It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Robert, I personally would love to hear what you believe CRT is and why you feel it is so harmful.  Yeah this is exactly what I am talking about.  Learning what the other side thinks and try to understand their position better.   I don't fully understand why people are so upset about CRT.  

It's pretty simple.  I don't like racism.  Have spent my life fighting it, only to find it being spread anew by the ideological, neo-Marxist left-wing.  CRT is merely the ideological cover for it, the same ole same ole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iXic-7oUs. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJg2BvJZQAo.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/exposing-the-faulty-narrative-upon-which-critical-race-theory-is-built/  .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77jQ8s_q5k.      

https://www.newsweek.com/real-problem-critical-race-theory-opinion-1605771 .

Edited March 20, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Sartre

Here is my response to californiaboy a few minutes ago.  He actually showed sincere interest in the subject -- unlike you:

Quote

It's pretty simple.  I don't like racism.  Have spent my life fighting it, only to find it being spread anew by the ideological, neo-Marxist left-wing.  CRT is merely the ideological cover for it, the same ole same ole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iXic-7oUs. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJg2BvJZQAo.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/exposing-the-faulty-narrative-upon-which-critical-race-theory-is-built/  .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77jQ8s_q5k.      

https://www.newsweek.com/real-problem-critical-race-theory-opinion-1605771 .

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

? This is not at all accurate from either viewpoint.

I miss-typed, you read and responded really quickly, haha. What I was trying to say is, that those that want CRT out of schools, don't want the history of racism in the schools. I guess they think that in itself is racism, and we are to just not bring it up, because we're not suppose to notice color of skin etc. Or IOW, those that were against the BLM movement, are probably against CRT. But I probably need to read up on it more deeply. And get back...

Edited March 20, 2022 by Tacenda

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like the BYU administration (and maybe the Board of Trustees) doesn't like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which I have heard is inspired by God.  As though peaceful assembly is a gargantuan threat.

Interestingly, I don't think the First Amendment is in play here. American constitutional jurisprudence has recognized that the First Amendment's limits on governmental power to punish speech apply in varying degrees based on the forum chosen - basically, where the speaker chooses to speak. I will quote at length from Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute on the gradations of public fora:

Quote

Overview

A forum in First Amendment law refers to the place in which a speaker speaks. The First Amendment's protections regarding the right to speak and assemble will vary based on the speakers’ chosen forum. In Perry Educ. ***’n v. Perry Educators’ ***’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), the Supreme Court divided forums into three types: traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic forums. 

Traditional Public Forums

Traditional public forums include public parks, sidewalks and areas that have been traditionally open to political speech and debate. Speakers in these areas enjoy the strongest First Amendment protections. In traditional public forums, the government may not discriminate against speakers based on the speakers' views. Doing so is called viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The government may, however, subject speech to reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on its time, place, and manner. When considering government restrictions of speech in traditional public forums, courts use strict scrutiny. When the government restricts speech in a traditional public forum, strict scrutiny dictates that restrictions are allowed only if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to meet the needs of that interest.

Designated Public Forums

Sometimes, the government opens public property for public expression even though the public property is not a traditional public forum. These are designated public forums. After opening a designated public forum, the government is not obligated to keep it open. However, as long as the government does keep the forum open, speech in the forum receives the same First Amendment protections as speech in traditional public forums. Examples of designated public forums include municipal theaters and meeting rooms at state universities.

Limited Forums

A limited forum is a type of a designated public forum. Here, the government limits access to a designated public forum to certain classes or types of speech. In Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), the Supreme Court held that in a “limited forum,” the government may discriminate against classes of speakers or types of speech. However, the government is still prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. For example, the government may limit access to public school meeting rooms by only allowing speakers conducting school-related activities. It may not, however, exclude speakers from a religious group simply because they intend to express religious views. 

Nonpublic Forums

Nonpublic forums are forums for public speech that are neither traditional public forums nor designated public forums. According to the Supreme Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. __ (2018), in a nonpublic forum, the Government may restrict contents of a speech, as long as the restriction is reasonable and the restriction does not discriminate based on speakers’ viewpoints. Examples of nonpublic forums include airport terminals, a public school’s internal mail system, and a polling place. 

Finally, some public property is not a forum at all, and thus is not subject to this forum analysis. For example, public television broadcasters’ are not subject to forum analysis when they decide what shows to air.

This is all basically irrelevant because BYU is not a public forum at all but rather a private one, so the First Amendment does not apply. You appear to be using the term "First Amendment" colloquially as a stand-in for free speech, but the actual Bill of Rights is not implicated here. Furthermore, the actual Bill of Rights itself is not a blanket protection of speech qua speech, as demonstrated above. 

As an aside, the American judicial establishment faces an interesting question of where social media fits on this scale. Strictly speaking it's privately owned but in practice it functions very much as a traditional public forum. Dilemmas abound.

Edited March 20, 2022 by OGHoosier

[jerryp48]

27 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

1. He has brought it up many times

Nelson - 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/joint-statement-first-presidency-naacp-national-leadership

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-06-01/president-nelson-addresses-race-in-social-media-post-185657

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-10-04/general-conference-october-2020-sunday-morning-session-president-nelson-race-prejudice-equality-194725

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/mormons-hold-conference-virtually-straight-time-76853307

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-naacp-shared-vision

https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-coronavirus-pandemic-1122b62368dbabb8b0ae3b1499220b95

2. Never said he endorses CRT. I have no idea his view on CRT and neither do you. Because he has not directly addressed it. But we have plenty of information that he strongly opposes racism and has asked us to root it out of our society/church once and for all.

3. There are numerous State laws that have recently been passed or being introduced to eliminate discussions in our educational system on any items (particularly racism) that make someone ‘uncomfortable’. White washing is very much alive. 

 

Though he hasn’t brought it up by name I’m pretty sure where he might stand on Marxism.  I believe the proponents of CRT are guilty of erasing and revising history far more than those who would seek to only promote the good of the Home of the Brave.

Edited March 20, 2022 by jerryp48

[CV75]

I do think the Church handled the lifting of the priesthood ban much better than any government handled any civil rights policy, with a far better outcome and to greater effect. 

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What I was trying to say is, that those that want CRT out of schools, don't want the history of racism in the schools. I guess they think that in itself is racism, and we are to just not bring it up, because we're not suppose to notice color of skin etc.

This is also incorrect. A mischaracterization used to smear those who have any concerns over controversial new curriculums.

[Ragerunner]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's pretty simple.  I don't like racism.  Have spent my life fighting it, only to find it being spread anew by the ideological, neo-Marxist left-wing.  CRT is merely the ideological cover for it, the same ole same ole.

This is an interesting perspective.

I have seen just the opposite. I have watched the right wing scream CRT and use it to openly pass multiple State laws restricting discussions on America racial history. Some even allowing people to sue a school or educator if some student or parent finds a racial discussion uncomfortable. These types of efforts are the clear definition of ‘white washing’.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Because we spent centuries eradicating racism and discrimination and CRT brings it back.  It ignores individualism and promotes a person’s immutable physical characteristics as their most important identity.  It promotes tribalism and group-think.  It’s extremely pessimistic and it’s critical nature means there really is no end to the criticism even when systems are destroyed and rebuilding can start from the rubble.  Its end is perpetual revolution, not utopia.  It denies anything good could have come from the founders because of their supposed white supremacy.

 

I could go on.

 

 

 

In the US, nobody in Canada has ever heard of CRT. Racism still exists, it was never eradicated sadly.

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

Though he hasn’t brought it up by name I’m pretty sure where he might stand on Marxism.  I believe the proponents of CRT are guilty of erasing and revising history far more than those who would seek to only promote the good of the Home of the Brave.

So far you have talked about:

1. how we spent the last century “…eradicating racism and discrimination…” and I responded that the Prophet clearly believes it’s still a problem. 

2. Then you said the prophet doesn’t keep talking about it which I provided plenty of statements just over the last few years that he does keep talking about it.

3. Then you said no one is trying to ‘white wash’ America’s racial history yet numerous State laws are currently attempting to do that.

4. Then you told me the Prophet doesn’t support CRT, which no one knows.

5. And now you want to talk about Marxism?!!

This reminds me of some discussions I have seen on the environment. People get ‘lost’ in the politically charged words “global warming” in an attempt not to discuss the real issue. Which is as members of the church we have been told we have stewardship and will be held account for how we treat our environment/nature.

This has become the same, people want to get ‘lost’ in the buzzword ‘CRT’ in an effort not to admit/address the real issue. To stop racism once and for all in our businesses, government and education as the Prophet has asked us too.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Tacenda]

 

49 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is also incorrect. A mischaracterization used to smear those who have any concerns over controversial new curriculums.

I haven't seen it taught as a sub in the way some folks think it is, haha. I only read a book recently that the 5th grade teacher had on the sub plan pictured below, would you be okay with that?

Also, this is an article about the school district I sub in that I believe would be beneficial for you to read. C/P'd the problem I think we're having now and how we communicate about it. It's not been an issue before since the schools taught it years ago, IMO. 

https://www.kuer.org/2021-06-11/an-academic-debate-how-critical-race-theory-is-and-isnt-being-applied-in-utah-classrooms

He said it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how CRT became such a target, but it does appear to be at least partly due to a coordinated effort from largely right-wing groups and politicians. That helps to explain why so many CRT-related bills passed in states like Idaho and Oklahoma share almost word-for-word language, he said.

 

Also in the article:

The key idea of Critical Race Theory is understanding racism as a systemic issue rather than an individual character flaw.

Despite landmark laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which made outright discrimination illegal — disparities between white people and communities of color continue to exist, from rates of homeownership and wealth to chronic health issues.

“That's kind of where the critical part of Critical Race Theory came in to try to really develop a kind of higher level understanding of well, racism is still with us, you know, the systemic discrimination,” Fong said said.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Tacenda

[jerryp48]

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In the US, nobody in Canada has ever heard of CRT. Racism still exists, it was never eradicated sadly.

Lucky for the Canadians.

[jerryp48]

31 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

So far you have talked about:

1. how we spent the last century “…eradicating racism and discrimination…” and I responded that the Prophet clearly believes it’s still a clearly still a problem. 

2. Then you said the prophet doesn’t keep talking about it which I provided plenty of statements just over the last few years that he does keep talking about it.

3. Then you said no one is trying to ‘white wash’ America’s racial history yet numerous State laws are currently attempting to do that.

4. Then you told me the Prophet doesn’t support CRT, which no one knows.

5. And now you want to talk about Marxism?!!

This reminds me of some discussions I have seen on the environment. People get ‘lost’ in the politically charged words “global warming” in an attempt not to discuss the real issue. Which is as members of the church we have been told we have stewardship and will be held account for how we treat our environment/nature.

This has become the same, people want to get ‘lost’ in the buzzword ‘CRT’ in an effort not to admit/address the real issue. To stop racism once and for all in our businesses, government and education as the Prophet has asked us too.

 

1.  Its true we have paid a dear price eradicating racism.  A bloody civil war was fought over it and civil rights legislation was passed in the 60’s along with the outlawing of redlining.  By all metrics we are less racists than we were 50-60 years ago.

2.  I didn’t rebut your rebuttal but if you want admission fine you have it.  He’s talked about it more than once.

3.  State laws being passed are rightfully putting CRT where it belongs back at the university level where hopefully its seen for what it is instead of indoctrinated k-12 kids.  They are not attempting to white wash history.  Show me otherwise.

4.  I shouldn’t have to argue this point.  CRT is divisive and Marxist and seeks only to tear down, not to bring people together in the bonds of brotherhood as counseled by the prophet.  Are you familiar with CRT?

5.  Again have you studied CRT?  It’s Marxism.

Edited March 20, 2022 by jerryp48

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

1.  Its true we have paid a dear price eradicating racism.  A bloody civil war was fought over it and civil rights legislation was passed in the 60’s along with the outlawing of redlining.  By all metrics we are less racists than we were 50-60 years ago.

2.  I didn’t rebut your rebuttal but if you want admission fine you have it.  He’s talked about it more than once.

3.  State laws being passed are rightfully putting CRT where it belongs back at the university level where hopefully its seen for what it is instead of indoctrinated k-12 kids.  They are not attempting to white wash history.  Show me otherwise.

4.  I shouldn’t have to argue this point.  CRT is divisive and Marxist and seeks only to tear down, not to bring people together in the bonds of brotherhood as counseled by the prophet.  Are you familiar with CRT?

5.  Again have you studied CRT?  It’s Marxism.

I don’t see how there is much value in continuing our conversation on this item.

What might be of value is moving away from CRT and discussing how we can fulfill what the Prophet has asked use to do. Removing racism from our businesses, government and education once and for all.

I will start if anyone is interested. One big way we still deal with racism in America is in real estate. I have actively supported laws and codes to ensure that we have more equality in real estate/land values in our communities.

Biased appraisals and the devaluation of housing in Black neighborhoods

https://www.brookings.edu/research/biased-appraisals-and-the-devaluation-of-housing-in-black-neighborhoods/?amp

Edited March 21, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Ragerunner]

36 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Ragerunner
Double post.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Because we spent centuries eradicating racism and discrimination and CRT brings it back.

Since this appears to claim that we at some point had to have no racism or discrimination in our society (American?) according to this comment, can you please post the year this occurred and for how long our society was free of racism and discrimination (serious question).  I sincerely want to see what you think a society free of racism and discrimination looks like as it will help me understand your POV. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Because we spent centuries eradicating racism and discrimination and CRT brings it back.  It ignores individualism and promotes a person’s immutable physical characteristics as their most important identity.  It promotes tribalism and group-think.  It’s extremely pessimistic and it’s critical nature means there really is no end to the criticism even when systems are destroyed and rebuilding can start from the rubble.  Its end is perpetual revolution, not utopia.  It denies anything good could have come from the founders because of their supposed white supremacy.

 

I could go on.

You think racism has been eradicated?

 

You insane.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's pretty simple.  I don't like racism.  Have spent my life fighting it, only to find it being spread anew by the ideological, neo-Marxist left-wing.  CRT is merely the ideological cover for it, the same ole same ole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iXic-7oUs. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJg2BvJZQAo.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/exposing-the-faulty-narrative-upon-which-critical-race-theory-is-built/  .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77jQ8s_q5k.      

https://www.newsweek.com/real-problem-critical-race-theory-opinion-1605771 .

If we stop talking about it it must be gone. If we could just people to shut up about any form of racism the problem is solved.

 

That is lunacy.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

I can't help wondering what the reaction would be if someone with Wayment's position, platform, and audience were to describe, say, Sharon Eubank as a "hottie." 

I think there is a significant difference between describing someone long, long dead and viewed by many as more of a mythological (whether in the sense of Apollo or in the sense of George Washington and the cherry tree, “I cannot tell a lie”) character vs historical (we don’t really know if we somehow had a photo of Joseph, Joseph would actually be as beautiful as the most beautiful woman, but we do know that was part of the required character development of the narrative because of what beauty symbolized for those who interpreted the scriptures to be saying that) as a “hottie”, IOW the purpose of the narrative is in part for us to think of Joseph as a “hottie”, someone who is highly desirable vs a descriptive label applied to someone living simply to comment on their appearance.  
 

My guess is there would be many who would find it inappropriate if he had labeled a living male in this way, though probably not as much as a female. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

1.  Its true we have paid a dear price eradicating racism.  A bloody civil war was fought over it and civil rights legislation was passed in the 60’s along with the outlawing of redlining.  By all metrics we are less racists than we were 50-60 years ago.

2.  I didn’t rebut your rebuttal but if you want admission fine you have it.  He’s talked about it more than once.

3.  State laws being passed are rightfully putting CRT where it belongs back at the university level where hopefully its seen for what it is instead of indoctrinated k-12 kids.  They are not attempting to white wash history.  Show me otherwise.

4.  I shouldn’t have to argue this point.  CRT is divisive and Marxist and seeks only to tear down, not to bring people together in the bonds of brotherhood as counseled by the prophet.  Are you familiar with CRT?

5.  Again have you studied CRT?  It’s Marxism.

1. True.

3. State laws being passed are about protecting us from the uglier aspects of our past. After all those who do not know history definitely will never repeat it. Isn’t that how it goes?

4. It is not Marxist. Marxism is an economic system. CRT is a legal theory exploring why there are racial disparities in outcomes even after overt racism is legally prohibited. Not Marxism. Anyone saying it is Marxism know nothing about either Marxism or CRT. More likely they are ignorant about both.

5. It has been declared to be Marxism by morons with a credulous audience. No one has ever established a connection. Unless like CRT Marxism’s definition is also stretched to mean “things I do not like” but at that point we should just give up on language altogether as a mistake.