If it’s true that the resources are limited, then no matter how you prioritize, someone will be left out. How would you prioritize those resources?
The link isn’t about the vaccine, it’s about financial aid to small businesses hit by the Covid pandemic.
That’s my fault. I switched the argument from relief funds to vaccines.
But, I think my point still applies.
If the relief funds can only go to some of the needy, then you need to prioritize somehow. By taking into consideration groups who have traditionally been shut out of similar reliefs is not discrimination.
The court that struck down those provisions as unconstitutional suggested the government could grant priority consideration to all business owners who were unable to obtain needed capital or credit during the pandemic, or to all small business owners who have not yet received coronavirus relief funds.
Incidentally, yes, the court ruled that way, but as noted it was on a narrow sense. In that case, it was clear that there was still a lot of small business that needed help, not just minority own businesses. Giving vaccines to minorities after most of the ones that needed got it before is not.
What I get, though, is that as an example of using it as a critical race item, one has to cite a researcher recommending such a move. Otherwise, as the courts made it to, it was a moot point.
From the Arizona law
- States that accurate portrayals of historical events, lessons on recognizing and reporting abuse and sex education are not controversial issues.
So, who determines what is an accurate portrayal of history? The Republican legislature? A Prosecutor? This seems to me to be fairly important question. Our history, as taught to my generation (age 63), is full of what was written by the “victors”. Kind and benevolent slave owners, content slaves, Indians welcoming whites (except when they were scalping them) and on and on.
Yes. Would the product of the Dunning School have been hailed as the “accurate portrayal of history” of Reconstruction 75 years ago?
The largest teachers union in America recently passed a resolution to support and lead campaigns that “result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic … studies curriculum in pre-K-12 and higher education.”
Can’t imagine why parents would think CRT is being taught in schools. 
Implementation of CRT is not teaching of CRT.
I guess that many on the right are not aware that there are teachers in college and universities too. 
But the point of the article is that there is support to have curriculum that includes CRT research in the future. As pointed already in the thread, most of the opposition to CRT is Orwellian and astroturfed.
Also, it is logical to eventually see some concepts and research from CRT at the high school level, that leads to another point mentioned earlier: that what the bigoted and stupid governors from red states signed into law will be found to be unconstitutional as local authorities are likely to prevent any teaching related to the history of race relations and conditions in America, regardless if CRT is not involved.
There seems to be a lot of histrionics around the topic of CRT, but not much in the way of information of the content and how it will be presented to various grades.
I’d like to hear what is actually going to be taught to kids as part of the new CRT curriculum framework, rather than what opponents and critics are afraid will be taught.
I forgot one more observation: I was correct when, earlier here or in the other threads about this, I expected that the bigoted Governors and the Republicans raising this hysteria got it wrong when assuming that teachers and professors would be an easy target. They already have a different thing coming at them.
There’s a lot more heat than light in this debate, and it’s hard to find copies of the actual material.
There’s an example at the bottom of this page, and I think others on the same site:
Talk about less light. That article is a perfect example of illogical thinking. Besides acknowledging that a lot is happening because of the pandemic and other infective policies, there is not really a good logical reason to claim that critical race theory is causing the failure or that putting things already discussed here in “scare quotes” makes his argument.
Having looked at that, then one looks at the bias, he is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute:
So, not only biased, but that guy already has a history of bullshit galore.
That’s what happened to officials in Oregon’s Tigard-Tualatin School District. In an article for City Journal ’s spring issue, Rufo said he’d received “a blueprint” from a whistleblower. It purportedly showed that the district’s new director of equity and inclusion, Zinnia Un, planned to transform “the pedagogy and curriculum” by adopting the theories of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator whose best-known work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, encourages teachers to work with their students as partners and frames education as an act of liberation and mutual humanization. This is a problem, Rufo said, because Freire was a Marxist. “Following Freire’s categorizations, Un writes that the Tigard-Tualatin school district must move from a state of ‘reading the world’ to the phase of ‘denunciation’ against the revolution’s enemies and, finally, to the state of ‘annunciation’ of the liberated masses, who will begin ‘rewriting the world,’” Rufo wrote.
The school-district document Rufo cites does not say this. It references Freire’s work but not, for example, revolution, its enemies, or the liberated masses. A spokesperson for the district said the presentation was used internally for an opt-in professional-development session and school-board discussions about implementing an anti-racist resolution; a revolutionary vanguard has yet to form.
Of an additional staff resource, Rufo wrote that it “assumes” whites are born racist, which he called “textbook cult indoctrination.” The truth is a bit tamer: The guide urges white educators to move beyond the “belief that you aren’t racist if you don’t purposely or consciously act in racist ways,” and according to the spokesperson, it has not been used in any formal settings, such as for staff training. Still, this hysterical interpretation appealed to right-wing commentators like Andy Ngo, and Rufo later went on Newsmax to promote the misleading story further.
Hah! I was part of that NEA representative assembly. There were more than 70 different things we voted on, and that’s just counting the major items, not the votes on whether to close debate on an amendment to a new business item.
CRT is no more taught in schools, according to this resolution, than Zygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development or Piaget’s Stages of Proximal Development are taught in schools. These are pedagogical theories that underpin approaches to instruction, not topics of instruction. If you read Stephen King’s latest novel, you’re likely to get a few good scares, but you won’t come away with any indoctrination about bookbinding techniques or kerning protocols. Those were necessary to the construction of the book, but the reader will no more notice them than the student will notice CRT.
But yes, a lot of teachers find CRT a useful lens through which to understand history, and teach history informed by this lens. I did so before I knew the lens had a name: I taught kids about the racist history of our nation, and I taught them about the resistance to racism in our nation. And I am so proud of Becky Pringle for standing up on behalf of educators who refuse to be canceled (that’s what y’all are calling it these days, right?) over our commitment to teaching honest history.
This is what I find so disingenuous about this whole debate. One side is insisting schools are teaching kids CRT, and the other side keeps insisting they aren’t; but the real issue is that schools are teaching kids ideas/conclusions derived from CRT. Telling the anti-CRT side that it’s not technically CRT is never going to satisfy them, because it’s the ideas they object to. The what-is-CRT debate is just a red herring and it’s getting very tiresome.
One side needs to stop insisting on calling it CRT, and the other needs to stop arguing semantics and pretending it is all imaginary, and start defending what they are teaching.
Assuming that what you state here is exactly true, who is disingenuous in this story?
The problem is that the first group of people are, per your description, wrong, and the second group of people are correct.
Imagine if the liberal media kept telling you creationism was being taught in schools, with examples of what they were teaching, and the response of teachers and the conservative media was ‘don’t be silly. That’s not creationism. This is a panic over nothing.’ Since the schools are actually teaching Intelligent Design, they are correct.
Don’t you think they’re being a teeny bit disingenuous?
Rufo is a dishonest piece of shit, citing him is like citing Trump.
Yes, of course they are. Of course, that situation isn’t remotely analogous to what’s happening with CRT so I’m not sure why you used it. The appropriate comparison is the one LHOD made:
But you’re quite right that it is difficult to get people to stop misunderstanding what CRT is and how it is applied in the curriculum at various stages when there is a persistent, widespread effort to deliberately get people to misunderstand what CRT is and how it is applied.
Yes, why can’t people just blindly believe what the anti-CRT side are saying? It’s so tiresome how the other side keep calling them out fo their malign bullshit.
And the “ideas they object to” are the teaching of actual American history. Cancel culture writ large.
Nobody is pretending it is all imaginary and it’s not “semantics” to counter deliberate falsehoods. And they are defending what they are actually teaching; what they’re not doing is teaching what the other side is accusing them of teaching.