I was assuming no one actually followed that link, but apparently you have. Do you really think that the Privilege Walk lesson is saying that students are inherently oppressors if they are white? Did you follow the Google doc link to see what it actually entails?
I ask because my wife has been using it for years and years now, and when I that THIS is what us being referred to as “Critical Race Theory”, I was dumbfounded. The main point of that lesson isn’t even about race.
Actually, that may not be as simple a fact to prove as what animal the meat in a burger belongs to, but it’s still a factual claim that you can provide evidence for; that evidence should come in the form of figures and statistical models, which can be analyzed by others (we call this “peer review”). Is your claim is based on nothing but hot air, or solid evidence? That’s a factual question that can be analyzed by an independent body.
Right, so why doesn’t Burger King put out an ad saying that the FDA is in league with Big Mac? Apply that same logic to politicians.
Yes I did. And I wondered whether a white male student should or should not take a step forward in response to Q#37.
Like I said, I’m not even criticizing the lesson. But color ME dumbfounded in hearing you say this lesson is not influenced by CRT. CRT, in general, is about privilege of the power class in a given society. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that in American society that has direct links to race. So it’s not hard to imagine that in a class that is ethnically representative of American society, the students at the head of the room would more likely be white than not.
So this is not me arguing that historically being white in America didn’t have it’s privileges. I’m saying it’s not so cut and dried when a large proportion of poor whites don’t feel particularly privileged. And since this thread is still about politics and failures in Democratic messaging, I’m suggesting that those of us who care about Democratic victories in future contests ought to learn something from some of the bad messaging we’ve been using recently.
That would be up to the individual student, wouldn’t it? I’d imagine some would take a step forward while others would not. It’s a subjective question.
How many classes in America are ethnically representative of American society? Our schools are highly segregated, not de jure but de facto.
Regardless, yes, white students might end up at the front; and rich white students with two parents who are right handed would end up in front of poor white lefties with divorced parents. Is that not something that should be recognized about our society? Is that not a valuable thing for kids to understand? It’s about having sympathy for people without “equality of outcome”, to understand that this doesn’t necessarily mean they are dumber and lazier than people who have more, but that they may have had less opportunity.
Where does the lesson pass judgment or condemn the people at the front of the room in any way, shape, or form? It only asks that they have sympathy for everyone no matter where in line they stand.
Once more with feeling:
I’m not criticizing the lesson. I’m criticizing the insistence that it’s not based on CRT. To that extent, at least ,some part of the right’s argument isn’t wrong.
Right. Like I said: interesting.
It’s hardly “teaching our children CRT”. You are likely correct in that it was probably put together by someone who was familiar with CRT or something like it (like I said, I first heard of this lesson… 8 years ago or so? Long before I’d ever heard the term “Critical Race Theory”, but I don’t know how long that’s been around in academic circles).
And what this lesson DOESN’T do is tell children that they should feel bad for being white, or are bad people because they are white.
I guess my surprise isn’t that this lesson is linked to CRT per se, it’s that it is presented as something horrible and bad that we shouldn’t teach kids. If you want to tell me that CRT is evil, and this is your example of what CRT is, I’m dumbfounded as to why you’d think I’d have a problem with CRT at all.
I think this is a disingenuous statement in the context of what we know about: a) human nature, b) the current conversation about race and class in America.
But lets forget about the students at the front of the class. Towards the back third of the class we are more likely to find those who are poor and/or not white. In other words, people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The underprivileged. Now, ask the white students a question how they feel about being told they are either more privileged than the black students, or to some extent responsible in the inherent unfairness of the 40 questions posed despite the fact they had no hand in setting up those rules.
That is not what I am saying.
The Right frames it as an attack on white people. It never was.
Where are you getting any responsibility being put on any of the kids for any of this? The lesson is just meant to show that the system EXISTS. If your reaction to that is “how dare you criticize me”, I have no idea how to help you.
I know, but it’s what The Atlantic is saying, and THAT dumbfounds me.
The point was not to think that lies and asinine ideas can win an election, we know already that they can, but as history and Al Smith showed, the Democrats after losing against many lies, then came back to win big; the lies the Republicans made then about Al Smith were found by voters to be too extremist to follow the next time around when they told them against Roosevelt.
In more modern times, Trump won with lies, and he lost 4 years later when more people noted he was a big con artist. I foresee the same in Virginia, as I don’t see the Republicans elected there ignoring the promises that they made based on lies. Because to make it seem as if they are solving the problem that was not there, they will “solve it” by erasing inconvenient history by branding it as CRT when it was not to begin with.
This reminds me of religious people who denied ‘creationism’ was being taught in school, because it was actually ‘Intelligent Design’. Then when that was exposed as creationism with a scientistic bent, they stopped using the term but would still try to get material into science classes such as the ‘fact’ that no evolutionary pathway exists to explain the evolution of the eyeball. But the terms ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘creationism’ never appeared, so people are just lying about creationism being taught in schools, right?
How about we just drop the stupid terminology arguments and discuss what is and isn’t actually being taught, and whether it is appropriate?
Bear in mind that arguments can be made not just against content, but against how prominent that content is compared to other subjects, and whether it represents a reasonable amount compared to what other subjects there are to learn.
For example, The Buffalo School System now has an extensive ‘Black Lives Matter’ program with units you study every year:
https://www.buffaloschools.org/Page/93603
This is an entire K-12 curriculum provided by Black Lives Matter, being incorporated into the schools. That is an explicitly partisan, left-wing organization providing propaganda to schools. Much of it comes straight out of CRT.
BPS also has an ‘emancipation curriculum’:
So propaganda from Black Lives Matter is now included in the ‘foundational teaching strategies’ of the school. How would you feel if the NRA or the Catholic Church managed to get 12 years of ‘foundational teaching resources’ into the public schools?
Here’s a copy of the lesson plan for second grade:
Among the activities are ‘student pledge cards’:
Do you feel it’s appropriate to be indoctrinating kids into pledging to fight for justice or other political causes in grade 2? Do you think it’s appropriate to incorporate propaganda from an overtly partisan and political organization into the official curriculum of a public school, especially without providing countervaling material? Do you think it’s correct to make kids in grade two commit to political causes and protesting?
They are also including the ‘1619 Project’ as foundational, despite the fact that it’s a tendentious pack of lies that many historians have denounced.
Anyone who sneers at parental concern over this stuff by saying “That’s not CRT” is missing the point and ignoring the problem. There are large swaths of parents who flatly disagree with this material and aren’t going to allow it to be taught to their children.
I have run into this kind of indoctrination with my own kid, who was told in social studies that the difference between right and left was that the left was loving and kind, and the right was materialist and only cared about money and power. Then the kids, after having been primed in this way, were told to raise their hands if they supprted the left, then the right.
This is straight up indoctrination, complete with priming and action to cement commitments under the glare of peers. No, it’s not CRT, but a parent without formal education in CRT might easily lump it in under that banner. And just because they are technically wrong about the term does not mean their concerns are invalid.
Sneer at them to your political peril.
To be fair, that is when I got asked to pledge allegiance to a republic with liberty and justice for all…
What do you mean “if”? Do they not have Catholic schools near you?
Like I said, everything that would be inconvenient will be branded as CRT by the right-wing sources of info.
Since the thread is about Virginia, one has to sneer when one brings a point about Buffalo, New York. Where a super majority of kids in that school are black, so less of a swath of parents would oppose lessons about BLM. Incidentally, that article never pointed that it was CRT training.
BTW Sam, do you think that, where real CRT is concerned, do you think it is ok to ban the teaching of items like CRT research papers that do criticize China’s treatment of the Uyghurs?
Yeah, but they are explicitly Catholic and separate. I would raise holy hell if my kid in a secular school was taught that transsubstantiation was real or that intelligent design is science.
I thought we were talking about CRT in public schools in general at this point.
I don’t care what academics want to talk about in a higher education setting, so ling as they are up front with it and don’t try to jam concepts into pther faculties.
And now that I’ve answered your question, you can answer mine: Do you think it’s appropriate for an activist organization with an agenda to write curricula for public schools without any countervaling information offered? Do you think children in grade 2 should be taught to protest for social justice or anything else?
In the other thread, I noticed that second-graders are taught about Harriet Tubman and the Civil War. As it happens with many right-wing reductions to the absurd examples, it is likely that that language lesson about BLM is not an operative one now, as a Nixon aide would tell you.
BTW I did imply already that I would not agree 100% with the reasons or with the suspected spin you gave to that lesson, however, I would in the end think that if most parents agree a lesson like that is ok as a language lesson and not taught as a historical lesson, that the district has the right to so, just as the charter school I worked before had the right to insert religious lessons in reading assignments.
BTW your reply does not really answer my observation, the reality is that you have to avoid the fact that many right-wingers are really grossly ignorant about what CRT is and what is needed is leadership and moderate right-wingers that do like McCain did when he encountered the lady that told him that Obama was a Muslim and a foreigner, let them know that lies should not guide their activism. Because while they can win at the beginning, they will eventually have a bad time, as the school board members that tried to add creationism in disguise to the school science curriculums found out years ago.
… yes? Like, how is that even a question?
Also interesting that you consider “justice” a political cause.
Since when does language need to be 100% precise around here? If CRT and Wokeism in general weren’t issues, and they clearly are, you wouldn’t have seen the shift from the progressive left that you saw on election day. It wasn’t just the VA race that ought to illuminate just how divisive these radical ideologies are. Seattle elected a Republican for the first time in forever. NJ almost elected a Republican governor. A socialist candidate got beat by a write in candidate. Attacks on children are a strong motivator and folks think their kids are being attacked on the basis of so-called genetic privilege. One way or another this line of thought is not going to end well as it exposes a tremendously delicate cleavage plane for society.