Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you in the same time zone as Argentina? I was surprised, when my son arrived there a couple of weeks ago, to learn how far ahead of us the clocks are there. I wonder if it’s because they don’t get involved in the twice-yearly daylight-saving-time rigamarole. 

I live in Chihuiahua Mexico. We are complicated by having the state divided into two two zones. The border area stays with the US mountain time all year, including standard and daylight savings time. Most of Chihuahua stays with mountain time as well, but changes clocks a week or so earlier than the US time zones. Right now we are the same as the time is in Denver for example.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm familiar with Reynolds. That said, it's not a controlling precedent in this case. The Finnish case implicates not merely freedom to operationalize religious teachings (as Reynolds does) but the right to teach them at all. In other words, freedom of speech. Reynolds thus does not provide relevant precedent. In fact, nothing in the US does. The Court in Hosanna-Tabor ruled that federal antidiscrimination laws cannot govern religious self-government, in keeping with the government's avoidance of "excessive entanglement" with religion which was enshrined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. 

The long and the short of it is that a law which does what @kimpearson proposes thoroughly eviscerates freedom of speech. Freedom of speech restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored for a specific and a compelling government purpose, and must place the least burden on speech possible to accomplish that purpose. The "compelling interest" designation means that government cannot restrict speech for a merely appealing or permissible purpose; they can only restrict speech when doing otherwise would render government unfunctional. A regulation banning the preaching of religious doctrine on the basis of negative, even classified as "harmful" reactions to it, does not meet that standard.

I don't disagree.

[Navidad]

I just noticed on my profile that I have 666 heart reactions to my posts. Would someone mind giving me one more so I am not known as having the mark of 666 on me forever? Thanks. 🙃

Edited November 26, 2021 by Navidad

[why me]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Got to get back to sleep, why me or anyone, have you come across a list of Finnish hate crimes, prosecuted and unprosecuted?  Interested in seeing how such are evaluated.

There have been cases which I can link to. However it also needs to be remembered that Finland is a country with 5.4 million or so people. It is quite small in population And those in power or in powerful organization are the elite. And so, Yle the main Source of Finnish news and TV programing is controlled by a board of directors chosen by parliament so it stands to reason, that politics does play a role in the news and how it is presented.

Yle’s units

Yle’s organisation is divided into six units and four departments, in charge of support services.

Yle’s units are Strategy and Audience Insight, News and Current Affairs, Sports and Events, Creative Content and Media, the Swedish-language unit Svenska Yle and the technology unit Technology and Development.

The departments – Personnel, Communications and Brand, Finance and Legal – are in charge of the support services.

The directors of the units and support operations report to the company’s CEO, Merja Ylä-Anttila.

Yle’s highest decision-making body is the Administrative Council, the members of which are elected by Parliament. Yle’s Board of Directors is composed of external experts. The Management Group is responsible for strategic management and prepares matters for the Board.

And so it seems that politics is never that far from home in a small country as Finland. And so is Paivi being made an example of? And what does this say about free speech.

Edited November 26, 2021 by why me

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would be happy to have the discussion with you about this, either privately or on the forum. CFR for your 95% data point. If you would like I can explain to you how an obscure graduate level legal concept has impacted schools. I don't like the word "infiltrated." That has an ominous connotation that is not appropriate or helpful. Who are "they" and what is "it" in your thinking?

If the talking heads have no clue it is doubtful the rank and file have any idea what they are talking about either.

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your obscure graduate level concept began in the Preclassic or Formative period of CRT back in the 1920s. What folks are complaining about is Postclassic CRT, a new phenomenon of the 21st century, very different from the Classic Period CRT of the law and graduate school of the 1960s-late 1990s.

No, it really didn’t. It didn’t come into being until the 1970s. It drew on some earlier works going back to Frederick Douglas and others but until the Civil Rights movement made racially biased laws illegal why would anyone form a framework to examine how “colorblind” laws can still be used to discriminate? If the laws are still explicitly racist you don’t move onto that point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

the talking heads have no clue it is doubtful the rank and file have any idea what they are talking about either.

I vote it’s the Windex

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it really didn’t. It didn’t come into being until the 1970s. It drew on some earlier works going back to Frederick Douglas and others but until the Civil Rights movement made racially biased laws illegal why would anyone form a framework to examine how “colorblind” laws can still be used to discriminate? If the laws are still explicitly racist you don’t move onto that point.

CRT has direct roots (its PreClassic period) in the discipline of Critical Studies which examined how society and social patterns limited certain classes, races, and groups from having equal opportunities. This work was done at the Frankfurt School or Institute at the University of Goethe in the 1920s and 1930s. The school and its professors moved to NYC and Columbia University due to Nazi control.  Many of the founders of the Frankfurt School were both Jewish and had Marxist political interests so it was judicious for them to leave Germany in the mid 1930s.  The institute resided at Columbia until the 1950s when it moved back to Germany. From Columbia, critical studies moved west to Berkeley (of course Berkeley insists CT began there and moved east!) and other universities where it influenced the study of art, literature, philosophy, sociology, psychology, theology (especially what we call the social gospel), and yes legal studies. I describe these early years (1920s-late 1960s) as the Preclassic or Formative period of CRT.

CLS (Critical Legal Studies) began in the 1960s with the pioneering thought, work and writings of Derrick Bell before he went to Harvard in the late 1960s. One cannot ignore the influence of Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter in the development of CLS via their work with the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP in the 1940s and 1950s . Bell worked with both of them prior to his appointment at Harvard. He especially credited Carter with influencing his thought and mentoring him in those early years prior to Harvard. One of Bell's sons is named Carter - it is possible there is a connection there. I do not know for sure. Bell definitely credited Robert Carter with being his closest mentor and influence on his thinking. Again, all of this refers to the Preclassic Period.

It is no stretch at all to say that Marshall, Carter, and Bell were the pioneering founders of the CRT movement during their time and based on their experiences at the NAACP's LDF. The Classic period of CRT then lasted from the late sixties to the very beginning of the 21st century when CRT split into many identity factions, and the CLS and Racial Realism movements lost favor to the Racial Idealist school. I deem the early 2000s as the beginning of the Postclassic Period of CRT, an era that continues today. CRT has morphed in the intervening years (post 2003 or so) to more of a CIT (Critical Identity Theory). Pundits replaced professors. Best sellers replaced Law School Journals. Binarism became dogma. It is this Postclassic CRT that is now invasive in public school curriculum, classes, and diversity training. When folks deny that CRT is taught in public schools, they are referring to Classic Period CRT and they are by and large correct. When other folks insist CRT is being taught in public schools they are referring to Postclassic CRT. They are also by and large correct.

I identified the three periods of CRT based on my familiarity with the 1950s work of archaeologists in defining the periods or epochs of Mesoamerican history that ended with the Spanish conquest. This Mesoamerican history is what has been of such interest to LDS folks as they seek to discover BOM roots in Mesoamerica. As several on this forum tend to say  "I offer you this commentary . . . FWIW!

Edited November 27, 2021 by Navidad

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

CRT has direct roots (its PreClassic period) in the discipline of Critical Studies which examined how society and social patterns limited certain classes, races, and groups from having equal opportunities. This work was done at the Frankfurt School or Institute at the University of Goethe in the 1920s and 1930s. The school and its professors moved to NYC and Columbia University due to Nazi control.  Many of the founders of the Frankfurt School were both Jewish and had Marxist political interests so it was judicious for them to leave Germany in the mid 1930s.  The institute resided at Columbia until the 1950s when it moved back to Germany. From Columbia, critical studies moved west to Berkeley (of course Berkeley insists CT began there and moved east!) and other universities where it influenced the study of art, literature, philosophy, sociology, psychology, theology (especially what we call the social gospel), and yes legal studies. I describe these early years (1920s-late 1960s) as the Preclassic or Formative period of CRT.

CLS (Critical Legal Studies) began in the 1960s with the pioneering thought, work and writings of Derrick Bell before he went to Harvard in the late 1960s. One cannot ignore the influence of Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter in the development of CLS via their work with the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP in the 1940s and 1950s . Bell worked with both of them prior to his appointment at Harvard. He especially credited Carter with influencing his thought and mentoring him in those early years prior to Harvard. One of Bell's sons is named Carter - it is possible there is a connection there. I do not know for sure. Bell definitely credited Robert Carter with being his closest mentor and influence on his thinking. Again, all of this refers to the Preclassic Period.

It is no stretch at all to say that Marshall, Carter, and Bell were the pioneering founders of the CRT movement during their time and based on their experiences at the NAACP's LDF. The Classic period of CRT then lasted from the late sixties to the very beginning of the 21st century when CRT split into many identity factions, and the CLS and Racial Realism movements lost favor to the Racial Idealist school. I deem the early 2000s as the beginning of the Postclassic Period of CRT, an era that continues today. CRT has morphed in the intervening years (post 2003 or so) to more of a CIT (Critical Identity Theory). Pundits replaced professors. Best sellers replaced Law School Journals. Binarism became dogma. It is this Postclassic CRT that is now invasive in public school curriculum, classes, and diversity training. When folks deny that CRT is taught in public schools, they are referring to Classic Period CRT and they are by and large correct. When other folks insist CRT is being taught in public schools they are referring to Postclassic CRT. They are also by and large correct.

I identified the three periods of CRT based on my familiarity with the 1950s work of archaeologists in defining the periods or epochs of Mesoamerican history that ended with the Spanish conquest. This Mesoamerican history is what has been of such interest to LDS folks as they seek to discover BOM roots in Mesoamerica. As several on this forum tend to say  "I offer you this commentary . . . FWIW!

No, the postclassic CRT is not being taught in public schools just as the classic version is not. At best you can say it is related distantly to the deliberate efforts to make minorities feel that their history and experience matters which took off in the 90s but the relationship is tenuous and labeling it as part of CRT is disingenuous and cowardly on the part of those whose primary purpose is maintaining the current racial power structures.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

When folks deny that CRT is taught in public schools, they are referring to Classic Period CRT and they are by and large correct. When other folks insist CRT is being taught in public schools they are referring to Postclassic CRT. They are also by and large correct.

Excluding efforts to quash any reality-based discussion of US's long, long history of racial mistreatment - why expend the effort to craft these astoundingly thin association chains?

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, the postclassic CRT is not being taught in public schools just as the classic version is not. At best you can say it is related distantly to the deliberate efforts to make minorities feel that their history and experience matters which took off in the 90s but the relationship is tenuous and labeling it as part of CRT is disingenuous and cowardly on the part of those whose primary purpose is maintaining the current racial power structures.

 

34 minutes ago, Chum said:

Excluding efforts to quash any reality-based discussion of US's long, long history of racial mistreatment - why expend the effort to craft these astoundingly thin association chains?

Could this group bring on fascism? https://www.complex.com/life/conservative-moms-group-pay-to-snitch-on-teachers-new-hampshire-law-critical-race-theory

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, the postclassic CRT is not being taught in public schools just as the classic version is not. At best you can say it is related distantly to the deliberate efforts to make minorities feel that their history and experience matters which took off in the 90s but the relationship is tenuous and labeling it as part of CRT is disingenuous and cowardly on the part of those whose primary purpose is maintaining the current racial power structures.

I make it because CRT gurus like Richard Delgado made it back in the early 2000s. The challenge is that the Postclassic has caused CRT to takes its eye off of racism and on to a host of other identity issues, all of which are competing for the spotlight. 

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Chum said:

Excluding efforts to quash any reality-based discussion of US's long, long history of racial mistreatment - why expend the effort to craft these astoundingly thin association chains?

Because they are there! I make the connections to advocate for a return of CRT to its classic and pre classic roots. Identity focus is taking all the oxygen out of the air. This is not the thread to go into all of this. It is a very complex issue of competing priorities.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Navidad

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the talking heads have no clue it is doubtful the rank and file have any idea what they are talking about either.

No, it really didn’t. It didn’t come into being until the 1970s. It drew on some earlier works going back to Frederick Douglas and others but until the Civil Rights movement made racially biased laws illegal why would anyone form a framework to examine how “colorblind” laws can still be used to discriminate? If the laws are still explicitly racist you don’t move onto that point.

My observation is that the “talking heads” and “rank-and-file” whom you denigrate have a keener grasp of the matter than you think. Those who claim it’s nothing more than discussion about slavery and racism in American history are the ones who don’t seem to get it. 
 

Here’s a clear-eyed and cerebral analysis by the Heritage Foundation. I offer it for consideration and in so doing place it alongside Navidad’s insightful posts. 
 

https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/report/critical-race-theory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america

Edited November 28, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Chum]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Because they are there! I make the connections to sdvocate.for a return of CRT to its classic and pre classic roots.

Out of the quadrillions of obscure concept structures that don't organically rise to public awareness, why did you pluck out CRT?

 

[Chum]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Could this group bring on fascism? https://www.complex.com/life/conservative-moms-group-pay-to-snitch-on-teachers-new-hampshire-law-critical-race-theory

I figure it's the giddiness of power that's drawing everyone in but fascism is a known delivery system for that high.

The parents have likely been nurturing animosity (generated to self-protect from persistent feelings of helplessness) and those manipulating the parents have delivered a target. Most will go on as long as their handlers keep them stoked up or until they burn out or implode.

[longview]

15 minutes ago, Chum said:

Out of the quadrillions of obscure concept structures that don't organically rise to public awareness, why did you pluck out CRT?

Nothing obscure about CRT.  Parents across the country have seen plenty of its corrosive precepts to raise a strong objections to it at school board meetings.  Many have been videotaped which has led to greater awareness among the public.  Some school teachers have expressed embarrassment and chagrin at being exposed in the zoom sessions (parents watching over the shoulders of their children).  Even Merrick Garland has gotten involved and sent FBI agents to investigate many of those parents.  Truly chilling!

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, longview said:

Parents across the country have seen plenty of its corrosive precepts to raise a strong objections to it at school board meetings. 

Parents bring corrosion, parents see corrosion. What they don't see are post secondary courses that were never taught in k-12 schools.

Pausing the pregurgitated CRT farce for just an instant:  It may be more productive to discuss what this CRT strawman is a vehicle for - the outrage directed at (any notion of) teaching about US's unbroken history of harming generation after generation of families of color.

 

[kimpearson]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

Nothing obscure about CRT.  Parents across the country have seen plenty of its corrosive precepts to raise a strong objections to it at school board meetings.  Many have been videotaped which has led to greater awareness among the public.  Some school teachers have expressed embarrassment and chagrin at being exposed in the zoom sessions (parents watching over the shoulders of their children).  Even Merrick Garland has gotten involved and sent FBI agents to investigate many of those parents.  Truly chilling!

So its OK to suppress the ideas you don't like or view as bad by labeling it bad.  Here is a basic definition of CRT: "Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies".   Now I know some of you shutter at such an idea as the end of the world if accepted.  So, once again why is it OK to pass laws limiting CRT's teaching but not OK to have a law saying speech such as gay marriage is unnatural, an abomination before God and those who practice it should be kicked out of membership in a church is hate speech?  How is either idea more or less offensive than the other?  I am not asking for a political argument but your explanation of how the two ideas differ and why one or the other is OK but the other should be limited/banned?  Which idea contains more hate? How?  Which idea conveys God's love for His children more than the other.

My view is CRT is pretty neutral and people on both sides are trying to twist it into something it isn't.   I find speech such as gay marriage is unnatural, an abomination before God and those who practice it should be kicked out of membership in a church full of hate and causes hate.  I am not a huge fan of hate speech laws being applied to either situation.  I would argue we all need to see and hear both ideas for ourselves and make our own decisions about if we believe either.

On 11/25/2021 at 5:53 PM, OGHoosier said:

With respect, I don't believe this. If this is taken not to violate the politics moratorium, I'd request a CFR. 

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06

[kimpearson]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My observation is that the “talking heads” and “rank-and-file” whom you denigrate have a keener grasp of the matter than you think. Those who claim it’s nothing more than discussion about slavery and racism in American history are the ones who don’t seem to get it. 
 

Here’s a clear-eyed and cerebral analysis by the Heritage Foundation. I offer it for consideration and in so doing place it alongside Navidad’s insightful posts. 
 

https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/report/critical-race-theory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america

Why on earth would you point us to such an obviously biased source?   The Heritage Foundation is a highly conservative public policy (actually a political mouthpiece) think tank.  Why would you not offer explanations of CRT from a liberal viewpoint or a neutral viewpoint also?  Then discuss your view on the different viewpoints.  By providing just one source to explain your position you infer an incredibly bias viewpoint.  What good is a discussion with you if you demonstrate such obvious bias?

Navidad provided a very neutral and mostly self analysis based on his understanding.  It was an informative thoughtful piece to read.  It provides the basis for a thoughtful discussion that made me think.  His conclusions were thoughtful and insightful.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Why on earth would you point us to such an obviously biased source?

Because some here might like to evaluate a thoughtful piece on its merits instead of succumbing to intellectually lazy well-poisoning as you are engaging in here. To each his own. 
 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

CRT is a ways and means to divide the country along racial lines. The more people are divided the less power they have to make a change against the entire system itself. The slogan 'A people united can never be defeated' has meaning. However since people allow themselves to be divided along gender and racial lines, the elite and its establishment have nothing to worry about. Likewise for corporate woke culture: just another way to divide people and remain profit driven.

 A critical voice is wonderful. However it seems that CRT is just another way to cancel a critical voice as students are fearful of questioning it. Likewise for workers who are being fearful of being fired for questioning it. Or being labeled a 'terrorist' as parents were labeled for challenging CRT at board meetings. Divide, fear and control is what it is all about. And this can be seen in what happened to the Finnish politician. It sends a message to the population: be careful and don't question and be silent: just go with the flow.

Edited November 28, 2021 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My observation is that the “talking heads” and “rank-and-file” whom you denigrate have a keener grasp of the matter than you think. Those who claim it’s nothing more than discussion about slavery and racism in American history are the ones who don’t seem to get it. 
 

Here’s a clear-eyed and cerebral analysis by the Heritage Foundation. I offer it for consideration and in so doing place it alongside Navidad’s insightful posts. 
 

https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/report/critical-race-theory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america

From the talking points:

”CRT’s intolerance can be found in schools, the workplace, and the entertainment sector, “normalizing” belief in systemic racism for the average American.”

 It must cause you a lot of anguish to realize that the CRT bogeymen have even gotten Dallin Oaks who recently spoke about the problems of systemic racism. It’s amazing that his years in the legal profession and his access to the spirit of discernment didn’t shield him from this. What hope do the rest of us have? Thank God for the heritage foundation. Who else could we turn to to correct the prophets?

Edited November 28, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Chum said:

Out of the quadrillions of obscure concept structures that don't organically rise to public awareness, why did you pluck out CRT?

 

Good question. I have been interested in the study of race my entire life. I am not sure if that stems from, or has been a contributor to my tendency to live life in a very multi-cultural way. I lived in central-west Mexico as a boy, did a mission in the boonies of West Africa in an area with significant tribal conflicts dating back to pre-European contact, pastored a Chinese Baptist Church, served on the international board of one of the largest mission organizations in Africa, worked in large urban majority-minority public school districts (including in leadership positions), served as an administrator and professor in a majority-minority college, and retired to live in a small village in rural Mexico. I'm a guest lecturer in social anthropology in the Mexican federal institute (post-baccalaureate system), and am in my fifth year of faithful attendance in an LDS ward in a small Mexican Mormon colony - this latter being about as cross-cultural as a Mennonite can get! Oh, and lest I forget I have been on this forum for four years or so - seems like an eternity!

As a deputy superintendent in one of America's ten largest city districts I was in charge of creating and then helping to run our DACA program - one of the largest then in the country. I spent significant time in the Mexican consulate and with our Latino parents and families. I enjoyed learning about the huge differences within our Latino-majority student community. I then served as superintendent of the second largest border district in the United States.

In all of that I went to a bunch of diversity training sessions and still do so as an old retired guy (on Zoom). I found them all inadequate - they proposed a diagnosis with no idea about a cure. My physician friend told me once that when a doctor does that she is telling her patient that he is "screwed!" I kept thinking our remediation efforts just left everyone "screwed!" So I began digging into race relations in a deeper way. That of course led me to CRT so I bought every book and downloaded every article I could find on the subject. I began to realize that almost no one understood it, including some of its advocates and many of its detractors.

A couple of years ago, through my speaking work, I began to get a lot of questions about race, CRT, etc. So I began putting my thoughts and findings together to make some kind of consistent linear understanding (historically and philosophically) of CRT. I am now deep into a book on the subject that I hope will be appealing to most and satisfying to none. I can only hope to satisfice a few. When folks begin on one side or the other of a controversial issue, it is hard to be accepted as one in the middle. I hope my work in interfaith studies and history will help in this regard. I have been on this forum since 2017. I have made many mistakes and have been at times beat up pretty bad. Some of it I certainly earned.

As one who lives on the edge of the inside of the LDS church I often am "in the middle." In MHA and the church history department I am recognized as that "Mennonite guru of Mexican Mormon history." I kind of like that! I once got stopped by very nice older gentlemen (security) trying to take a Mata Ortiz ceramic up to a general authority's office. He had asked me for one at some conference somewhere. That all worked out ok! He even arranged a special tour for me! That was great. I got to learn that I am a 13th cousin of Elder Bednar and I had five direct ancestors on the exodus west to Utah!  In all of it I am trying to learn and to do better. I was only banned from here once for 24 hours. I deserved it. I have tried to learn from it!

Edited November 28, 2021 by Navidad

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Chum said:

Parents bring corrosion, parents see corrosion. What they don't see are post secondary courses that were never taught in k-12 schools.

Pausing the pregurgitated CRT farce for just an instant:  It may be more productive to discuss what this CRT strawman is a vehicle for - the outrage directed at (any notion of) teaching about US's unbroken history of harming generation after generation of families of color.

I can't quite agree with your corrosive perspective on parents. For years I sat on a dais in public school board meetings listening to parents express their concerns and in rarer cases their affirmation of what was going on in the district. My wife after two knee surgeries told me she enjoyed watching the board meetings on TV because it took her mind off her own pain!

I found most parents to be articulate and prepared to use their three minutes well. What bothered me as a participant-observer was when they brought their little children in to speak with and for them, and when they were single-subject (in a TED sense) stakeholders. That got tiring. I learned to appreciate however, much of what they had to say because it brought a unique and different perspective from what we "professionals" often had to say.

I also don't agree that CRT is either a strawman for the majority or that the objection is to a distaste for truth in history. I think that might be your own red herring (using a trope since you used one!). Ha!

Now, for the first time in history I share my strategy for difficult board meetings. I would always wear by loudest and brightest Winnie the Pooh tie (I had about thirty of them) to board meetings. I found it challenging for folks to yell at Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, or Piglet, especially when their children were standing there next to them! Take care.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Why on earth would you point us to such an obviously biased source?   The Heritage Foundation is a highly conservative public policy (actually a political mouthpiece) think tank.  Why would you not offer explanations of CRT from a liberal viewpoint or a neutral viewpoint also?  Then discuss your view on the different viewpoints.  By providing just one source to explain your position you infer an incredibly bias viewpoint.  What good is a discussion with you if you demonstrate such obvious bias?

Navidad provided a very neutral and mostly self analysis based on his understanding.  It was an informative thoughtful piece to read.  It provides the basis for a thoughtful discussion that made me think.  His conclusions were thoughtful and insightful.

I tend to agree with much of your perspective. I would simply add that I am a thirty year (or more) reader of Edweek. It reflects a similar bias on the progressive (not liberal) side of things. I reject most of the articles and opinion pieces it offers on the subject of CRT. Talk about bias!  I think words and language are so important in discourse. A good writer can slant an article by the words she uses to describe something. That slant can be overt or subtle. My book on the subject is bound to frustrate most because it is not polemic. I have lots of practice from frustrating faithful members of the LDS church and faithful non-members by my refusal to denigrate either - unless of course they irritate me! Ha! How is that for inconsistency?