Free Speech

Things are Getting Messy

CRT goes to court and to the state houses.


Rising frustration with heavy-handed ideology in K-12 education is quickly spilling over into the legal realm. Parents, teachers, and even an entire school have explored or filed actions, and this trickle of cases could easily swell to a flood — if not a tidal wave. These suits raise an array of questions regarding teacher discretion, employer authority, the protection of minors, parental rights and family autonomy, and contractual obligations.

Simultaneously, legislators have attempted to regulate the concepts that may be taught in schools in more than half the states…so far, which we previously discussed at some length in FIRE's analysis of so-called "divisive concept" bills.

Perhaps the most prominent case, and one of the first, involves a biracial student in Nevada who refused to confess his privilege as directed by his teacher and who, according to the suit filed by his mother, was also instructed to "'unlearn' the basic Judeo-Christian principles she imparted to him" in his public school classroom.

In Illinois, a public school teacher alleges that she was subjected to race-conscious training, policies and curriculum that she alleges violate federal law through "conditioning individuals to see each other's skin color first and foremost, then pitting different racial groups against each other." The complaint claims that the district has used teacher training sessions to segregate and impugn white people, calling them inherently racist and privileged, and has compelled teachers to pass on those lessons to children.

The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the temporary reinstatement of a northern Virginia gym teacher who said he won't refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns, which he refuses to do citing his religious convictions, as would be required by a new policy. What made the initial suspension particularly troubling was that his comments indicating unwillingness to obey were given at a school board meeting — the exact forum that should be used to discuss school policies. While this action only addressed the teacher's suspension for his public comments, a revised complaint — with additional teachers as plaintiffs — will now move forward to challenge the now-enacted school's policy forcing all of the district's students and staff to to refer to "gender-expansive or transgender" students using whatever gender pronoun is chosen by the student.

A group of parents in Maryland is suing their public school district, on behalf of their minor children, for advocating "a radicalized political agenda disguised as 'social justice' and 'equity'" in an effort to "create social justice activists and cause racial division" among the student body. They object to curricular messaging implying that students must accept the idea that due to their race, they are internally racist, whether conscious or unconscious, and to become an anti-racist, they must zealously pursue this ideology.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed in California against the state Department of Education alleges that the state's model ethnic studies curriculum violates the religious clauses of the state constitution, while another suit asserts that teacher training in San Diego amounts to unlawful racial discrimination. Educators in Missouri have also filed a case making similar allegations about training they are required to undergo.

We've seen conscience-based resignations by educators unwilling to participate in heavily ideological programming, in both private and public institutions. There's the predictable backlash to statewide legislative action from some teachers, while some subject-based organizations — such as in social studies — have opposed so-called anti-CRT bills on the grounds that they transgress their pedagogical prerogatives. Even though, as we have explained, when it comes to elementary and secondary education, states do have the authority to set the curriculum since teacher speech in a public classroom is considered an extension of government speech. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you necessarily should. After all, banning something often has the unintended effect of making the banned thing more desirable — a frequent byproduct of heavy-handed censorship.

Because K-12 decisions often lead to higher education ramifications, FIRE is paying attention to these cases and awaiting their outcomes. It's easy to imagine that we will one day look back on this era of K-12 litigation as a momentous and groundsetting one in education law.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 22, 2005

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bonnie, I will be filing a claim of massive child emotional abuse, and the failure to report such by mandated reporters. I reported my school. The diverse child welfare investigator refused to investigate without the name of a specific kindergarten girl, along with her personal information. I did not have that. I will be including the child welfare authorities.

    The claim will be bigger than the church sex abuse case. The misconduct of the church was to cover up the sex abuse. In this case, the schools are the perpetrators, not just the employers of the perpetrators.

    I filed a Right to Know request to get the specifics. The School District is totally stonewalling so far.

    It is intolerable to subject our children to this stale Chinese Commie Party criticism for the destruction of our nation from the inside. All its points were made by Mao Zedong in the 1960’s.

    1. PS I am not a crank!

    2. Daivd, a word of advice: File in state court; you’re less likely to get sanctioned.

      1. He’s not a lawyer. Best I can tell from the occasional biographies he posts here, he’s either a straight up crank who lost a divorce and/or custody battle, likely for very good reasons, or he’s a former attorney who lost his license, likely for very good reasons.

        1. Neither is true about me. You are now reading minds across the internet.

          1. No, not minds. I’m reading as much of your slobbering gibberish as I can handle in any given moment, which isn’t much tbh. And sometimes that slobbering gibberish leads directly to the conclusions I’ve drawn. Before you ask, no, I will not go searching for examples. But I will point them out when you eventually post more.

            1. You just insult people. Try formulating an argument for a change of pace.

              1. Among your many delusions is the one where you believe yourself a serious person who should be engaged seriously. You are not.

                1. Otis, are you a lawyer? If not. I have no dispute with you. Please, mute me.

                  1. Your questions are already addressed by my “Piss Off” tshirt.

              1. Otis, do you wear a mask indoors, even if fully vaccinated? These are test questions.

                1. Otis, whatever you do for a job, is it not time that you were replaced by an illegal diverse? Diversity is the strength of our country.

        2. He’s a graduate of (I think — he definitely attended) an unaccredited mail-order law school who got a non-bar-track degree. And he’s been on this same kooky shtick on the Internet for the last 15 years or so, though he has certainly gotten kookier.

      2. I have not decided where to file. PA courts are filled with Democrat attack dog judges.

      3. Say the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice on first pleading. The lawsuit is still a way to communicate with the School Board. They allow no comments, no dissent, no one attends the meeting. Meetings are on Zoom, and the participants are muted and the Comments are turned off.

        1. If one of the Commenters is Queenie, here is a reminder. You are a mandated reporter subject to fines for failure to report emotional child abuse.

    3. Decide for yourselves.

      From the PA Code.
      (b.1) Child abuse.–The term “child abuse” shall mean intentionally,
      knowingly or recklessly doing any of the following:

      (3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a child through any act or failure to act or a series of such acts or failures to act.


      “Serious mental injury.” A psychological condition, as diagnosed by a physician or licensed psychologist, including the refusal of appropriate treatment, that:
      (1) renders a child chronically and severely anxious, agitated,
      depressed, socially withdrawn, psychotic or in reasonable fear that the child’s life or safety is threatened; or
      (2) seriously interferes with a child’s ability to accomplish age appropriate developmental and social tasks.

  2. Will glad to see a bunch of lawsuits. That is unfortunately the only way things are going to change for the better.

  3. Just as a newsreader can be paid for speech and fired for saying things against their contract, a teacher is paid for speech and can be fired for unwanted things said while being paid for the speech. What they say on unpaid time is covered by the first amendment.
    Imagine using the ‘N’ word while at your present job. You would expect discipline and probably termination. With teachers it is the same. If they believe in CRT or Marxism that is their own business, but if the parents will not pay them to teach it, that is part of the contract.

    1. Yeah you should ask Eugene about the N word thing lol

      1. Or not. He can be somewhat prickly about that point.

    2. The irony that he’s writing this in support of a diatribe *against* indoctrination is certainly lost on him…

      1. What “irony”? You may think you’re being pithy here, but you’re not. These are completely legitimate points, and the fact that you’re no addressing them only means that you can’t address them.

        1. We are addressing them, you just don’t care lol.

        2. Sigh. Since you don’t get it I’ll spell it out: the irony of combating ‘indoctrination’ with…indoctrination. Replacing the 1619 project with the 1836 project and such.

          ‘No addressing’ indeed.

          1. There’s an 1836 project? Oh, right, in Texas.

            I don’t think it’s all that complicated. Ideally, schools shouldn’t indoctrinate students.

            But, if they’re going to indoctrinate the students, it’s incredibly stupid for teachers to think they’re somehow entitled to indoctrinate them contrary to the preferences of the school’s owners. He who pays the piper, and all that.

            You want to teach racial hatred, and that the government is evil? (I’m actually down with that last, if it’s done in context and with nuance.) Don’t expect to do it on the government’s payroll. Find a private school where whoever is paying the tuition wants that garbage.

            Don’t expect people to pay you to teach their children to despise them.

    3. “What they say on unpaid time is covered by the first amendment.”
      Not so clear. Employers can discipline you for smoking on your own time. If your speech has direct effect on your students a similar action may be made. Perhaps your can defend yourself and the complaint is withdrawn. But the employer will have made her point and you’ll be more circumspect the next time.

      1. “Employers can discipline you for smoking on your own time.”

        There are other restrictions on when your doing so lets them do that.

        Similarly, no, the employee who spoke at a school board meeting cannot legally be punished for saying he would not call boys “she”. That is the current state of things, anyway.

  4. ” lower court ruling that ordered the temporary reinstatement of a northern Virginia gym teacher who said he won’t refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns”

    OK, what does that have to do with ‘critical race theory?’ I mean, other than the sloppy tendency of many conservatives (including those in the vanguard of the ‘CRT’ moral panic who admit to consciously doing this as strategy) of conflating anything those on the right don’t like in education as ‘CRT.’

    This series of posts has been a clown show, embarrassing for FIRE and EV for associating with and promoting it. It has all the academic carefulness of a Donald Trump Jr fundraising email….

    1. OK, just remove the “R” from “CRT”, and it fits.

    2. They definitely do. But many progressives (including those in the vanguard of the CRT moral crusade who admit to consciously doing this as a strategy) conflate all teaching about race as racism to strawman conservatives into looking like they don’t want anything about race ever taught.

      1. So, it’s a simplistic, cynical reaction to a simplistic cynical reaction…You ‘win’ I guess…

      2. what was it that Texas just prohibited from being taught in Texas schools?

    3. I’d up vote this comment if I could. This series of posts is drivel. Great, you have accusations and lawsuits. But that doesn’t tell me if any of it actually happened, or if its just right wing cranks making fools of themselves in various jurisdictions. Its telling to me that none of these have more than one plaintiff. It’s just a single goofball. FIRE seemed like a pretty important group when it was defending boys from crazed sexual assault regulations, but this is just stupid.

      1. “…that doesn’t tell me if any of it actually happened…”

        If I thought your determined ignorance were something that could be overcome I’d suggest you follow the links or use a search engine.

    4. “OK, what does that have to do with ‘critical race theory?’”

      CRT is intersectional. Crack a book sometime, maybe.

      1. Intersectionality in CRT still requires a racial component.

        Not that you actually care.

    5. It’s the same Woke mob doing both.

  5. Heavy handed ideological indoctrination in public schools must be fought by…checks notes…lifetime politicians determining exactly what can and can’t be taught there? Wait a minute, I’ll come in again…

    You can’t parody this stuff.

    1. Maybe you should read the article instead of pretending to check your notes.

      The author above is mostly describing parents and/or teachers themselves who are attempting to fight the “heavy handed ideological indoctrination in public schools”. Only one small paragraph in this article mentions legislative attempts to fix anything – and that paragraph prominently hyperlinks to an article criticizing those attempts.

      1. ” Only one small paragraph in this article mentions legislative attempts to fix anything ”

        Wrong. For example, are “There’s the predictable backlash to statewide legislative action from some teachers,” and ” legislators have attempted to regulate the concepts that may be taught in schools in more than half the states,” for example, in the same paragraph?

        1. Ooh, you got me. A second minor mention in passing in the middle of a paragraph that itself still contradicts your characterization of the article.

  6. CRT had never really been on my radar until a few months ago when it first started making news, so I read a couple of books by critical race theorists just to see what the fuss was about. I found myself partially in agreement and partially in disagreement.

    But what I also found is that claims by opponents of CRT are mostly distortions and misrepresentations as to what CRT actually holds. I would encourage the antis here to read what CRT proponents actually say rather than just spout crap like cultural Marxism and anti-white discrimination, because it sure doesn’t resemble either of those.

    1. They haven’t bothered to learn about what they’re talking about yet, and they are not likely to suddenly become interested in doing so. They know what they “know” and that’s good enough for them.

    2. KryKry. Check your white privilege. It is the cause of the racial disparities in social pathologies. One exception is, very dark skinned Africans outperformed whites in the 2010 Census.

      1. Like I was saying about people who don’t understand critical race theory but talk as if they do.

        1. K_2,
          CRT is just another social ideology that has been an ersatz religion in the past few years. Any line such as “confess your privilege” should make your blood boil, but obviously it doesn’t. This kind to social agenda does not belong in school that do a remarkably poor job in teaching the fundamental mechanics and structural basis for the American brand of democracy

          1. A lot of CRT is lazy at best, but reactions like ‘it’s a religion’ are just as so.

            CRT is a set of ideas arguing that racism is systemic in the US, it’s no sillier or pernicious or ‘ideological’ on its face than conservative ‘indoctrination’ like that the US is fundamentally exceptional and good. Education should be about exploring the extent that all of these ideas are true or not.

            1. CRT is a set of ideas arguing that racism is systemic in the US, it’s no sillier or pernicious or ‘ideological’ on its face than conservative ‘indoctrination’ like that the US is fundamentally exceptional and good.

              Except that the US has the highest standard of living in the world, The US has one of the most free societies on earth,
              The US has an immigration problem precisely because people want to come to the US because the US is fundamentally exceptional and good.

              1. I’m not sure what the fact that we have the highest standard of living in the world has to do with it. The Greeks and Romans had a pretty good standard of living by conquering the rest of the world, enslaving their peoples, and stealing their stuff, but I would not consider that a model of how we should behave. Ditto Mafia dons.
                So the question is not whether we have a good standard of living, but whether we got it at least in part by doing bad things.

                And I think both extremes are wrong. The people who claim America can do nothing right, and the people who claim America can do nothing wrong, are both wrong. As is frequently the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

                1. You assume it is conquering rather than keeping trade routes open.

                  In any case, the presumption prosperity is due to unsudtainable resource consumption (typically by conquering) has been well-disproven by places like Japan with very limited resources but open and free economics.

                  People are the ultimate resource, and in a free economy, improve things at a rate faster than problems become problems.

                  The idea it is about unsustainable resource consumption and conquering has been disproven with hundreds of century-long experiments involving billions of people.

                  1. History shows us that a nice peasant or slave underclass, either native or colonized, who aren’t free really does give your economy a shot in the arm.

                    Japan had that for quite a long period of it’s history.

                    Though the modern shrinking world makes that increasingly nonviable.

                    1. That will give your economy a shot in the arm relative to societies that are scarcely above the hunter gatherer level, (Particularly if you’re only looking at the economic status of the non-slaves!) but Japan didn’t really become prosperous until they became largely free, and that’s no accident.

                      Cheap disposable labor is a seductive drug, that keeps you from progressing. One of the things holding back automation in the US is that flood of cheap illegal immigrant labor from Mexico, same effect.

              2. Do you try hard to sound like a bigot, Tom for equal rights, or is it natural and effortless?

                1. Artie, check you white privilege. It is time to replace you with an illegal diverse. As to all your elite education, and significant accomplishments, those were handed to you because you are white. A diverse needs reparations for not being accepted to your elite school and the lower salary they ended up with.

            2. CRT is absolutely more pernicious than teaching that the US is/has been exceptional.

              The idea that schools have to treat moronic ideas equally with all others is retarded. I’m reasonably certain, given the evidence for who you are, that you don’t really want Creationism and CRT treated the same way.

          2. No, it hasn’t become an ersatz religion the last few years. Morons screeching about CRT over the last few months eventually just declared that CRT has become a religion to The Left. Almost nobody in this country had even heard of CRT until early summer, late spring 2021.

            1. Otis. Name calling is not persuasive.

              1. “stale Chinese Commie Party criticism for the destruction of our nation”
                “KryKry. Check your white privilege.”
                “PA courts are filled with Democrat attack dog judges.”

                Behar is many things, nut, authoritarian, but self aware he is not.

              2. That’s fine. I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. Nor would the thought to make such an attempt ever cross my mind.

            2. When I was in undergrad not even ten years ago, I took some law and society seminar. We were assigned actual critical race theorist Derrick Bell’s book Silent Covenants on how desegregation wasn’t a panacea for Black Americans and just exposed more inequities. I read most of it but not a lot of it made a huge impression on me and I kind of forgot I read that until this, er debate(?), came up.

              When I went to law school I never heard it mentioned by even my most liberal professors, including PoC. We talked about race and the law of course but not in terms of some overarching theoretical framework called critical race theory that drives everything.

              So I was extremely surprised to hear that everything from K-thru-Med School was CRT now.

              1. lawtalking guys comment – “So I was extremely surprised to hear that everything from K-thru-Med School was CRT now.”

                That is because there has been an explosion of thought by progressives that everything is racist,

                Its been festering on the left for several decades but just started bubbling over toward the end of the Obama adminsitration, and exploded during the trump adminstration.

              2. You should have attended Commie indoctrination camp, as Bernie Sanders did in high school. You would have heard all the content in the 1960’s.

            3. I graduated from a law school in NYC within the past 5 years and had never heard of CRT until the recent controversy. I was never forced to admit my white guilt or complicity or ever actually discuss race at all.

          3. “Confess your privilege” makes my blood boil, but it’s not part of CRT to my knowledge. In this case it’s either a misguided or misanthropic teacher misusing attaching the label of CRT to Cultural Revolution style “Struggle Sessions” or someone misreporting what the teacher said for political purposes. I have witnessed some of this kind of indoctrination in my local college where a younger friend was attending, so improper use of villainization does occur but it’s not part of CRT.

            CRT argues that privilege exists and flows from a flawed social system, and that in the US, white Christians are the greatest benefactors, but it does not impute sin upon those who benefit passively. In its basic form it’s a means of assessing how racial constructs have shaped our society. The second sentence in the wiki article on CRT says: “A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.”

            1. CRT is a motte and bailey scam. You’ve got the hoity toity academic version that they point to when they want to defend it, and the whitey is evil, all Western civilization is racist version that gets taught when they’re in a position to.

              They switch back and forth depending on whether they’re being watched by somebody with the power to mess with them.

              1. Or, words mean the things people say they do and whatever you’re yelling about isn’t called CRT.

                But since y’all got a good negative brand going, you don’t want to let go.

                Really separates the actually concerned from the purely partisan.

                1. How is that motte? Comfortable, I hope.

                2. Actually, it IS called “CRT”. You just don’t like it being called CRT because it’s all so indefensible. No one is “actually concerned” about the idiot theory. People have good reason to be both concerned about and antipathetic towards Lefty idiocy, of which academic CRT is a minor manifestation. That the “brand” is negative is fully earned.

            2. It is Commie self criticism. When you do self criticism, everything you say can and will be held against you. Then the dirty Commies shoot you.

              These schools must be stopped at any cost necessary.

          4. QA,
            You really should learn about ersatz religions.
            The tenants of CRT are fundamental axioms that may not be questioned. As I said, it’s an ersatz religion

            1. The tenants of CRT are fundamental axioms that may not be questioned.

              If this makes a religion, so is physics.

              1. Not the same.
                Physics has principles that are subject to empirical test. They are NOT articles of faith that may not be questioned

                1. Plenty of theoretical physics is not empirically testable. Still mean it’s full of authors insisting they’re axioms are the right ones. Do you think String Theory is a cult?

                  CRT scholars would say they have loads of empirical examples as well.

                  Sorry, I am discovering that the conflation of ideology/faith/belief is a pet peeve of mine.

                  1. Sorry, S_0.
                    You really should study a bit of political history. The analysis of ersatz religions to explain political mass movements is well established. CRT aims to be the soul of such an incipient movement

                    But to answer your question, some stringy theories are not cults because they make predictions at asymptotically high energies that in principle can led to measurable influences in very high precision measurements. Other stringy “theories” are not theories at all but means to gaining insights into phenomena at energy scales that can be measured. Even others are means of searching for more incisive mathematics. And finally some may be cults.

                    1. CRT aims to be the soul of such an incipient movement. No. It does not. You just don’t like the people who are into it, and have decided to indulge in some telepathy.

                      Even assuming CRT doesn’t brook disagreement (which is not a universal truth about CRT), not all closed-minded ideologies are religions.

                      very high precision measurements
                      That are decades, if not centuries away from occurring. And yet the proponents say they’re describing the universe (if not the multiverse). By your definition, that’s a cult.

                      means to gaining insights into phenomena at energy scales that can be measured
                      Ehhhh, I’ve not seen insights not replicable by simpler mathematics. But I have been out of the biz for 15 years now.

                      I like the term stringy theories, because I didn’t want to talk about M-Theory, but that’s what I was taught. Right before I dropped out of my PhD program to go to law school.

                    2. S_0,
                      You are playing your usual game of extrapolating a comment to what the writer did not say in order to refute the silly position that you constructed by extrapolation.

                    3. “That are decades, if not centuries away from occurring. And yet the proponents say they’re describing the universe (if not the multiverse). By your definition, that’s a cult.”

                      Absolutely not. The present g-2 experiments actually may uncover the implications of physics at the Planck scale. So not a cult. By the way cult is your derogatory term, not mine.

                      No one serious ever called Communism of German Nazism a cult. They were political movements.

                      So you are wrong on all counts

                    4. Yeah, g-2 is exciting stuff, but it’s also not going to cut down on the candidate theories much, is it? Again, so many degrees of freedom as to be barely predictable at all. But also totally correct!

                  2. Simply wrong. The whole point of string theory is that it can be made consistent with the standard model. “Consistent” … which of course means it matches the empirical observations. You know, that empirical test part ? There is plenty of prediction within string theory.

                    The whole point of physics is to describe physically reality in ways that can be tested in objective fashion. In other words, you should measure the same thing I am. The whole point of crap like CRT is to establish a narrative and push it. They are nothing alike.

                  3. With the number of degrees of freedom string theory currently has, it can be made consistent with every model. It’s awful.

                    But fine, what about supersymmetry? Or theories about the various paradoxes around black holes? Or theories on the beginning and end of the universe? All of these have more degrees of freedom than needed to agree with observation. And physicists eagerly pick these degrees of freedom and say they’re right. But not a religion.

                    The whole point of physics is to describe physically reality in ways that can be tested in objective fashion
                    Except as practiced, cutting edge physics is *full* of narratives being pushed. That’s the physical reality of academia.

                    Social science is not the same as physics, but it’s also not a religion because people insist they got it right.

                    1. “With the number of degrees of freedom string theory currently has, it can be made consistent with every model. It’s awful.”

                      1) Mistake #1. There are many stringy theories not one.
                      2) Mistake #2. The number of degrees of freedom does not assure that you can fit all data. A Fourier series only on in A*sin(n*wt) cannot fit a simple cosine regardless of the number of terms
                      3) Mistake #3. Narratives are neither theories or even models of phenomena. Fortunatley for you, you became a lawyer.
                      4) Mistake #4. I did not say that social science is a religion. That is your incorrect extrapolation as usual.

                      Break the bad habit. Stop putting words in other people’s mouths

                    2. With enough degrees of freedom in enough places, you can fit all the data.
                      And M-Theory, at least in 2004, could fit just about any kind of underlying phenomenon you care to imagine. If you can do the math. Which at the time no one could do except for in some degenerate cases. Some of which were suggestive.

                      Narratives kind of are theories. Scientists both experimental and theoretical do their research based on theories they think are true. How do they pick these theories? Informed and creative intuition! And what drives this intuition? Stories they’ve told themselves about the universe.

                      I don’t see how your issue with CRT doesn’t apply to social science generally. Sociologists and economists have their axioms they require to be true for their models to hold. How is that distinguishable from CRT?

                  4. “Still mean(sic) it’s full of authors insisting they’re(sic) axioms are the right ones.”

                    Theoretical physics is indeed full of individuals insisting that their axioms are the right ones, and others insisting that they are not. This proves that such axioms “cannot be questioned”, how?

          5. Don Nico, can you show where, “confess your privilege,” is laid down as either a principle or a method of CRT? If you can, it would interest me, because I just read an article which claimed the people saying that knew that was not CRT advocacy, but cynically laid claim to selling it as a critique of CRT to ignorant right wingers, to provoke hatred of CRT. If you can show me a genuine CRT theorist who is willing to own it, then I will know that article was full of beans.

            1. SL,
              Can I show? Nope. But I was taking the OP writer’s claim at face value assuming that some are asked that.
              But I am sick of hearing so much dismissed as white privilege. We do hear that a lot on Oaktown.
              Think about how the US and Europe were save by the mostly white troops who died on the beaches and tiny Pacific islands. They paid reparations for all of us and most of them had little of what could be called privilege except in the eyes of people consumed with their own brand of racism

              1. Don Nico, the notion of paid-off reparations strikes me as peculiar, especially if the debt is measured in inequality, and the inequality continues. As it so obviously does.

                One way to make the discussion less pointed, and maybe more thoughtful is to ask yourself about influential episodes in U.S. history. As various memories recede into the past, it seems to me their salience does not follow in order. In our collective attention today, for some reason, the Spanish American War, and WW I, despite being more recent, are far less clear as influences than the Civil War. It seems to me that WW II is also about to slide down with those others, leaving the Civil War in sole possession of the record as the most vividly remembered event in U.S. history. What do you suppose gives it such staying power?

                1. SL,
                  Pay whatever you want to throw in the pot Stephen.
                  Forget about WWII at your peril. Your answer is just to forget about the past if it is inconvenient to you.

                  1. Not at all. I am currently, right now, re-reading Antony Beevor’s masterful overall history of WW II. I have previously read some of his more-narrowly focused histories of campaigns and related conflicts. I made that comment as a person who reads history and biography in preference to most other subjects. To me, it felt like an objective assessment, not a prescription.

            2. No one is interested in moronic “genuine CRT theorists”. The manifestations of the Woke mob are what concern us. That what they do is not “genuine CRT” is about as relevant as the claim that what the USSR did was not “genuine Communism”.

        2. KryKry. You have to confess to white privilege. That is a form of self criticism from the Maoist Handbook. Your white privilege caused the awful under performance of totally irresponsible diverses.

          1. Under Mao, after self criticism, you were executed, having confessed to crimes.

      2. very dark skinned Africans outperformed whites in the 2010 Census

        I mean, this is gibberish on so many levels.

        1) The census does not ask about how dark skinned anyone is.
        2) One does not perform on (or in) the census in the first place; it’s a count, not a competition.

        1. Well, the claim is about “Africans”, and dark-skinned means, I suppose, not North Africans. Do immigrants from, say, Kenya have bigger houses than run-of-the-mill “White” box checkers? Differential migration of rich “dark” Africans could produce that result.

    3. They also, like this author does on her website, tend to contrast all critical race theorists with MLK, singling out the “content of character” quote. This is apparently the only thing they think MLK ever said, because while it would be wrong to say MLK was part of this academic legal movement, his speeches and writings were extremely concerned with the kind of social structural and institutional issues that CRT proponents are.

      Like using MLK to beat this stuff up is either pure ignorance or straight up lying about his beliefs.

      1. The difference is that MLK never pretended that essentially everything American should be destroyed on the basis of the idea that it is inherently racist and white supremacist. CRT is being pushed in primary and secondary schools as part of exactly that mission.

        1. You have no idea what CRT is.

          And, in being so pugnaciously ignorant, you’re echoing MLK’s detractors back in the day, who thought he stood against everything American.

          Just a new version of ‘Race Mixing is Communism!!’

          1. We’ve been through this before. Your position is nothing more than No True CRTsman. When people pointed out some of the terrible things being advocated and taught in schools under the rubric of CRT or anti-racism, you and QA and others just denied that was “real” CRT.

            1. Lets assume for the sake of argument these terrible things are indeed being taught, and it’s not anecdotal nonsense.

              Who, other than you, is citing to CRT for that stuff?

        2. CRT has never held that everything American should be destroyed. You might find people on the fringe who think that. But as I said earlier, maybe you could actually read some critical race theorists to find out what they actually hold.

      2. It is of course ignorance and fraud to pretend that the “I have a dream” speech was representative of very much emitted by the plagiarist and Communist. But it’s mandatory to pretend otherwise.

    4. Right. CRT wasn’t on the radar of anyone other than a few academics until a little over a year ago when libertarian Christopher Rufo started mis-representing it. His presentation of it (and most people’s understanding of it) is almost entirely strawman arguments, but here we are.

      IOW, it’s another one of those manufactured controversies that are so common with Fox News and their 24/7 grievance factory.

      1. Christopher Rufo used to be associated with the Discovery Institute – the Intelligent Design idiots.

        He now has something to do with the Claremont Institute, a “think tank” that apparently doesn’t do any thinking.

        1. Why are superstition and bigotry so closely related in the current Republican Party? Are gullibility and lousy character related?

          1. Yes. They both stem from a lack of self-awareness.

          2. I don’t know, Arthur. You don’t seem all that gullible to me.

      2. when libertarian Christopher Rufo


        1. Sorry. Should have put it in quotes.

          Cribbing from The Atlantic:

          “If a single person bears the most responsibility for the surge in conservative interest in critical race theory, it is probably Christopher Rufo. Last summer, Rufo, a 36-year-old senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a libertarian think tank…”

          1. Ah. Well, the Manhattan Institute may have some libertarians who work there from time to time, but the home of Heather Mac Donald is not a libertarian think tank.

      3. Your argument that the label is false is not an argument that the controversy is “manufactured”, and it’s dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. You know perfectly well that the madness of our “educators” is properly hated and derided.

    5. But what I also found is that claims by opponents of CRT are mostly distortions and misrepresentations as to what CRT actually holds.

      I think it’s clear enough–particularly given the number of specific examples in this article and many others–that the parents are reacting to the actual content being taught to their children in the classroom, not what some theoretical book on a shelf says.

      So if the teachers/administrators are getting CRT so badly wrong in your view, it seems like you should be on board with getting that fixed.

      1. 1) LOL if you think it’s the parents coming up with these lawsuits.

        2) That she calls these examples of CRT shows her real agenda is propaganda, not analysis.

        1. LOL if you think it’s the parents coming up with these lawsuits.

          LOL at the guy whose favorite reflexive expression is “conspiracy theory.”

          1. A conspiracy theory is collusion between dozens of deep state institutions to make it look like Trump did the things he’s reported to have done.

            The idea that right-wing policy entrepreneurs are trolling for clients with ready-made lawsuits is not a conspiracy theory. Curated test cases are not news.

            1. A conspiracy theory is collusion between dozens of deep state institutions to make it look like Trump did the things he’s reported to have done.

              This is from

              1. ‘is’ can be both exemplary or definitional. Don’t purposefully misread for pedantic reasons, it makes you look like an ass.

                1. ‘is’ can be both exemplary or definitional.

                  Ah, so you didn’t intend it as definitional, and thus it served no purpose whatsoever in demonstrating why your conspiracy theory somehow is not one. Complete waste of keystrokes. Gotcha.

                  Don’t purposefully misread for pedantic reasons

                  Sorry, exactly who are you and what have you done with my good buddy Sarc? LOL

                  1. I gave an example of what a conspiracy theory is, and explained why what I offered was not a conspiracy theory.

                    Now that your word games are over, would you like to address my point? The OP’s misuse of what CRT is would seem to indicate an agenda other than actual concern about CRT. I would even call it deceitful.

                    1. Now that your word games are over, would you like to address my point?

                      Weirdly enough, my initial post already addressed your point. Jousting over the contours of some supposed precise meaning behind the marketing label “CRT” fully begs the question of what specific content is reaching the students’ ears.

                      You might even call it a “deceitful” attempt at a distraction.

                    2. It’s hard to reach the thesis of this anecdote-driven post when the author is demonstrating they are either ignorant or deceitful.

                      But if you push through, you find the thesis is ‘lots of people are suing. This means there is an issue here.’

                      By which logic, the election was rigged. And Rep. Nunez is being defamed by twitter cow accounts. And patent trolls are onto something.

        2. “1) LOL if you think it’s the parents coming up with these lawsuits.”

          The one that comes first to mind is the teacher who was fired for speaking at a school board meeting. Yes, I assume he wasn’t put up to doing so in order to come up with an Astroturf suit. Got any more straw man arguments?

    6. “because it sure doesn’t resemble either of those”

      The “anti-CRT bills” I’ve read (maybe you can find others) tend to prohibit the teaching of certain racist and/or anti-American doctrines, whether these doctrines are in a CRT textbook or not.

      CRT doesn’t teach that one racial or ethnic group is superior (intellectually or morally) to another? It doesn’t teach that members of one racial group are accountable for the actions of other group members simply because of common racial origin? It doesn’t teach that America is fundamentally racist? Very well, then it can be taught. Sounds simple enough.

      1. And the problem with those bills is that they are mostly strawmen used for propaganda purposes.

        Suppose someone introduced an “anti-Christian indoctrination bill” that forbids teaching pedophilia, animal sacrifice or incest. You say that none of those things are Christian, and you’d be right. But the damage is done by marketing the bill as an anti-Christian indoctrination bill, that falsely ascribes to Christianity a lot of things it doesn’t teach. And the damage from that marketing can’t be fixed by explaining that it’s a caricature of Christianity.

        1. I don’t know…if there was a bill against teaching pedophilia, animal sacrifice and incest, I’d simply file my own bill against those things, leaving out any objectionable rhetoric in the preamble. Then I’d hold a vote in which my “side” (or whoever wanted, for that matter) could vote for my bill, and if they oppose it they can explain it to their voters.

          I wouldn’t react by saying teachers have the “academic freedom” to teach pedophilia, etc. – or that my side would never teach those things but it should still be legal to teach them.

        2. Except that the equivalents to pedophilia, animal sacrifice and incest are actually being taught and compelled. Complaints about the theoretical versions of the associated idiocy being libeled don’t raise much concern in me.

    7. Krychek,
      I find critical race theory to be mostly gross oversimplification, but I wouldn’t object too much to it being taught academically. However, the form that is being taught is a distortion and misrepresentation. This includes active racism against whites and reframing of every last thing into essentially a race war, when from personal experience, the vast majority of conservatives don’t give a whit about race.

      Karl Marx once famously said “I am not a Marxist”, and I’m fairly certain if he had lived, he would have spoke out against the governments that claimed to follow his teachings. I find that many people who founded the concept of Critical Race Theory would be ashamed at what their work has wrought.

      1. Critical Race Theory is not being taught outside of academia. And within high school and elementary schools, teaching that whites are evil is not really a widespread thing, the anecdotal generalizing of the OP aside.

        Marx was a weird dude, he mighta been down with Stalin. Hard to say.

        1. Like with my York, PA and Williamson, Tennessee examples, it’s extremely telling what some people think constitutes “teaching whites are evil” when given wide latitude to identify such content.

        2. “And within high school and elementary schools, teaching that whites are evil is not really a widespread thing”

          That’s excellent, so all that we need is a mopping-up operation to get rid of racist teaching in the puny handful of schools which have it. So I suppose a bill against racist teaching in public schools ought to be a bipartisan bill so long as any mention of CRT is omitted from the preamble.

  7. In all of Bonnie’s posts, the usual bunch of commenters sure are suffering from knee-jerk syndrome. Obviously someone is over the target.

    Keep up the good work. It’s obvious to anyone with a sentient brain that these issues need to be approached. The braying of the usuals around here is evidence of that.

    1. What you call braying I call critiquing an unserious person who claims to be about freedom of expression in schools but is actually upset that her preferred ideology not only isn’t privileged in schools but that anyone has the nerve to question it at all.

    2. One of the dumbest ways people think politically now is: ‘this person is criticized by people I disagree with therefore they must be right!’ AOC makes people here I think are silly angry but that doesn’t make her smart imo, or take Behar as an extreme, reverse example of that.

  8. It is really disappointing to find that this right-wing crank was invited to post here.

    She claims to oppose indoctrination, but it is clear from her own writing that what she favors is indoctrinating students in a Panglossian, Disneyfied, version of American history and society, with a distinct RW ideology.

    Just read this rant.

    1. Bernard, your personal remarks are not a rebuttal to anything she has said. Try to formulate an argument, for a change of pace, instead of just insulting people who disagree.

      1. Bernard, try calling your local DA and have them prosecute for child abuse, lol.

    2. …we certainly don’t want to drain the cultural tank without a clear understanding of what would rush in to replace it. The task, then, in fostering recognition and, hopefully, even appreciation, is to make the invisible, visible, and to draw attention to the elements that define us and that undergird the operation of our societal structures.

      This is like the cartoon that conservatives think CRT is, but for ‘merica.

      those actively promoting replacement alternative ways of life (such as socialism, Marxism) ironically are providing us with the tools for better understanding our own culture by throwing it into stark relief,

      Nice redbaiting.

      There are certain elements to our culture that cannot be divorced from our founding documents—which themselves are rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions, and associated Enlightenment thought—or from the systems by which citizens must abide and by which our economy operates, and these include:

      Our political system – Constitutional republic with transparent elections, confidential voting, majority rule and consent of the governed.
      Our economic system – free markets, voluntary exchange, and competition (capitalism) backed up with protection of private (individual) property rights.
      Our culture – Enlightenment individualism, built on the foundation of Judeo-Christian values.
      Our legal system – Individual justice with presumption of innocence, due process and rules of evidence, built on the English common law tradition.
      Our method of advancement – Protestant work ethic and meritocracy.
      Our method of communicating and figuring things out – Free speech (open voluntary exchange of thoughts in the free marketplace of ideas), no compelled speech or censorship, logical reason.
      Our mode of interacting with one another –Equality, live and let live, agreeing to disagree, free to disagree (right to petition, peaceably assemble).
      Our outlook on life – Self-reliance, American spirit, progress, optimism, American Dream, pursuit of happiness (freedom, liberty), resistance to authoritarianism (defiance), assertion of rights (it’s a free country!).

      This is childlike. If that child is a Christian theocrat.

      1. There is some real gems in that. She concedes that you can’t make students “believe” any of this because that would be “un-American.” But she says it’s essential to foster understanding of certain concepts. Sounds fair. But what are some of those concepts it’s essential for students to understand? “Socialism and communism also enshrine breaking the 10th commandment against coveting your neighbors’ goods and activate the deadly sin of Envy.”

        1. *ARE some real gems.

        2. As the correct measurement of the people is their average health, wealth, and longevity and the trends over the decades, this would go a long way to fighting the covetous nature commandment issue, as it should be nonexistent.

          Actual, measured reality, though, doesn’t benefit politicians though, who need it as a red herring distraction to get elected so their stock portfolios and close relatives and connected cronies’ fortunes can mysteriously increase. Hence its modern reformulation: wealth disparities between rich and poor. If such disparities yield greater improvements for working people, it should be trumpeted with joy. But that is not politically useful.

          1. There’s a reason so many supervillains are utilitarian.

            It’s a simple morality, but not one that humans actually abide by.

            This is why behavioral economics is so cool.

            1. This comment inspired me to Google and lead to this great thread:


              Who is a Kantian supervillain? Despite Thanos seeming to be the ultimate utilitarian, is he actually only doing what he does from a sense of moral duty, consequences be damned? Are Kantians best-suited as anti-heroes? Isn’t someone like Inspector Javert a Kantian villain? And can you be a supervillain who subscribes to virtue-ethics?

              1. I wish that guy would explain what he thinks Kantian means.

                supervillain who subscribes to virtue-ethics
                Apocolypse, maybe?

                1. Or those non-green lanterns!

                2. I think he means a villain acting pursuant to some universally recognized moral duty in such a way that villainous consequences emerge?

                  1. So not internally arrived at indicia of merit, but a communal one…The Judge from Batman: TAS?

                    Basically Batman, but he kills the supervillains (or comes as close as cartoons allow).

                    1. Maybe Batman himself would be a Kantian villain: sticks to his no-kill rule regarding the Joker no matter how much he escapes Arkham which continuously leads to very bad consequences for Gotham…

                3. Not so sure about the Marvel villain Apocalypse, but the DC villain Darkseid? Absolutely, so long as you consider ruthlessness a virtue.

        3. You keep bringing this up. I am not exactly sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that institutional communism and socialism aren’t motivated by envy ? You think that because she believes in the 10 commandments that she is somehow lesser than some post- modernist progressive who believes whatever is convenient to the current narrative ?

          1. 1) they aren’t. They’re motivated by other things too. People aren’t envious that others have enough to eat and access to health care…they just don’t want to starve and die of easily treatable diseases.

            2) no. The problem isn’t that she believes it personally, it’s that she thinks this is something essential to be taught in schools, as part of a project to “undoctrinate” children. She’s just subbing one ideology for another while pretending to be some free expression champion.

      2. …‘merica…

        Do you hate this country so much that you can’t say its name without distortion? Or are you implying that conservatives don’t know how to spell? Despicable, in either case.

        1. I used that term because what she’s talking about isn’t America.

          Seems like I got the message across quite well.

        2. A couple of weeks ago my 12 year old son, in a patriotic moment, said “Murica!”. I had to explain to him that people who actually like the country call it “America”, that “Murica!” is an insult. Because he’d innocently picked up the usage without knowing where it was coming from.

          1. Kids these days do use it ironically. In the ‘America, F Yeah!’ vein.

          2. It derives from mocking the gape-jawed, drawling ‘mur-ca’ one encounters in southern and backwater contexts.

      3. We are not going to redbait in this. We are going red imprison. You people are going to camp in 2025.

    3. Amazing that someone could read this and simultaneously claim to be against “indoctrination.” This is a person who has probably never had a single thought that was not pre-approved by American orthodoxy.

      “Capitalism drove the economic engine that defeated the mighty Axis powers.”

      When you definitely understand what happened in World War II . . .

      “In America, you have the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor but you must not expect to live off the sweat of another man’s brow. You are expected to work and to contribute to the economy.”

      This is the precisely antithetical to capitalism. Capitalism holds that certain people – those who hold significant capital – are entitled to make a profit on their investments without having to work. The capitalist lives off the sweat of the brows of his workers.

      “[Capitalism] is the economic system in which graduates will be required to operate during adulthood.”

      We’ll see about that.

    4. Bernard,
      “It is really disappointing to find that this right-wing crank was invited to post here.”
      Dismissing people you disagree with as a “crank” serves no purpose but to accelerate and attempt at discussion into a shouting and name calling match.
      It shows that you won’t even try to view the world through the other person’s perspective. The result is today’s toxic political environment.

      1. Don,

        I don’t dismiss people I disagree with as cranks. I dismiss cranks as cranks.

        Please read the material on her web site and tell me my description of her views as Panglossian, Disneyfied, ideas about the country is inaccurate.

        You might also comment on her sources and what she thinks they mean. How much of it do you think this moron has read?

    5. Capitalism drove the economic engine that defeated the mighty Axis powers.

      Yeah. The mighty, capitalist axis powers. On the other hand, with regard to Germany, the overwhelming share of that defeating was inflicted by a communist power. It was a communist power so imposing that at the end of the war, our economic engine dared not take it on directly in Europe.

      1. Stephen,
        Germany was effectively defeated in 1942, when it became clear that the German economy could not sustain a war on two fronts. To call the contribution by Russian troops the overwhelming share is gross exaggeration. Without the Western front the war in the East would have drawn to a stalemate

        1. Don Nico, while the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles were landing in Normandy with what eventually amounted to 39 divisions, the Soviets were attacking westward in operation Bagration, meeting and eventually defeating a German force of approximately 150 divisions—which Soviet arms had previously whittled down from a high of about 190 divisions the previous year. If, as it seems, you wish to minimize WW II-era Soviet arms, a corrective would be to look up the statistics detailing numbers for Soviet tanks, Soviet artillery, and Soviet aircraft at the outset of Bagration. Compare them to what the Germans had—and keep in mind that in those categories, the Soviets manufactured almost all the equipment they used.

          Note also that from 1942 onward, German commanders considered the battle efficiency (although not the reliability) of Soviet tanks and aircraft to be superior to what the Germans had—especially in winter combat. Any performance edge the Germans could claim for their artillery was overwhelmed by massive numbers of Soviet artillery pieces built during the war.

          Germany, of course, did what it could to respond proportionately, sending about three times as many divisions to the Eastern Front, to be chewed up by the Soviets, as they did to the Western Front, to confront the allies. The war in the East ground on for 4 years.

          The Western front war was over just a year after the Normandy landing—largely because the Germans could not spare to oppose the allies their remnant forces fighting a defensive withdrawal in the East. Previous losses of German aircraft to the Soviets in the East contributed heavily to allied success during the Normandy invasion and afterward—giving the invaders almost immediate air superiority they never had to fight for over the beaches, and which they never relinquished thereafter. That set the stage for American and British ground attack aircraft to frustrate German armored counter attacks at Normandy and afterward—an outcome German general Erwin Rommel had foreseen and warned against to no avail.

          Even counting the bitter fighting in Italy—to somewhat multiply and extend the allied battle statistics—there is simply no comparison. Had there been no allied landing in France at all, the only difference in the outcome of WW II in northern Europe would have been Russian domination all the way to the English Channel.

          That is not a particularly close estimate. You will struggle to find a military historian who is not a patriotic cheerleader for American arms to say otherwise. From Stalingrad onward, Russian military strength became overwhelming, and by the end of the war, far outmatched combined allied military strength in Europe.

          None of that is meant to minimize the valiant contributions of allied arms, and especially of the Americans who led the very tough fight across Western Europe.

          But it is why Russian dominance of Eastern Europe became the post-war status quo. Everyone among the allied strategic elite saw that coming. The power to stop it did not exist. Berlin’s baleful status as a trip wire became so frightening because everyone understood for years that western conventional arms could not hope to oppose the Soviets in Europe, except by use of nuclear weapons.

  9. Be cool if she had thoughts on an actual ban of books by and about people of color in Pennsylvania that only was stopped a year later because of actual student pressure and national scrutiny.

    1. That sounds interesting, is there a story on the subject you consider reliable – I wouldn’t want to search for that topic and find something in a lying right-wing site. Something reliable, maybe, like CNN or Salon, would be a good link.

      1. That link you have below a letter to the editor where the writer was so busy describing how censorship was bad he didn’t really explain what the school district actually did.

        I guess I’ll have to check myself for a reliable news source.

        The Guardian says they reversed the ban, which apparently was against authors of “colour.” Lots of indignation, short on detail.

        Let’s look at CNN, they should be reliable:

        “”I don’t think a moral compass will let you ban books about equality and loving each other”

        Oh, dear, this *is* serious. Love and equality, man! But it’s a tad general, let’s get to the specifics.

        But the picture has the students holding these putatively banned books. It must be brave for them to risk expulsion and defy the “ban” like that!

        “list of anti-racism books and resources that were banned from the curriculum by the Central York school board last year”

        OK, banned from the curriculum – so I guess this means students wouldn’t be *required* to read these books as part of their classes. But what if they’re not required to read the Bible either. Would we be able to say the Bible was banned? No, that would be a tired right-wing talking point, since not requiring isn’t the same as banning, as many people would be happy to explain.

        But they refuse to assign “anti-racism” books! Surely kids should have to read anti-racism books if they want to get top grades!

        “Last October, the all-White school board unanimously banned a list of educational resources that included a children’s book about Rosa Parks, Malala Yousafzai’s autobiography and CNN’s Sesame Street town hall on racism.”

        So it was a *list* of books which they won’t assign in classes? But wait, they said the books won’t be used as “educational resources” – does that mean students can’t educate themselves outside of class with these books?

        “Why is a Sesame Street episode threatening the education of children. If anything this school board is threatening education”

        Good point, Sesame Street is good. And the characters are all colors – black, white, blue, green, red – why are students being prevented from watching an episode of Sesame Street? Unless they have some kind of magic picture-generating machine, they won’t be able to see the episode at all!

        And the fact that they’re not assigning these books (plus Sesame Street) has generated “fear among educators.”

        But they skipped the part where the school board banned any books.

  10. Hey conservatives, especially Bonnie Snyder, read this essay:

    It’s a 19 year old showing up all you crybabies. If you want to know how to get me to respect you and stop calling you whiners and victimization whores, here’s how. He very succinctly — better than I ever could — points out the fundamental contradiction in all this right-wing kvetching over academic freedom.

    1. The conservatives at these Ivy treason indoctrination camps are in the tiniest minority, and they have been effectively silenced, on pain of expulsion. They have to be defunded, deprivileged, de-exempted and then shut down. They are the intellectual spear point of the interests of the Chinese Commie Party.

    2. “It’s a 19 year old”

      He has the golden ticket. He doesn’t want to miss out on his future Ivy privileges.

      “how to get me to respect you”

      LOL Its your hate we want.

      1. Why would you want people to hate you? Isn’t that kind of messed up?

        1. It keeps me warm.

          1. Well that’s not good. That’s a really negative outlook that gives you a reason to act like an asshole for the lulz.

            1. Oh dear, looks like I disappointed you again.

              1. No. You probably disappoint a lot of people, but are only ever called out for it here.

          2. That guy from a cartoonish 80s movie got shot.

            1. “got shot.”

              The guy he was responding to got killed.

              All his comrades but one also died. They didn’t hate, still died.

              He and his group won, sometimes you get killed in war.

              I think you misspelled “great” as “cartoonish” though.

              1. 1) Red Dawn isn’t a great rubric for morality.

                2) The guy in Red Dawn you’re following was a tragic figure, not one of a number of hero protagonists you had to choose from.

                Something can be great and cartoonish at the same time. But don’t base your morality on a cartoon.

                It’s like you’re citing Dennis Hopper’s character from Apocalypse Now as the one you’ve decided to emulate.

                1. ” don’t base your morality on a cartoon.”

                  Nobody said I did.

                  Its a good quote.

                  Quotes from movies or books or famous people are often just good and pithy ways to express a thought.

                  Now let’s talk how the “Chicago way” scene in the Untouchables sums up my previously formed foreign policy views.

                  1. I’m all for death of the author, but that quote wasn’t supposed to make the guy seem super cool.

                    The Colonel: All that hate’s gonna burn you up, kid.
                    Robert: It keeps me warm

                    It’s a striking scene – that’s why I remember it. But also about how that’s no way to be.

                    Now, the Untouchables scene, that was intended to be badass, and it was executed masterfully. No way to run a foreign policy in a nuclear world, but at least there I’d understand why you were drawn to it.

                    1. “wasn’t supposed to make the guy seem super cool”

                      Yet in kinda did.

                      Whatever was intended, I just know I like the quote. It reflects a certain attitude that I sometimes like.

                    2. Another thing, why shouldn’t Robert hate the Russians?

                      “Robert’s father was executed because of the inventory the kids had taken from his store.” wikipedia

                      Country attacked, father and the fathers of friends murdered, forced to live in the wilderness like an animal as a guerilla fighter against horrible odds.

                      His hate didn’t get him killed either. It was the same chopper that killed a non-hating girl.

                    3. Oh, you get why he hated – he was traumatized and not handling it well.

                      Not sure how that’s a paradigm to follow still.

      2. Bob, did you actually read the essay? It’s not going to make him any friends within leftist academia.

        His takedown of the left and confident assertion of conservative principles is much scarier for a progressive like me than anything I’ve seen coming from the right in years, which has consisted entirely of:

        * whining and victimhood
        * attempts to own the libs (this is you)
        * lying, especially to themselves

        Nothing of value, nothing of interest, nothing that could keep a party or movement going long term. I’ve been telling people it’s the just the death rattle of the American conservative movement… loud, violent, but ultimately doomed.

        But, if y’all get back to this kid’s mindset, it could revitalize the right. Be confident, not pathetic. Don’t complain, celebrate what you have. Be principled, not blatant opportunists. Have some sense of community rather than pure greed and selfishness.

        That is a movement with reason to exist, and that’s why I say this guy has my respect over someone like you who’s just in it for the trollz and lolz because that’s all you’ve got left.

        1. I read it, I wasn’t talking about the left liking him. Ivy is still a golden ticket on the right. For now.

          I really don’t care what your judgment on the future of conservativism is. Think what you want.

        2. “if y’all get back to this kid’s mindset, it could revitalize the right”

          And you’re giving this advice away for free, about how to defeat you?

          1. Yes. Even though I’m progressive myself, I’m not dumb enough to think that the US can survive without a legitimate conservative party in the mix. The Republican party is no longer a legitimate conservative party, and that’s a hugely destabilizing problem. Even Pelosi has said as much.

            So get your fucking act together guys, before it’s too late!

            1. I’m not a Republican and do not believe the party can be reformed. At least, the possibility of reforming the Republican party is up there with the chance of my discovering the lost Ark of the Covenant.

              Now ask me what I think of the Democratic Party. Would you be interested in the changes I think they should make (which are just likely as the Republican changes)?

              1. I also doubt the Republican party is salvageable, in which case some other party will have to pick up the conservative mantle.

                Sure, tell me what you think’s wrong with the Dems. There certainly are some things, although many of the current excesses stem from the lack of a credible alternative ideology at the moment. In any case, the Democrats are still trying to play the American game at least. The Republicans have abandoned the field.

                1. Democratic Party reforms could include:

                  Not being the tool of large corporations (or pretending to oppose them while taking their money and quietly voting their way)

                  Dusting off their old speeches on fiscal responsibility – being Dems, of course, this might include tax hikes, I’m not naive about that, but at least not adding new programs until the old ones are paid for.

                  Doing something useful *in the long term* for their most faithful voters – school choice, entrepreneurial freedom, etc.

                  Stop encouraging riots. If that’s the game they’re playing they shouldn’t be playing it.

                  Go back to the cultural “conservatism” many key Democrat leaders and voters had in, say, the New Deal.

                  Follow the Democratic leader Hubert Humphrey, who is reported to have said, “It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Don’t carve out (sometimes with gruesome literalness) an exception in the case of the very youngest children – the unborn – and show more interest in the environment in which born children are growing up.

                  That’s just a few initial ideas.

                  1. Look at what the Republicans made them do! 🙂

                  2. I think those are all good except for school choice. School choice doesn’t work — who’s going to choose the bad schools? There needs to be a better solution there. Charter schools perhaps, or some other restructuring of public schools (such as decoupling them from property taxes).

                    1. Charter schools *are* choice schools. They can’t have tuition and they can’t teach religion, are the main differences I can think of with private schools.

                    2. “School choice doesn’t work — who’s going to choose the bad schools?”

                      Wait, what does that mean?

                    3. There are lots of really bad public schools. Just saying “school choice” doesn’t make those schools go away. Why should anyone have to go to a bad public school? If no one goes to them, does that mean they just get shut down? That’s a ridiculously inefficient way of improving education… just keep bulldozing the worst schools because no one wants to go there.

                      Rather than that, we need to find a (efficient) way to make sure all the schools are good. I think that involves a) figuring out how to more equitably fund them and b) some form of privatization, at least of the management functions.

                      One thing the government is terrible at is managing a large workforce.

                      I used to work at a national lab. The model there, as opposed to a public sector union (which to me is a contradiction in terms), was to have a private company responsible for “running” the lab, like HR and whatnot. A model like that could work for public schools, sort of half charter half public.

                      Or not, I’m not a policy expert, but I do know that it’s going to take more than just “choice” to fix schools.

    3. The article makes a good point in that neutrality toward all perspectives should not be the goal of education.

      The communists running higher education should be fired and their viewpoints shunned rather than given equal consideration.

  11. As Ken White (popehat) so succinctly puts it:

    I know America seems extremely divided, and the gulf between Right and Left seems to be getting wider and angrier, but rest assured there’s a constant American value that unites us with enduring bonds:

    Everyone thinks it should be easier to punish speech they don’t like.

  12. Oh this is interesting. Snyder’s site links to “Mom’s for Liberty” as a resource for parents and students looking to fight CRT and other indoctrination.

    Here’s a recent story on them:

    Notable quote:

    “Among the books Moms for Liberty deemed inappropriate are “Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington” and “The Story of Ruby Bridges,” about the Black 6-year-old who integrated a Louisiana public school in 1960.”

    So yes. Please Dr Snyder go on about how it’s bad to indoctrinate kids.

    1. Notable quote:

      “Among the books Moms for Liberty deemed inappropriate are “Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington” and “The Story of Ruby Bridges,” about the Black 6-year-old who integrated a Louisiana public school in 1960.”

      So yes. Please Dr Snyder go on about how it’s bad to indoctrinate kids.

      Your theory is that not wanting to use two specific books to teach children about two broader topics is “indoctrination”? How… Orwellian.

      1. 1) you have no idea what Orwellian is.

        2) I think banning a children’s book about a child who had to integrate a school cause it makes white people look bad, would be an example of trying to indoctrinate kids by suppressing basic facts of American history.

        1. I think we have to distinguish between opposing teaching kids basic facts, and thinking that those same basic facts shouldn’t be taught to the exclusion of everything else. The latter can easily be portrayed as the former.

          1. This wasn’t about ‘stop only teaching this book’ it was about ‘we forbid you from using these books.’

            That’s not good.

            Plenty on the left in this arena is also not good, but this is nothing you should be writing an apologetic for.

            1. Also you really have to look at the specific books and the explicit reasoning, here. There’s not even a pretext about “too complex” or “too violent.” The MoL group in this county is explicitly saying, about anodyne children’s books this:

              “ In Steenman’s letter, viewed by Reuters, she said the books and pedagogy are divisive, giving children the impression that all white people are “bad” and that people of color are mistreated by whites.”

              They’re trying to cover up even the most basic factual sketches of past events to try and stop students from making a disfavored inference about white people. You could quibble in a pedantic way, as brian does, as to whether that’s indoctrination, but it’s certainly not education and it’s certainly trying to achieve an ideological goal.

              What MoL says themselves is damning on its own without any added commentary. So the fact that Dr Undoctrinate promotes these people is both telling and appalling.

              1. I’d actually have to read the book to determine if it’s genuinely anodyne.

                1. It just talks about how difficult it was to go to school as a black six year old under military escort while being yelled and spat at by a bunch of white adults. It’s just a basic outline presented as a story of personal
                  perseverance. Anodyne. If you think it’s revolutionary or makes white people look bad that’s more of a you problem.

                  1. I don’t know if the presentation of the material in those two books was ant-White or otherwise racist. But no one is going to mistake YOUR description (“anodyne”) of anything as reliable.

        2. 1) you have no idea what Orwellian is

          I will cheerfully stipulate I have no idea what cutesy new definition you’re ascribing to it to feign ignorance of my crystal-clear point on your attempted inversion of the meaning of the word “indoctrinate.” Feel free to fill us in.

          2) I think banning a children’s book about a child who had to integrate a school cause it makes white people look bad, would be an example of trying to indoctrinate kids by suppressing basic facts of American history.

          Yes, it’s clear you think that, based on your original post. It’s also clear that you’re conflating banning a specific book about a topic with banning the topic altogether. And finally, it’s clear enough that you understand that and are doubling down with your rhetorical battle ram regardless.

          1. Book banning is bad.

            It is the right of groups to advocate for banning books. But it is also bad.

            And, in this case, telling.

            1. Book banning is bad.

              How ironic that you wade into a thread about Orwellian language with a gem like this.

              1. You want to walk me through your logic here?

                1. We’ve recently experienced (and extensively debated around here, as you’ll recall) some bona fide examples of book banning. This ain’t that.

                  1. Yes. In York county PA. Also solely targeted at PoC.

                    1. Amazon stopped shipping there? Do tell.

                    2. Don’t be obtuse. A school board froze access to books in the library and curriculum solely by and about people of color for a year and only relented under pressure from students and national scrutiny. Pure, unadulterated government censorship.

                    3. Yeah, screaming “ban” when you really mean “you’re not affirmatively using my chosen content in the classroom” is a creative (and, sadly, increasingly effective) PR technique, but that doesn’t make it any more accurate than your original example.

                    4. You seem to be conflating legal with not bad.

                      You would probably criticize the banning of Huckleberry Finn, even if that were legal, eh?

                      So either explain why you’re defending this ban, or GTFO.

                    5. Trying to prevent kids from accessing content either through the curriculum or a library is a ban. This might come as a shock to you, but the existence of books in other places doesn’t mean a particular entity didn’t ban it.

                    6. So either explain why you’re defending this ban, or GTFO.

                      Internet tough guy — cute!

                      Since the discussion you’ve repeatedly tried to hijack here is about the bastardization of the actual well-understood meanings of words like “indoctrination” and “ban,” feel free to get on topic or “GTFO” yourself.

                    7. Trying to prevent kids from accessing content either through the curriculum or a library is a ban.

                      I hate to be the one to break it to you, but simply repeating stuff like this over and over doesn’t make it any more correct. Under your bleeding-heart PR definition, 99.99% of the books in the world are “banned” from the typical public school curriculum. Cry me a river.

                    8. I’ll notice that you never actually have an argument to defend what York County did or what MoL wants in terms of specific books. You just think it’s okay because books exist elsewhere. But now I am going to directly challenge you:

                      Please give a detailed defense of why a school administration would remove from a HS library the autobiography of Malala Yousafzai.

                    9. Please give a detailed defense of why a school administration would remove from a HS library the autobiography of Malala Yousafzai.

                      Please give a detailed description of the content of the book, which school administration removed it from which HS library, under what circumstances, and the stated reason. Oh, and don’t forget the cites — to primary sources, of course.

                    10. We’ve been talking about York Central school board thee tire time. It was “under review” for a year.


                      As for the content. Dude. It’s Malala’s autobiography. You know who she is right? She was a 14 year old girl shot in the head by the Taliban for writing a blog supporting education for girls, but miraculously survived to become a global advocate for education.

                      Again: why would you ban her book?


                      This is too cute. Your interpretation of a “primary source” for your contention that “a school administration remove[d] from a HS library the autobiography of Malala Yousafzai” is a frothed-up letter to the editor that doesn’t even mention the word “library.”

                      I’d tell you to try again, but I’m now even more confident you’ve built your worldview on this solely via activist media headlines and don’t want you to embarrass yourself any further.

          2. If you can’t even read a children’s book about Ruby Bridges, then how can you expect to learn about the topic of racism in America at all? If something so anodyne is suppressed, then the chances of learning anything about the era are slim.

            1. If you can’t even read a children’s book about Ruby Bridges, then how can you expect to learn about the topic of racism in America at all?

              Now who’s being obtuse? It’s a specific book with a specific perspective on the topic, not any book whatsoever about the topic. You’re just deploying an ever-so-slightly more sophisticated variant of screaming “racist” to avoid grappling with the actual substance of the issue.

              1. Quit dicking around.

                The burden is on the book banners. If you want to defend it, you need to explain why this book was deemed unworthy. The organization didn’t and you’re not.

                Just saying ‘hey they can always use another book’ is the same logic as ‘hey they can always go to another drinking fountain.’ You need more than that to justify this.

                1. If you want to defend it, you need to explain why this book was deemed unworthy.

                  No, actually I don’t. See my 99.99% comment to LTG above. This is about activists pushing specific content who didn’t learn in grade school how to accept the word “no.”

                  The organization didn’t

                  As usual, you’re brashly pontificating without having bothered to RTFA. “Members of Steenman’s group pored over the second-grade books, marking up those they found objectionable with highlighters and sticky notes. On June 30, soon after the new law was signed, Steenman sent an 11-page letter outlining potential violations to the Tennessee Department of Education.”

                  1. They may have pored over the books, but this is what they came up with:
                    ‘In Steenman’s letter, viewed by Reuters, she said the books and pedagogy are divisive, giving children the impression that all white people are “bad” and that people of color are mistreated by whites.’

                    This is what you are defending. That learning about Ruby Bridges makes white people look bad, and so that book should be banned.

                    1. He needs to retreat to pedantic arguing over the meaning of “ban” and “indoctrinate” and “Orwell” to avoid the substance: OP’s friends don’t want kids exposed to the civil rights movement because they think it makes white people today look bad.

                    2. “That learning about Ruby Bridges makes white people look bad”

                      That is not what the school said, it was that the way THIS particular book was written made ALL white people look bad.

                      Her story had plenty of other, white heroes [Judge Wright, Barbara Henry] too. Did the book reflect this?

                    3. 1) really telling that you think that the book about experiences of the six year old getting spat on for integrating a school needs to include the white heroes so white people don’t look bad.

                      2) You can read the complaint yourself.


                      They’re upset that her story portrays white people badly at all and that the Robert Coles book doesn’t say everything is hunky-dory at the end.

                    4. “1) really telling that you think that the book about experiences of the six year old getting spat on for integrating a school needs to include the white heroes so white people don’t look bad. ”

                      Its “real telling” that “liberals” always assert that all disagreement with them is racist.

                      If the book doesn’t also recognize her teacher, its a bad book. No Barbara Henry, Bridges would have just sat doing nothing the whole year.

                    5. how could anyone conclude that banning the story of Ruby Bridges, the six year old spat on for integrating a school, told by Ruby Bridges herself, was racist. Especially when it’s combined with flagging other books by and about PoC as inappropriate for making white children upset. How could anyone conclude that?

                      Bob, challenge: go up to Ms Bridges herself and tell her that her book book her own experiences as a child
                      Is “bad.” I double dog dare you.

              2. The actual substance of the issue is exactly what MoL says it is: they want to ban a children’s book about the civil rights movement because it makes white people look bad. That’s it. They want to suppress the most basic factual outline possible so that white kids won’t feel racist. There is nothing subtle about this issue at all.

  13. “Things are Getting Messy”

    Well DUH!

    Things are SUPPOSED to be messy in a democracy.

    Hopefully the debates are rational and reasoned, but it’s (constitutionally) OK if they’re not.

    1. This whole discussion bothers me. As school bowrds are under local control (this is a high principle for Republicans), then take back your government.

      Robert Heinlein, among others, even wrote a book entitled exactly that. Stop complaining and go win elections.

      If someone tries to get a court ruling children must be taught this, the way they must be taught basic math and science, then worry.

      Until then, take back your elected school boards.

      1. As school bowrds are under local control (this is a high principle for Republicans)

        Is it a high principle? Then why are Republican governors everywhere trying to prevent local boards from making Covid rules for their schools?

        1. Are the local school boards actually responding to the local population when they make those rules? I have to say that they weren’t here in South Carolina. We parents with school aged kids cheered when the schools were forced to stop that nonsense.

          1. So, local control unless you don’t like the results.


        2. C’mon bernard.
          COVID rules are an entirely different issue and you actually know that. Departments of public health are not answerable to school boards. They are answerable to governors and mayors.

          1. C’mon Don.

            Either you want local decision-making or you don’t. Are public health departments “answerable to governors,” or are they under the control of governors?

            It’s BS and you know it.

        3. Presumably local school boards should reflect the will of the local population. When they act to the contrary they are no longer a representative body and should be opposed and defied.

          1. And of course you’re the one who knows the will of the local population.

  14. The Manson Family’s plan of Helter Skelter could not have done better.

  15. You want the ultimate cultural fix – universal school vouchers. Let the “public” schools compete for business. If people want woke CRT, your kid is a racist, education environment they can vote with their voucher. If they want a religious school, same deal. Poor schools will be forced to close. Good teachers will always have jobs because they are good. The only people who hate this idea are the bad teachers, horrible administrators, and the teacher’s union. That is because they don’t care about kids, just money.

    1. Indeed, and in a sane world this would be seen as achieving the goal of “getting us beyond the tired old culture wars, etc.” by deferring to parents rather than imposing a single curriculum on them.

      Without some kind of voucher system, the government will be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of some right-wing or left-wing ideology.

      To put it in Volokh commenter terms – if you’re *really* for academic freedom you’d support vouchers.

      1. That’s my position. But the public schools in the US have been about indoctrination since actual public schools became a common thing. The government is down on vouchers because they don’t want to lose that opportunity to spend better than a decade indoctrinating the next generation of voters. This is mostly an internal argument about who picks the doctrine, and “the parents” isn’t on the table.

      2. In the voucher system you envision, would schools that teach nonsense (silly fairy tales — creationism, for example) in science classrooms be qualified to provide the education to be funded by public dollars?

        Is there any reason modern America should provide accreditation, let alone public funds, to such low-grade, inept “schools?”

        1. A school could get funding even if it taught fairy tales such as

          the world is 6000 years old

          George Washington chopped down a cherry tree

          the American Revolution was fought to defend slavery

          Americans can be whatever they want, including whatever sex they want

          1. Is there any limit on the amount of nonsense you believe taxpayers should fund? Two plus five equals nine? The creation story of the Bible? Jack and the Beanstalk are still up there? Jesus rose form the dead? The Flintstones is a documentary? The theories of evolution and gravity are nonsensical? Gays are a Devil’s emissaries to our world? Ohio is not a state but Mexico is? The story of Jesus’ conception is something other than a childish fairy tale? We can’t each cheeseburgers, or lobster, or meat on certain days because a god said so? Bleach is a healthful drink?

            Just how much nonsense should taxpayers fund (or accept at an accredited institution), clingers?

            1. In deference to the Supreme Court, schools should not be allowed to teach religious dogma as true – and indeed we’re assured that the religion of critical race theory is *not* taught in schools. Nor should schools create a hostile environment against students based on race. Again, we’re assured this does not happen.

              1. Come to think of it, young-earth creationism has been classified as a religious doctrine by the Supreme Court, so it cannot be taught any more than any other religion.

                1. I suppose in this context I was thinking of charter schools, not all private schools of choice.

        2. Just like schools that want to teach the myth that America is some sort of racist society founded on slavery?

          1. If you literally just listed a bunch of basic facts about America circa 1776 you could easily come to that conclusion without much inference or creative interpretation.

            1. “basic” “facts” is what you meant to type.

              1. Fact: slavery existed in 1776
                Fact: laws also restricted the rights of free blacks in the free states
                Fact: all the founders were white men and many owned slaves. There were no black people at the continental congress or constitutional convention
                Fact: the constitution explicitly had clauses protecting slavery
                Fact: the southern states wanted to expand slavery.
                Fact: they seceded when their was even a slight threat to this expansion. Don’t believe me? Read everything southern leaders said and wrote about it.
                Fact: after the civil war we had reconstruction
                Fact: racial violence against black people by white people was extremely common
                Fact: white southerners eventually succeeded in ensuring white rule and implementing Jim Crow laws during the redemption movement
                Fact: These racial policies didn’t start to be demolished until the 1940s.

                I could go on. Which isn’t a fact or basic, Jimmy?

                1. Jimmy is a right-wing bigot. Trying to reason with these knuckle-draggers in a waste of team.

                2. All facts and should be in history books along with other fact as well..the concern is when it is decided certain “facts” are not permissible (the US was the first modern republic of any size. Its free market and sound money policies led to the worlds greatest increase in industrialization and living standards and is a beacon for people around the world to immigrate to). Slavery is a part of every western country for the most part. Time to move on and focus on the future and sorry but everyhing can’t be viewed through race or racial history…math? science? math isn’t racist just because your tribe doesn’t do well in it..more likely a cultural issue..which honestly is the primary reason for disparity in America today not racism…

                  1. There’s no racism in America. This tribe has a culture that is bad at math. I am very smart.

      3. Cal, if you have any curriculum, how can it be anything but a single curriculum?

        1. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

          1. It addresses your objection to imposing a, “single curriculum,” on parents. It suggests by implication that you aren’t really interested enough in the subject of curriculum to understand what the word means.

            1. “Indeed, and in a sane world this would be seen as achieving the goal of “getting us beyond the tired old culture wars, etc.” by deferring to parents rather than imposing a single curriculum on them.”

              Read for comprehension and context. Look up “curriculum” in Merriam-Webster.

              This is the very problem I was deploring – the tired old culture wars. There was no ambiguity about my remark, you’re just being stupid or deliberately dense.

              1. Cal, the context of the discussion on this thread has been the effort of the OP to fire up the culture wars. In that context, the notion of tactical curricula, with rival indoctrinations contested among them, is what critics of the OP have been deploring. Curricula of that sort are narrow. The remedy sought and defended against the OPs advocacy has been a broader curriculum, which you, nearly paradoxically, disparage as a, “single curriculum”—by which you apparently mean a curriculum too inclusive to satisfy some parents’ taste for tactical victory in the culture wars.

                1. “a, [sic] ‘single curriculum’—by which you apparently mean a curriculum too inclusive to satisfy some parents’ taste for tactical victory in the culture wars.”

                  My, my, you *are* creative!

                  That’s enough straw men for a scarecrow convention.

                  And your arguments are an indication of why the opponents of educational choice are intellectually bankrupt.

  16. There are two types of cultures: individualistic and collectivistic. America is individualistic, philosophically rooted in the Enlightenment and Western civilization’s intellectual heritage of Judeo-Christian values. The individualistic cultures tend to be in the Western and Northern hemispheres and the collectivistic ones in the Eastern and Southern hemispheres, although there are exceptions, largely caused by colonial expansion.

    I mean, come on. This is claptrap. Two types of cultures. GMAFB.

    Wonder what happens in the northeastern and southwestern quadrants? Does China count as Eastern or Northern? Japan? Korea?

    America is meant to function as a meritocracy that offers rewards for effort, hard work, and achievement. This is also known as the Protestant (Calvinist) work ethic, which contrasts distinctly with aristocracy, in which the circumstances of one’s birth determine one’s opportunities and outcomes in life. The American system was deliberately set up in direct opposition to this, and the Constitution, of course, specifically prohibits the granting of titles of nobility,

    I’ve heard it suggested that “the circumstances of one’s birth” in fact have a good bit to do with determining “one’s opportunities and outcomes in life” right here in the United States. That we have no dukes or earls doesn’t change that.

    1. “. . . which contrasts distinctly with aristocracy, in which the circumstances of one’s birth determine one’s opportunities and outcomes in life.”

      Can someone pass this to Trump and tell him he’s supposed to be an unemployed bum?


    2. I’ve heard it suggested that “the circumstances of one’s birth” in fact have a good bit to do with determining “one’s opportunities and outcomes in life” right here in the United States. That we have no dukes or earls doesn’t change that.

      Look at the “circumstances of birth” of Bill Gates, Elon Musk (divorced parents), and Jeff Bezos. and tell me what outcome you think he should have had. Im

      1. Haha, that’s not what bernard11 means.

        Follow the money.

        1. S_0,
          You know damned well, that was what bernard meant. Why offer up such a weak defense with the only possible purpose of continuing an argument.

          1. I’m pretty sure he is talking about inherited wealth and status. Bill Gates got access to a computer at the right time in his life when maybe 1% of classrooms nationwide had one.

            Elon Musk’s family was sufficiently well off that he could pursue longshot software companies until one hit.

            Jeff Bezos was not born rich, but he was born with a well connected extended family. Connected enough to lobby Congress to not tax this Amazon startup he was working on.

            Demographics matter too, but nothing beats being born with a leg up in class.

            1. Didn’t used to be that way. I’m definately not one to yearn for the America of decades past, but class mobility used to be a thing in this country.

              Now, we’re much worse at it than other developed countries. And that’s a damn shame.


            2. Not just inherited wealth and status, though that’s part of it.

              Children of upper-middle, upper-class parents have enormous advantages.

  17. It’s a great time to be a lawyer, and it’s only going to get better.

    1. Yes, in chaos there is opportunity.

  18. Come now, come now! If the requirement is that students simply MUST be addressed by their preferred pronoun, let us simply enforce that requirement! The below is my recommended list of pronouns for students to require the school employees refer to them by:

    Your Highness/Your Majesty
    Supreme Leader
    Lord Almighty
    Honorable Master
    You’re Always Right
    Straight-A Student
    Prince of Wales
    Duke of Earl
    Supreme Master of the Universe
    Mistress of the Dark (for the Goth Girls)
    Prince of Darkness

    1. Do…you know what a pronoun is?

      1. Sure, and it conflicts with the idea that you get to pick your own.

          1. Well, in many languages, the pronoun doesn’t just let you refer to somebody without naming them, it communicates some information about them. (In Japanese, sometimes detailed information.)

            You don’t get to pick your pronoun because that information is about you, but it’s not discretionary, it’s not actually under your control. When life hands you a lemon, sorry, you’re lemonsama, no matter how much you wish you’d gotten a lime.

            And you’re certainly not entitled to have people communicate lies about you, or even opinions they disagree with.

            1. You don’t get to pick your pronoun because that information is about you, but it’s not discretionary, it’s not actually under your control.

              Dude, that’s not part of the definition of a pronoun. That’s just you doing some very hard question begging.

              1. Ah. No point in arguing with Brettina about pronouns. She’s just the worst when it comes to that subject.

      2. From a dictionary: The part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons or things asked for, previously specified, or understood from the context.

        And given that there are so many pronouns and more keep getting created, I can create a few as I choose. And if I get to pick my preferred pronoun, I get to pick my preferred pronoun, and it quite simply must be used.

        I’m only following the rules as explained. If you don’t like them, your problem is with the rules.

        1. You can try and create some. But considering you’re drawing from another part of speech, I don’t think you’re doing a very good job. Probably won’t catch on.

  19. What about using the 1A to prevent paying for this political speech in the classroom? Just like union members can decide to not pay the dues used for political speech they do not support, why can’t taxpayers demand the same? Why should we be forced to pay for indoctrination of students beyond the normal classes like math, sports, language, or driver’s ed.

    1. Taxpayers have no legal standing. The lawyer scumbags on the Supreme Court saw to that, in total denial of the damage the taxpayer has endured.

    2. “Science” is a glaring omission from that list, clinger.

      Step aside and let the adults handle this.

      1. What’s “science” sir? No its not evolution and climate change. Its newtonian mechanics, E&M, Quantum chemistry, bio chemistry, engineering…

        Climate Change is at best “applied science” because it isn’t testable in a repeatable fashion but relies on modeling. Evolution is a theory on how species change over time..its mechanisms are at best incomplete. It would be barely covered in any high school biology class anyway. At most it would be a paragraph or two in a bio book in a section on natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. One could disagree with the theory on the grounds it is incomplete and not be “anti science.”

        Now if science is about why certain kids don’t do well and others do…and we are going to dumb down testing so they all get “A”s…well that isnt’ science either or fair to all the kids.

  20. CRT, while a problem, is being pushed as a “conservatives react” phenomena to keep the Fox News rubes angry with something other than election integrity.

    1. Why is it a problem?

      Is it one of those problems which can’t be solved, like the weather?

      Wait, the weather *can* be solved!

      And if the weather can be solved, I suppose CRT can be, too.

      Any suggestions?

      1. There are no solutions, only trade offs.

        That said, it’s nice to see more conservatives involved in local politics. If republicans controlled more county clerk offices, which on any given election night is more powerful than the President of the United States, why, we’d have different election outcomes routinely. It’s not the votes, but who counts them.

        1. Wait, are you endorsing those conspiracy theories about Democratic vote-counters practicing fraud? That’s a slander against all those hard-working public officials.

  21. Equity is marxism…marxism is anathema to American’s belief in liberty. Educational equity leads to dumbing down some Americans so others can feel better about themselves and not take responsibility…CRT is about equity and is flat out marxism. It is a threat to liberty and should be viewed as such.

Please to post comments