive and dangerous concept.

        1. So teachers are all “CRT/woke/SJW/whatever people”? That seems a little … extreme.

          Because if a teacher isn’t one of those people, equity doesn’t have the weird, constrained definition you give it. And they shouldn’t be banned from using it.

          Censorship is a problem, especially censorship based on unfounded assumptions.

          1. Not unfounded. Plenty of documentation on that. Don’t play dumb

            1. He’s not playing.

      2. Mott meet bailey

    2. Schools should only teach political items in politics classes that kids choose to take. Those classes should have equal representation of all political thought if they are funded by the state.

      So, equal time for Nazi fascism and liberal democracy?

      1. Same thing, so they can share a slot.

      2. In my political theory class, I absolutely learned about Fascism as a political theory and the critiques of it as well.

        1. That’s great. Every kid should learn about fascism and its critiques.
          I don’t think it should get equal time with liberal democracy though.

          1. Equal representation and equal time are not the same.

            1. There is a lot more to learn about how the 7th largest population in the world in the 1930s was convinced to tolerate genocide than there is about how liberal democracy gives every person a vote.

              This is probably an insight as to why you fail to perceive the dangers of a large portion of the US population flirting with Marxism.

              1. If only the intelligentsia in the US hadn’t taken that and the lessons of the USSR as a how to guide.

            2. Jeff doesnt understand the difference.

      3. No, because we have a system for recognizing things that shouldn’t be taught in class, at least by current social mores. CRT is easily within the categories of Nazi Fascism. Easily.

        1. CRT is easily within the categories of Nazi Fascism. Easily.

          You’re going to have to clarify, particularly with how the term CRT has been bastardized over the past several months.

          There are parts of CRT that are just downright dumb. Like the idea that the only reason SCOTUS passed Brown v. Board of Ed. was to improve our standing with the Soviets, and had nothing to do with a genuine nonracist viewpoint about schools. That is a cynical view to the point of absurdity.

          Then there are parts of CRT that are about “blame whitey”. That is offensive and racist but it is also not the same as calling for pogroms against whitey.

          Then there are the parts which discusses structural racism and institutional racism. That isn’t even a part of formal CRT but that is what Team Red has decided is now to be called “CRT”. Is that “Nazi Fascism”? The idea that institutions produce results different than the intentions of those who operate the institutions? It is collectivist but it is not fascist per se.

          So I don’t know what exactly you think is “Nazi Fascist” about it.

          1. Poor marxist moron. You do realize your/their idea of removing “structural racism” is equal outcomes, right? Blame whitey is the entirety of the CRT grift.

          2. To achieve the impossible goal of equality of outcomes, schools can’t be free to admit only students who meet their academic standards, businesses can’t be free to hire only the best-qualified applicants, and individuals can’t even be free to choose what they want to study and what jobs they want to pursue (because many of the “inequities” assholes like Kendi rail against are simply people choosing what they want to study and where they want to work). Equality of outcomes isn’t possible without complete social control. Like all apologists for the left, you have a real problem with people accurately defining terms and using labels correctly, but if that complete social control doesn’t equate to “fascism,” it’s close enough. (It’s also stupid; only 12 out of 100 employees in a company is racism, but 13 isn’t? Only a simpleton could define justice this way.)

            1. *only 12 black employees

        2. By “system”, do you mean “kick up a fuss about anything that isn’t conservative enough”? Because that’s what the hysteria over CRT seems like.

          1. the hysteria over CRT

            Fuck off, Marxist. HA-ha!

  5. You know, if there were a libertarian writer at Reason, she could point out how state-established and -financed indoctrination centers are axiomatically subject to political control of their speech, and thus how the only solution to the problem is outright abolishing state-established and -financed indoctrination centers.

    You know, if there were a libertarian writer at Reason.

    1. Thank god there isn’t. Where else will I hear what the Democrat party has to say?

  6. Public school teacher speech as a government official is not protected speech.

  7. It’s quicker and more effective to just take your kids out of public schools. If it saves even one kid or one teacher from COVID, who could argue with you?

    1. If only taxpayers could get a refund.

      1. I would happily put any rebate on my property taxes toward my nieces’ private school education costs.

      2. I wish. I have paid school taxes for years and have never used the school system.

        It’s almost like the community funds public schools and your choice is to either accept the free education or pay for a different education for your kids if you don’t like it.

        With school choice that includes magnet schools, charter schools, and tech schools, there are plenty of choices. If you want a specific type of curriculum that only teaches the things you like you’ll need to use your checkbook, not mine.

        1. have never used the school system

          On a positive note, this nitwit hasn’t spawned!

          1. Thank goodness for that.

          2. And was homeschooled apparently, which also explains a lot.

      3. “Public schools should be sued for malpractice.”
        Tom Woods

  8. If the bill is actually banning the use of certain words in schools, then I’d agree that’s bad. I haven’t read the full text of this bill, but others from other states that I have read are quite reasonable and appropriate. Schools should not be teaching any kind of racial essentialism or treating any students differently because of the groups they can be associated with.

    1. There doesn’t need to be a law. This is one of those things we used to know how to deal with, and now claim we’ve forgotten.

      If a teacher started teaching his students about the Master Race and how they’re separated from the Mongrel races, and then went into an entire course unit on Capitalist Jewry, we’d know how to handle it. But… as it has been pointed out by people way smarter than I am– on this very topic– for some reason we don’t know how to deal with this kind of neo-eugenics that’s being smuggled into the school system.

      The only other thing I’ll say about this, is I can guarantee you this law is being passed at the behest of the legislator’s constituents. If you get any of the same shit in your youtube feed that I do, normie parents are fucking fed… up to HERE with this CRT shit, and they’re pushing back hard, and noisily.

      1. Indeed. I would really like it if we didn’t need a law like this. But at this point way too many people have a blind spot for left-wing racism and I’m afraid we do need these laws.

      2. If a teacher started teaching about how capitalists and jews are bad the progs would applaud them. Look at kamala nodding along to antisemitic student rants

        1. Look, she’s a diversity hire. She’s not there because of her intellect.

      3. WE know how to handle extremes to the Right.

        The establishment, though, is unable to handle extremes from the Left.

      4. went into an entire course unit on Capitalist Jewry, we’d know how to handle it

        Set them up with an account to comment at Reason?

  9. Equity, defined as “the quality of being fair and impartial,”

    Maybe that’s in some dictionary, but that’s not what SJW types mean when they use it. They mean enforced equality of outcome. Which is just plain evil.

  10. Back 16 years ago when Intelligent Design was the culture war controversy du jour, Ron Bailey asked on this website “Is it ever alright to teach even widely believed nonsense in public schools?”,

    Now, the writers are asserting that banning the teaching of academically originated nonsense is a free speech violation.

    The contrast is illuminating.

  11. And now I have read the text of the bill and I didn’t see anything that would ban any particular words from being uttered in school. As long as you aren’t teaching overt discrimination or prejudice based on race or sex, you should be good.
    Requiring public school curricula to be publicly and easily available seems like a good idea as well.
    I don’t see anything to object to here. Did ENB actually read the text of the bill? Every objection I’ve seen to one of these bills is extremely dishonest.

    1. A journalist lying? Are you sure? Because that could never possibly happen.

      1. Lying or lazy, I don’t know. Most of the objections I’ve seen have come from activists or opposing legislators.

    2. Well, what stirred the pot here is the legislator who introduced the bill is the one who provided the list.

      That being said, the list in question has no actually relevance to the bill. It was a dumb move.

      And pretending that the list is meaningful is just as dumb.

  12. ‘Equity,’ ‘Multiculturalism,’ and ‘Racial Prejudice’ Among Concepts That SHOULD Be Banned in Schools by Wisconsin Bill

    FTFY, Lizzie …

  13. Banned Words, or, the ultimate in government censorship.

    Critical Race Theory (CRT)
    Action Civics
    Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
    Culturally responsive teaching
    Abolitionist teaching
    Affinity groups
    Anti-racism
    Anti-bias training
    Anti-blackness
    Anti-meritocracy
    Obtuse meritocracy
    Centering or de-centering
    Collective guilt
    Colorism
    Conscious and unconscious bias
    Critical ethnic studies
    Critical pedagogy
    Critical self-awareness
    Critical self-reflection
    Cultural appropriation/misappropriation
    Cultural awareness
    Cultural competence
    Cultural proficiency
    Cultural relevance
    Cultural responsiveness
    Culturally responsive practices
    De-centering whiteness
    Deconstruct knowledges
    Diversity focused
    Diversity training
    Dominant discourses
    Educational justice
    Equitable
    Equity
    Examine “systems”
    Free radical therapy
    Free radical self/collective care
    Hegemony
    Identity deconstruction
    Implicit/Explicit bias
    Inclusivity education
    Institutional bias
    Institutional oppression
    Internalized racial superiority
    Internalized racism
    Internalized white supremacy
    Interrupting racism
    Intersection
    Intersectionality
    Intersectional identities
    Intersectional studies
    Land acknowledgment
    Marginalized identities
    Marginalized/Minoritized/Under-represented communities
    Microaggressions
    Multiculturalism
    Neo-segregation
    Normativity
    Oppressor vs. oppressed
    Patriarchy
    Protect vulnerable identities
    Race essentialism
    Racial healing
    Racialized identity
    Racial justice
    Racial prejudice
    Racial sensitivity training
    Racial supremacy
    Reflective exercises
    Representation and inclusion
    Restorative justice
    Restorative practices
    Social justice
    Spirit murdering
    Structural bias
    Structural inequity
    Structural racism
    Systemic bias
    Systemic oppression
    Systemic racism
    Systems of power and oppression
    Unconscious bias
    White fragility
    White privilege
    White social capita

    1. Go read the text of the bill and tell me where it bans any words from being used. That list is just made up.

      1. Point taken. But I have a natural revulsion against any (age-relevant) topics, ideas, or concepts being banned from a classroom. As someone who spent a little bit of time as a teacher (though not in public schools), I actually encouraged my students to delve into such things.

        Muzzling the teacher, even with just a veiled threat, is hardly a concept we want embedded by law in education. I prefer students study such things, confront them, or support them, in an intellectual (even a somewhat pseudo-intellectual) environment and reach their own conclusions.

        The tradition goes back to Socrates.

        1. Sorry, but these are state employees. If you’re going to have state operated education, than you can surely dictate its boundaries.

          I see no issue with the legislation as drafted.

          1. “Sorry, but these are state employees. If you’re going to have state operated education, than you can surely dictate its boundaries.”

            Which is a pretty good argument for the State not being involved in public education. I remember when the actual people in a community served by their school had some say over how their children were educated. It was still government, but, at least it was local, and, theoretically at least, under more control by the people. Once State-level politicians become involved, it becomes a political football game, not only at the state level, but at regional and the national level as well. And that holds true for politicians on any side of whatever issue they to “message.”

            CRT is largely bunk. But those wishing it might go away, if they just keep it out of the schools, are largely just pushing their own “bunk.”

            1. There’s a difference between wishing it might go away vs. turning a blind eye to how your tax dollars are being spent.

              1. “There’s a difference between wishing it might go away vs. turning a blind eye to how your tax dollars are being spent.”

                Not sure what you mean.

                I am reminded every day how my tax dollars are spent. And on what they are spent. That doesn’t mean I have very much control over it.

                1. The point is that one can argue against public education (and I do!) and also argue that if there is going to be public education, it ought not teach marxist theories to elementary school kids unless it is as part of a “shit evil totalitarians believe” lesson.

                  1. Who’s teaching Marxism?

                2. Not sure what you mean.

                  He means that only a fool deals with what actually is as though it were what he wishes it was.

          2. Sorry, but these are state employees. If you’re going to have state operated education, than you can surely dictate its boundaries.

            So, schools as indoctrination centers?

            1. Does not being allowed to teach Nazi racial theory make them indoctrination centers? Do you really think schools and teachers should be allowed to teach absolutely anything they want in public schools?

              1. NO, JUST NOT THE BAD STUFF! AND BAD IS LIKE PORNOGRAPHY, I CAN’T DEFINE IT, BUT I A’KNOWS IT A’WHEN I A’SEEZ IT.

              2. Once a school board or a legislature starts going down the road of banning ideas because they think the ideas themselves are offensive and wrong, then how is it not trying to indoctrinate students into the “correct” ideas by banning the “wrong” ideas?

            2. That’s what they are today for racist concepts like critical theory and destructive ideology like marxism (really any anti-capitalist postmodernist BS).

        2. Again, we muzzle teachers all the time– and for damned good reason. How do we accomplish that without a law?

          beginning of civilization – 2015:

          People: Hey, there’s a homeless dude who parked his broken down RV on the sidwalk and is now building a second story on it.

          DOT: We’re having it removed.

          2016-present:

          People: Hey, there’s a homeless dude who parked his broken down RV on the sidwalk and is now building a second story on it.

          City: We’re not sure even what agency would handle such a thing. We’ll form a committee and get back to you in 2024.

          1. Schools would still be teaching eugenics if not for WW2

        3. I agree on how education should work. But unfortunately much of the teaching profession sees their role as shaping students to certain ideologies and ways of thinking, not teaching them to think for themselves.
          And this law, if honestly read, shouldn’t ban discussion of those topics either. It just bans teaching them as the correct belief system that students should adopt. As I’ve said, I wish we didn’t need a law for that. But I’m afraid we do since public schools aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

          1. “But I’m afraid we do since public schools aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.”

            T’is pity, t’is true. I won’t live long enough to see “education vouchers” replace the current system (at least not in significant numbers). Hell, my neighbor’s grandchildren probably won’t live long enough. either.

            1. I have a slightly different perspective, since I am paying into the system and will never get anything from it (homeowner with no kids).

              I support school choice. With a wide assortment of schools, most children can get a good education that caters to their strengths. Charter, magnet, STEM, tech, and arts schools are all included in my state’s public school choices.

              But “voucher” is often code for “using government money to pay religious organizations”. And that’s a terrible idea. Keep Church and State separate, especially when it comes to education.

              It’s bad enough that school taxes are the same for those that use the system and those that don’t. At least good public schools increase my property values, so I get a second-level benefit.

              But using my tax dollars to pay for someone else’s kid to go to Our Lady of Perpetual Self-Righteousness, as well as funding an international pedophile ring and their legal defense? Hell, no. That’s on you, not me.

              1. Good news, a hundred times more of Americans’ tax dollars are going to fund public schools, for whom affected parents and students have no choice, than are going to fund religious schools that offend your sensibilities.

                So, you can drop your whining here and go encourage the leftist tumor elsewhere to allow school choice. Which yes, is going to occasionally fund things you don’t like. As opposed to always funding things you claim not to like, in the absence of choice.

                And if you think a “good” public school is better for your property value than an equally-spending-per-pupil parochial school in your neighborhood, you’re a moron.

              2. And yet you’ve been waving your lubed asshole around in defense of CRT this whole time.

                “Our Lady of Perpetual Self-Righteousness” indeed, Karen.

                Hypocritic dipstick.

                1. Anybody who rails against vouchers because “oh my science it MIGHT go to a parochial school” is a bigot and a moron.

                  And that’s not even getting into the fact that traditional parochial schools do a better of of teaching.

        4. I have a natural revulsion against any (age-relevant) topics, ideas, or concepts being banned from a classroom.

          A college classroom? Sure! I would also have no problem with a teacher commenting if a student has researched some of this on their own and writes about.

          I have a natural revulsion against any of the things you listed being taught in public schools. It is nothing but regurgitated Marxist theories being peddled as modern political thought. It is formulated to make the stupid feel smart and to make the viscous feel validated. It turns good kids into thugs of the left. Just look at SF, Seattle and Portland where this stuff has been in the classroom for years.

          1. Why do a bunch of you seem to think that CRT and Marxism are synonymous? It seems like that must be a talking point somewhere, since it isn’t actually part of the theory.

            1. What’s the theory as you see it?

            2. Look at that list above. If you don’t recognize the language of Marxism, you have not studied it at all.

              1. He recognized it, he just agrees with it.

          2. Indeed. Those three cities are excellent examples of how things turn out when a school system indoctrinates young people into Marxist theory.

  14. Wait, the list of supposed banned words is from a sponsor of the bill? What is wrong with that guy? Why is he making his own bill sound more authoritarian than it is?

    1. Yes. Total nitwit. Took the boilerplate language that’s been used in a number of cases (and which I support) and then wrote an idiotic letter in support of it.

  15. This is pretty much on par for the current Wisconsin Legislature. They will jump on any new culture war issue because dealing with real issues is hard. The sad thing is that the Wisconsin Republican party did have some real thinkers and heavy hitters and that has been lost. The current crop of low lifes know this will never become law so they just keep up the march of the crazies.

    I like to also mention that the Wisconsin legislature turned over $680K dollar of tax payer money has been turned over to investigate the 2020 election. There are no real issue it just that they need to appease the vanity of the former President.

    1. It’s a pretty sad commentary on the state of the world that not allowing overt racism and sexism to be taught in public schools is a culture war issue. Not that long ago there was pretty broad agreement in our culture that those were bad things.

    2. There are no real issue it just that they need to appease the vanity of the former President.

      2016-2020: “Trump is a racist and so is everyone who doesn’t hate his guts!!!!”

      2021: “You not wanting racist ideologies being taught in schools means that you’re appeasing Trump’s ego!!!!” (Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)

      1. Hes from illinois and lives in madison. The absolute bottom of the barrel shit of wisco.

      2. Try rereading my comment.

        Spending $680K of taxpayer money is to appease the former President vanity. And it supports the idea that the Wisconsin legislative leader have the spines of jellyfish.

  16. It’s possible the anti-CRT people are going too far in the other direction. It’s a shame that I absolutely don’t trust writers for a publication called “Reason” to actually investigate this and instead have an emotional response.

    For instance, I heard that Texas Law was banning teaching about racism and the KKK, and then I actually investigated that. It was simply removing unnecessary language from a bill that was meant to have broad language because the specifics are defined in underlying articles, and that Texas has always taught about racism and Civil Rights and no changes to that curriculum have been proposed. I suspect this is going to turn out to be a nearly identical situation when I look into it.

    I wish “facts” were at the heart of most news stories rather than narrative and spin.

    1. 9 years in prison, waiting for a trial for stealing a Jansport backpack. No other details you need to know about. Just accept that.

    2. It has come to our attention, and to some of the people who traveled here to Madison today, that a growing number of school districts are teaching material that attempts to redress the injustice of racism and sexism by employing racism and sexism, as well as promoting psychological distress in students based on these immutable characteristics. No one should have to undergo the humiliation of being told that they are inferior to someone else; we are all members of the human race.

      As a state and a nation, we will not defeat racism by employing racist behavior.

      Dear gods, the author of this bill sounds like a monster!

      Detractors of this legislation assert that we are “trying to prohibit teachers from teaching about racism.” This could not be further from the truth. Assembly Bill 411 does not restrict teaching and inquiry about the history of racism; it restricts indoctrination, abusive pedagogies, and state-sanctioned racism. Directing teachers not to inculcate beliefs is very different from telling teachers they can’t acknowledge the existence of certain ideas.

      Okay. So we’re going to continue to teach about racism, we’re just not going to use a specific lens that promotes more racism. Seems like this is on the right track.

      Additional Terms
      Additional terms and concepts below that either wholly violate the above clauses, or which may if taught through the framework of any of the prohibited activities defined above, partially violate the
      above clauses in what is otherwise broadly defined as “critical race theory”:

      So here’s where ENB is lying. This is not a list of “banned terms.” These terms aren’t banned. They can be talked about. He’s not saying kids can’t learn about multiculturalism, he’s saying that it “may, if taught through the framework of ANY OF THE PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES,” be a signaller for CRT.

      I’m just really tired of the misrepresentations. Be honest, and if you think it’s problematic to stigmatize some of these terms by associating them with CRT, write about THAT, but please do not claim it’s a list of banned terms.

      1. That is a distinction without a difference. Why make a list if it isn’t significant. C’mon. This is pure culture war hyperbole.

        CRT as defined by conservatives bears little resemblance to the actual tenets of the theory. They gather the most radical opinions of the most radical supporters and pretend it is the core of the theory.

        CRT is actually a pretty weak theory. It has strong premises but as it moves along the timeline, historically, it becomes more and more tenuous. It’s not a very convincing theory, certainly not as a controlling framework of how to understand modern America.

        If I was naive and gullible, I would believe that resistance to CRT is about educational concerns. But no one is that stupid. This is pure culture war red meat, polarizing and hyperbolic.

        1. Actual tenets of the theory? Who gets to define it? And why would your (watered down motte) definition be any more official than when the hysterical conservatives define it?

          And of course it’s about the education. The idea that my kids’ teachers, who by necessity have their trust and attention, would be teaching my kids that you should judge a work differently based on the color of the author’s skin color, or that disparate results are evidence of bias, or that the US is hopelessly racist, or to look for the racism in every human interaction, or any other CRT idea, is repulsive to me. Worse, it’s a huge breach of trust in a society that has already moved too far away from a high trust society.

          1. One can only assume that Nelson actually believes that the color of the authors skin is important and that the US is hopelessly racist.

        2. It’s hilarious that you think there’s no difference between claiming terms are banned-which is culture war hyperbole-and rightfully reporting that there’s a list of terms that might be signifiers.

          The headline claims, breathlessly, that Wisconsin children might not learn about racial prejudice. It’s pure hyperbole not based in reality. I’d be less suspicious of motives if journalists could report facts.

  17. The bill would ban public schools and independent charter schools from teaching students “that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,”

    So it would be illegal to teach students that men are inherently superior to women in certain sports due to their (on average) greater muscle mass?

    1. Care to put any more qualifiers on “inherently”?

    2. Sports are not “inherent” to humanity. Being good at sports doesn’t make you superior to a woman who is not good at sports.

      I’m shocked that you need this explained to you.

      1. Maybe you haven’t met jeff yet, but you should your expectations of him a bit lower than they are now.

      2. The reason why men overall are better at sports than women overall is due to a biological superiority that men have over women.

        You mean to say that superiority in sports does not make one a better person morally? Sure, I can believe that. But that is not what the law says.

        1. The fact is that any individual man is not inherently better at sports than any individual woman. And thus a man is not inherently better than a woman. “Inherently superior” needs to be true at the individual level in order to have any logical meaning.

          1. That’s not what the law says. It bans teaching “that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex”. It uses the collective terms “race” and “sex”, not individual terms like “an individual man” or “an individual woman”. Therefore we are talking about average or collective properties here.

            The FACT is, men are, on average, inherently better at certain sports than women, particularly the ones requiring strength, due to muscle mass. And I thought it was this FACT that was the basis for the right-wing complaints about trans women competing in women’s sports. That it created an unfair competition and would “destroy” women’s athletics.

            So I guess this law would now open up all of Wisconsin’s schools’ women’s athletics to all trans women automatically? What’s the reason not to based on this law?

            1. There’s a difference between a stereotype and the basis for a stereotype. Stating that “Males, on average, perform better on physical tasks than Women, on average” is much different than saying “Men are inherently superior to women at sports”. The point of having a stereotype is the ability to use it to apply to an individual. It’s not a stereotype otherwise.

            2. Why do people engage in this kind of sophistry?

      3. I’m shocked that you need this explained to you.

        Nobody else is.

    3. I think you are splitting hairs, but you kind of have a point there. I might argue about what “inherent” really means and whether it is properly applied to narrow questions like physical strength or was intended to mean some inherent moral superiority.

      1. I am illustrating the folly of trying to pass laws regulating individual behavior in this manner. Team Blue does this all the time – some bad thing happens, so they pass a law to ban or regulate it, the law has unintended consequences, so another law is passed to clean up that mess but ends up creating more messes, etc., etc. Now Team Red is getting in on the act.

        I might argue about what “inherent” really means and whether it is properly applied to narrow questions like physical strength or was intended to mean some inherent moral superiority.

        And none of that should be micromanaged by state legislators.

        And by the way, my example gives ammunition to the trans activists out there who declare “trans women are women”. After all, if men and women are now exactly the same according to the law, what is the problem now in trying to keep trans women off of the women’s highschool sports teams?

        1. You’re not going to get an argument from me about the law. We should be able to handle all of this without a law. But for some reason, we’ve allowed neo-eugenecists to sneak into our school system… slither in, really is how I’d characterize it, while we were all busy screeching about food trucks and legal weed.

          Now we’ve got REAL honest-to-God racists running significant indoctrination programs in our schools and legislators are (admittedly) flailing about trying to figure out how to stop it.

          As Douglas Murray said, “everyone seems to know when the right goes too far, no one seems to be able to work out when the left goes too far. It seems we can just go left and left and left and left, and there’s no gulag at the end of it”

        2. “I am illustrating the folly of trying to pass laws regulating individual behavior in this manner. ”

          But this isn’t banning individual behavior. It is banning a certain practice in Public classrooms. Honestly, wouldn’t you PREFER that state governments spend more time restricting their agencies than regulating the private sector?

          “After all, if men and women are now exactly the same according to the law, what is the problem now in trying to keep trans women off of the women’s highschool sports teams?”

          I still think you have stolen a base by saying “better at X” makes someone superior. No one would argue that because women can have babies but men cannot, it makes women SUPERIOR. It means that they are physically able to do different things.

          And yes, in fact, I would really love a curriculum that teaches us that if men are stronger than women it doesn’t make them SUPERIOR to women. That, to me, strikes exactly the right stance.

      2. I think you are splitting hairs, but you kind of have a point there.

        He does not have a point. jeffy is a semi-pro provocateur.

        He purposefully used the dumbest example imaginable. Every boy and girl on the playground knows who can throw a ball the hardest.

        He also used the word superior because he knows will trigger people. Look at how the conversation switches from discussing the bill and CRT to discussing the word superior and the potential illegality of something so dumb that it wouldn’t fool a 1st grader. It’s infuriating.

        Take a sample of the list above:

        Cultural appropriation/misappropriation
        Internalized white supremacy
        Intersectionality
        Restorative justice
        White fragility

        These concepts are fucking evil and they don’t belong anywhere that children can be exposed to them.

        I am illustrating the folly of trying to pass laws regulating individual behavior in this manner.

        The fuck you are jeffy, you insufferable twat.

    4. So it would be illegal to teach students that men are inherently superior to women in certain sports

      I am shocked that you think anyone needs to be taught this.

  18. ENB, marxist shill.

    Perhaps it’s beyond her pea brain, but critical theory and the rest of the marxist postmodernist claptrap intentionally redefine innocuous words with explicitly loaded context to further their dishonest motives and bailey arguments for their revolutionary ideology.

    White Supremacy is not the KKK, native treatment or issues faced by historic Chinese or Irish immigrants but rather all of western society and it’s enlightenment inderpinnings. The same redifinitions go for the rest of the banned innocuous terms. Side with them and you’re as anti libertarian as you can get and cheering for societal destruction, not reform.

    1. Fuck it, at this point I’d accept her being completely in the tank for CRT if she could just stop lying about anti CRT legislation like this.

      1. Asking a Prog to stop lying is like asking a Catfish to purr.

    2. Isn’t she the cosmo woke who wrote about how tough covid was cause they couldn’t go out and smoke cigarettes in DC? Why does she even have a platform here..leftists are not libertarians..

  19. Banning teaching of “critical race theory” to try to stop crazy activists seems a lot like banning Christian divinity studies to try to stop the Westboro Baptist Church.

    1. So your ok with the pastor from Westboro teaching a class at your local elementary school.

    2. I don’t know about that. Critical race theory is crazy activism inherently. Divinity studies is not inherently disgusting and hateful like the Westboro crew.

    3. Both sound like great ideas.

    4. Ummmm….sort of kinda important difference. We don’t pay for the Westboro Baptist Church’s idiotic rambling. There aren’t any laws saying young people are legally obliged to attend lectures of the Westboro Baptist Church.

  20. I’m a free speech guy but using today’s identity politics, Marquis of Queensbury rules wouldn’t this fall under the good for the goose….. clause? BTW teaching crt in schools would, in fact be teaching one race is superior to another. By definition.

    1. “BTW teaching crt in schools would, in fact be teaching one race is superior to another. By definition.”

      How so? Could you explain this? I believe that CRT is a technique for looking at laws and seeing there impacts on minority communities.

      1. This kind of response is why the authors of the law were smart not to mention “critical race theory” by name at all. If CRT isn’t about teaching racism, then its proponents have nothing to worry about from this law. The fact that CRT proponents regularly complain about these laws strongly suggests that they do want to teach racism (or what normal people would consider racism). Whether the “proper” term is “CRT” or “woke bullshit”, what’s described in the law is not something decent people want taught to children.

        1. Also worth noting that the law bans teaching of any of the more conventional/traditional forms of racism and bigotry. It’s not a CRT ban. It’s a racist/sexist ideology ban.

        2. The fact that CRT proponents regularly complain about these laws strongly suggests that they do want to teach racism (or what normal people would consider racism).

          No, that is unfair.

          A lot of people don’t want specific topics banned in the classroom because they support the general principle of academic freedom and open inquiry, regardless of the specific topic involved.

          1. If they (CRT proponents) look at this law and say “this bans CRT is schools” then they are admitting that CRT is racist ideology. I don’t know how else you’d interpret that.
            And it really doesn’t ban certain topics being discussed. It bans teaching particular ideas as valid. You can discuss Nazis and the KKK in schools. But I think most people would get behind firing a teacher or administrator who put forward a curriculum teaching that Jews are evil, blacks are inferior and Germans are the master race, though. This isn’t really any different from that.

          2. That you’re incapable of differentiating between discussing certain ideas and promoting certain ideas as “truth” ought to cause you no end of embarrassment…that is, if you had an active neuron count higher than that of the average potato.

          3. they support the general principle of academic freedom and open inquiry

            CRT has nothing to do with academic freedom and open inquiry. It is propaganda and it is the opposite of those things. It has no place in a public school. It is no different than teaching straight out of the Bible.

        3. Indeed. Then, a school may also teach Mein Kampf or maybe The John Birch Society’s politics.
          Or Lysander Spooner.
          A good indicator of all this are the remarks made by people who escaped from communist China, and North korea who are speaking out and warning Americans about these radical ideas. They are warning us that such ideology as CRT and LGBTQ are the beginnings of Marxism.
          So beware. The people who are pushing this are Marxists.

      2. CRT scholars view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construct[7] that advances the interests of white people[11] at the expense of persons of other races.[12][13. Soooo… white people bad. But let’s take your statement at face value. Crt is a legal technique. A way of looking at the law. Seeing its effect on society. That seems appropriate for law school. How exactly will this help a elementary school child. Or for that matter a high school student. How about a compromise? Teach this in law school, not grade school. Would that work for you?

        1. Well it doesn’t apply to the NBA I guess. Or lets look at certain sectors and which tribe dominates…is that racism? Media, Academia? Or hey let’s look at the censors at Big Tech..look up the heads of “content management” at Google/Youtube, FB and others..lets just say Italians or Irish need not apply I guess.

        2. Wouldn’t they just make law schools like grade schools and call it all the same?

  21. I find it hilarious ENB trots out a dictionary now to defend Progs that have vociferously been redefining the English language to suit their rhetoric… I hope she has no expectations on being taken seriously about anything, ever.

    Equity. Heh.

  22. Restrictions on the speech of government employees to a legally captive audience doesn’t seem like what the authors of the First Amendment were trying to prevent. I suspect that if teachers were trying to push national socialism on the students, Ms. Nolan-Brown would (rightly) conclude that that is something the government maybe ought not to be doing.

    At essence, this issue is one of who will control the education of young people, the educational establishment (teachers unions, educrats, progressive policymakers, etc.) or parents. Ideally, parents would have the ultimate control of their children’s education through a free market. But, that really isn’t on the table at this point. So, we have to decide who will be in control of public education until we get there. Pretending it’s a violation of free speech for parents to attempt to get control of their kids’ education is to essentially rig the question in the educational establishment’s favor. Any parental control over their children’s education is going to define what the teachers are telling the kids.

    1. the educational establishment (teachers unions, educrats, progressive policymakers, etc.) or parents.

      No, it is the educational establishment vs. the state legislature here.

      1. And the state legislature is acting on the perceived demands of parents.

        1. And the state legislature is acting on the perceived demands of parents.

          So is the school board that hires the teachers and principals in the ‘educational establishment’. They are elected too, right?

          This is politicians vs. politicians here, using education as a political football.

          1. People elect politicians to further their interests, you dumb commie.

          2. You marxists were the ones to intentionally inject the politics, you’re just pissed there is pushback against your racism.

          3. If school boards were listening to the parents, state legislatures wouldn’t be getting involved in the first place.

      2. It’s more likely the educational establishment vs. parents who are channeling their demands via their legislators. That’s my belief.

        1. Well, yeah, that would be consistent with all the news stories we’ve seen of parents organizing in opposition to CRT with support for CRT coming from the school boards, teachers’ unions, etc.

          But, there is a miniscule possibility that Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature just randomly decided to go after this topic. So, chemjeff is going to go with that.

    2. Yes, let’s put the content, methods, acceptable opinions, and professional discretion of teachers into the hands of parents. Because I’m sure what anyone would like to do with their life would be to train and educate themselves to excel in a field and then be a sockpuppet for the least common denominator parents in town.

      You build up teachers as some sort of nefarious force of evil with nothing but subversion and indoctrination in their minds. That’s bullshit. They are trained, highly educated, professionals. They aren’t the one-dimensional villains you make them out to be.

      If you want to invest your money, go to a broker. If you need to rewire your family room, go to an electrician. If you want someone to educate your child, go to a teacher. Why you choose to demonize an entire profession is baffling. It’s also wrong.

      But it is certainly easier to say “these people are awful and they don’t know what they’re doing (or, if it supports a particular attack, they know exactly what they’re doing) to create a straw man. Or say they are (but, in the real world, most likely aren’t) teaching some weird, bastardized version of something that you heard from someone else was something you should be angry about without ever checking to see if it’s actually true.

      It’s pure hyperbole. It’s pure arrogance. It’s pure dismissiveness of an entire profession of caring and dedicated people. And it’s sickening.

      1. As someone who has never used the education system, that’s a lot of shaky premises you’ve built your house of cards on…

        But let’s start with we have no choice but to have our money taken for schools, then conclude with we have only reactionary say (convoluted legal or mob paths) in what they teach our children with said money.

      2. When I go to an electrician, I tell him what I want done, and he gives me his professional opinion on how to do that most safely and efficiently.

        When I go to a broker, I tell him how I want my money invested, and he does what I say. Even if I’m an idiot who knows nothing about investing, I still get final say on what he does with it.

        Similarly, if you can follow along, I get to decide what a teacher teaches my kids. If i say they can’t teach my kids that disparate outcomes is prima facie evidence of anything, then they best not to that.

  23. Let’s posit, hypothetically, that a society exists where one group practices racism and builds into their societal structures, policies and rules that favor their group. In this hypothetical society people become aware of what is going on and emboldened to speak out against it. They point out that people in the dominant group are unfairly advantaged by the structure. People in the dominant group, not wanting to give up their advantages turn around and say, “hey, how dare you lump me into a group of any sort! That’s discrimination!” And yet, by being a member of the dominant group, anyone in it is unfairly advathaged by the structure whether they consciously backed the rules or not. It’s just a fact.

    The Republicans in Wisconsin, instead of debating whether or not there are policies and structural features that advantage certain groups, are deciding to ban even thinking about this possibility. In fact, in doing so they are declaring that the liberals are creating structures and policies, via school curriculum, that unfairly disadvantage them! How post-modern of the Republicans!

    No, I take that back. This is not post-modern, this is blunt anarchist cynicism designed to take away any power the left has gained in the past 60 years. It goes against all the freedom talk they have been throwing around. They are not confident enough to take on the arguments from the left head-on and instead, their instinct is to ban and censor.

    1. Read the law. It doesn’t say what you think it does.

      And your first paragraph is nonsense. That every individual who is part of the dominant group necessarily gains from the unfair discrimination is not a reasonable assumption. When you claim that racism benefits everyone in the doninant group, you are really making the white supremacist’s argument. Racism is not broadly beneficial. It may serve certain elites under some circumstances (owners of slaves being a particularly obvious example). But overall it only holds societies back and that harms people no matter what racial group they are part of.

      1. That’s OK. CRT doesn’t mean what you say it does, either.

    2. Cute rhetorical technique there – from “Let’s posit, hypothetically,…” to “It’s just a fact.”. All by way of insisting that the denial of that racism is itself racism.

      Of course, it’s incumbent on the person making an assertion to prove that assertion. And, no, disparate outcomes is most certainly not proof of racism.

    3. Govt can’t discriminate or force people to discriminate. Look to culture in America why different groups do differently.

    4. “Structure”…define please…sounds like marxism to me

      1. Rhymes with power.

    5. “It’s just a fact.”

      Actually, it’s little more than question begging.

    6. Public schools are not and never have been the venue for this.

      And don’t pretend Critical Race Theory is a ‘discussion’ either – its not. Its a choice between getting one set of indoctrination memes or another.

      1. Because…? You say so?

        1. Yes. Just like other people say otherwise.

          Which is my point. Let’s not pretend public schools were ever about open inquiry. They are about training and indoctrination and this is just a fight over who gets control over this massive indoctrination machine. But ‘people who want free inquiry’ aren’t even in this fight.

    7. So your first paragraph is a cynical misreading of reality placing the ugliest basest motives on your political enemies and from that kerosene strawman you persist to a foregone conclusion…just like CRT in general. Fuck off you marxist POS your premise is a lie with nothing supporting it but marxist ideology. Your conclusions are nothing but pure projection.

      1. The first paragraph was a summation of life in pre-Civil-War America. There are no “political enemies” to be seen. I’m not sure what “political enemies” have to do with it, since all people involved dies over 200 years ago.

        The idea of generational wealth, never mind that a system set up during slavery would disadvantage slaves, is not radical or Marxist. It’s pretty uncontroversial and logical.

        I really think that most of you don’t understand what Marxism is. You keep using it to describe things that are completely unconnected to Marx’s collectivist economic theories. It’s almost like you have no idea what you’re talking about

        1. Weasels like you are worse than any other kind of sock. You pretend to be blissfully unaware of everything progressive while at the same time carrying water for the cause.

          Your playing the simple white bitchboy horribly and not one person on here buys it.

          Do better

  24. ‘Equity,’ ‘Multiculturalism,’ and ‘Racial Prejudice’ Among Concepts That Could Be Banned in Schools by Wisconsin Bill

    Good. Maybe they can focus on teaching the kiddos how to read and write, or did that train already leave the station?

  25. marxism is anathema to liberty and freedom. Pushing hate is wrong and that is what this cultural marxist is pushing. culture is a largest determinate of social outcomes in America…

    1. Marxism is the good kind of hate.

      1. We don’t teach flat earth theories either in public schools..or astrology…

    2. Again, can someone explain what Marxism has to do with anything we are discussing. It’s like you have swallowed a list of words to use to talk about CRT from a single source and don’t actually know what you are talking about.

      You all keep talking about racism and teaching blacks are superior to whites and Marxism, but none of them are actually part of CRT.

      Perhaps you are just mindless culture warriors?

  26. First of all, “Equity” in modern Leftist lingo is code for “Equity” simply code for socialist redistribution politics, often along racial lines. “Multiculturalism” in leftist lingo is code for pro-immigrant politics, hatred of western culture, hatred of white people and the obsessive fetishization of black and indigenous culture to the exclusion of everything else. “Racial-prejudice” as a stand alone descriptive term is ok, but in real world Leftist praxis “racial prejudice” is too often used as an excuse to simply blanket label all white people, including white school children, as racists and oppressors without a shred of evidence. So yeah, none of these concepts are nearly as harmless and innocent as the article makes them out to be.

    Second, we don’t allow schools to teach lots of things, including racism, Nazism, eugenics, white supremacy, black supremacy, anti-Semitic content, etc. The Left in this case is not mad at the general idea of banning concepts (because Lord knows how much the Left loves to ban and cancel any thought it disagrees with), but they are simply mad that the levers of power are being used to ban THEIR preferred pet philosophy.

    The underlying problem, of course, is that public schools are teaching children heavy handed politics and propaganda in the classrooms in the first place, left or right leaning. J

    The Libertarian position on Government, is that as Government takes more and more power unto itself, lobbying and corporate cronyism will expand exponentially because the payoff for lobbyists grows larger the more power that Government has, and so perverse incentive grows with it.

    Likewise the Libertarian position on schools ought to be the same, namely that as schools take more and more power unto themselves over the lives of young children, the more of a perverse incentive is created to capture school curricula in order to indoctrinate children into a specific political view. As many Leftists in academia have outright said: they want to turn their students into political activists and revolutionaries, not scholars or successful entrepreneurs.

    The ultimate (and only) solution of course being that 1) public schools must be made voluntary, 2) all restrictions and regulations restricting private schools must be lifted, 3) a voucher system must be instituted with vouchers attached to the children, not the schools, and 4) all public school teaching MUST be completely content neutral. Teachers should not be allowed to take sides on any topic and they should be always required to give equal time to competing views.

    1. “1) public schools must be made voluntary”

      They are.

      “2) all restrictions and regulations restricting private schools must be lifted”

      Can you be more specific about these restrictions and which states have them? None of the three states I’ve lived in have them.

      “3) a voucher system must be instituted with vouchers attached to the children, not the schools”

      When did you become a Communist? I’m shocked you would advocate for other people’s money being used to educate your child.

      “4) all public school teaching MUST be completely content neutral.”

      And who defines “neutral”? And what gets included in the “equal views”? Or what subject do the “equal views” belong in? Creationism (or “intelligent design”) in biology class or philosophy? I know where it belongs, but we may not agree. How many religious traditions would count in philosophy class? Would teaching the Inquisition be considered “neutral”?

      I have a feeling that your definition of “neutral” isn’t actually neutral.

      Ultimately, education is about developing critical thinking skills, skepticism, philosophies, and the understanding that there is never a single point of view on anything. Intellectual exploration is the point of education, not constraining curiosity.

    2. The only viewpoint pressure I recall ever receiving in school is a certain moderately oppressive patriotism. There was a lot of disturbing jingoism after 9/11, and that’s fair enough except for all the horror and national shame that led to.

      In primary school, one does learn certain dogmas, like how to write cursive, manners, the proper method of finger painting, and so on.

      In college, the entire point is to teach young people how to think critically for themselves, and any professor imposing a political ideology would be laughed out of tenure track.

      You should study what actually goes on in school and not take the word of Tucker Carlson.

      1. Most colleges and universities in America are Marxist shite holes.

  27. Yes.

    Yes it would.

    But let’s not pretend that public schools have *ever* been places of open study and free speech.

    In the old days they were places of training first, indoctrination a close second – today its reversed. So, by their very nature, every side of the culture war is going to try to gain control of this tool of indoctrination. Its the nature of the beast. Complaining that one side is trying to wrest control from the other side is . . . ridiculous.

    What needs to happen – the *libertarian* solution, is ending public schooling, not pretending that preventing some set of topics from being discussed in public school is an unusual act of censorship that must be opposed – preventing certain things from being talked about IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for public schools and has been since before the Boomers.

    1. preventing certain things from being talked about IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for public schools and has been since before the Boomers.

      Yeah, my first thought in response to “‘Equity,’ ‘Multiculturalism,’ and ‘Racial Prejudice’ Among Concepts That Could Be Banned in Schools by Wisconsin Bill” was ‘And?’. We obliterated even tacit references of evolutionary alternatives from public schools. Seems par for the course to discriminate against Critical Race Theology to the exact same degree for exactly the same reasons.

      1. We obliterated even tacit references of evolutionary alternatives from public schools.

        That’s not to say that I believe that we should teach them, or that it’s even a good idea, but if 90% of the school district can’t teach evolution because of the other 10% (or even 100% can’t because of regulations resulting from other school districts), I see no reason not to obliterate CRT.

        It’s not like CRT, which didn’t exist a decade ago, suddenly became intrinsic to academic success. If it did, people would be clamoring for it rather than banning it or falling irreparably behind without it. Since that’s not the case, the ‘but muh discushunz!’ from Reason is yet another leftist nose in the tent/foot in the door.

      2. They don’t teach alternatives to round-eartherism either.

        Demonstrate an alternative to natural selection that has passed decades of peer review and becomes established science, then petition to get it in science classes. Don’t cut the line, otherwise we can all assume you’re just trying to impose religious dogma.

  28. If people are saying things we don’t like, clearly the first amendment is not working. It’s not a suicide pact for Christ’s sake.

  29. All Orwellian newspeak should be banned.

  30. As mentioned already, the actual text of the bill says nothing about banning any words or phrases from use in classes. But it does require that schools post all “curricula” on their websites, and make printed copies available to those who request them. How do they define what constitutes the “curricula”? Certainly, there will be variations from one class to the next in exactly what teachers say; good teachers don’t just robotically read scripts. And the curriculum could be said to include textbooks used in class, which are copyrighted works that the schools cannot make freely available on their websites.

  31. Good for them. The pushback against the Marxist CRT along with that miserable LGBTQXYZ indoctrination needs to go nationwide.
    And that’s exactly what’s happening. Parents are showing up at meetings and demanding an end to this rubbish, if not, the school board gets tossed out on their arses. This needs to happen more often.
    This is happening so often the little Marxists who infest school boards like infected pustules are now pleading with Xiao Bidung to declare those people as domestic terrorists. My take on it is they haven’t seen anything yet.

  32. Never forget Liberals talked of locking voting age adults up in “re-education camps” during the last Presidential electioin. They are dangerous beyond what most people believe. Now you want me to belive they only want equal discussion of political theories in schools? II am not that stupid. You are either dishonest or that stupid of you believe that.

    1. Better exterminate us before we do too much harm, right?

Please to post comments