Story Re: Assignment from BYU Professor

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

So no one needs legal training to be able to discourse on somewhat obscure legal topics?  Read a newspaper commentary and you are go to go?

I'm saying that many legal topics are not so arcane as to require super specialized knowledge to understand their basic meanings.

So it is, I think, with CRT.  The "appeal to authority" stuff doesn't really work here.  For example, I can read this summary, and this one, and others, and feel like I have the gist of it.  I can read examples of how CRT in education is played out (see below) and feel like I know what is going on.  

I just can't get on board with conclusory declarations of people like Prof. Bybee, particularly when he puts on academic airs.  All the euphemisms and jargon are, I think, intended to obscure the repellant aspects of CRT.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression. 

Putting aside the academic jargon and claptrap, when the rubber hits the road, the meaning of CRT comes out in stories like these:

Quote

Critical race theory, a radical school of academic thought that centers on an individual's ethnic background in most discussions, has swept the country's primary schools.

In both public and private institutions, children are regularly subjected to lessons about systemic racism, the evils of "whiteness," and their country's wickedness.

Below you can find some examples of critical race theory:

1. Children for communism

Earlier this year, a whistleblower uncovered a fifth-grade social studies lesson in Philadelphia that asked students to celebrate the "black communist" Angela Davis. Students were asked to act out "free Angela Davis" rallies, demanding that the government release the Black Panther imprisoned on charges of murder, conspiracy, and kidnapping.

The Philadelphia public school system released an "Antiracism Declaration" last summer that said educators must "no longer be passive or disjointed in [their] approach."

"Race is the social construction that set the foundation and built the infrastructure for the United States we know today," the memo read. "Racism is the root of all other forms of injustice and provides the nourishment needed for other systems of oppression to thrive. As such, in order to destroy the tree, we cannot simply pick at the leaves or chop away at the trunk, we must destroy the root."

"We must destroy the root."

Quote

2. BLM's Buffalo soldiers

The Office of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Initiatives in Buffalo, New York, announced a new curriculum for fifth-grade students last July centered on Black Lives Matter. The lessons include learning the Black Lives Matter "declaration on Black Villages."

"We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, and especially 'our' children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable," the lesson read.

One of the core tenants of Black Lives Matter had long been rebuking the "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure." After much criticism, the organization took that goal off its website.

"{D}isrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure."

Quote

3. Homework for parents

At the Shipley School in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, a private primary school that can run upward of $40,000 a year in tuition, parents are asked to "decenter whiteness at home and in [their] family."

"Pay attention to how your language may perpetuate 'universal' standards of beauty, speech, behavior, dress, conflict resolution, etc.," a memo from a middle school teacher read. "It’s quite common for a person to compliment two of my three children on their beautiful blue eyes. While I always appreciate the compliment, I am conscious of my third brown-eyed child — what message is she receiving about how she fits in with European standards of beauty? When in my own positive and negative interactions with children have I come from a white-centered approach?"

4. Fear and learning in Las Vegas

A black mother filed a lawsuit against a Las Vegas charter school earlier this year over a course that mandated seniors list elements of their identity that would be regarded as privileged.

“William Clark was compelled to participate in public professions of his racial, religious, sexual, and gender identities, and would be labeled as an 'oppressor' on these bases,” the mother's court filing read.

Lessons in the course included statements such as "reverse racism isn't real" and that the traditional idea of family "reinforce[s] racist/homophobic prejudices."

"{A}nd would be labled as an 'oppressor.'"

Quote

5. Amazing Grace

At the Grace Church High School in New York City, students are asked to stop referring to their parents as "mom and dad."

"While we recognize hateful language that promotes racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are already addressed in our school handbooks, we also recognize that we can do more than ban hateful language; we can use language to create welcoming and inclusive spaces," a memo from the school read.

"Mom and dad" as "hateful language."

More:

Quote

Montaño boiled down CRT to one of its core tenets – the ubiquity and permanence of racism in American society: “Simply what critical race theory argues is that every time our students of color walk out of their door into society, their every single day experience is informed by their encounters with racism.”

"{T}heir every single day experience is informed by their encounters with racism."

Quote

At Detroit public schools, the anti-racist approach is called a culturally responsive curriculum and does not entail teaching CRT in the classroom, said Torie Anderson, an English teacher at the Detroit School of Arts, which is 96% black, 2% Hispanic and 1% white. But the new curriculum was developed with consultant Gholnecsar “Gholdy” Muhammad, who refers to her pedagogical approach as “criticality,” which, she explains,  “is more connected to critical theory, critical race theory, theories that take on a lens of understanding race, power, gender.”

“So criticality goes beyond deep and analytical thinking to allow a child to learn how to understand oppression and anti-oppression with the goal to disrupt it,” Muhammad said on a YouTube segment. 

"Oprression and anti-oppression."

Quote

An NEA anti-racist resource guide issued this year contains the kind of statement that conservatives say is an example of woke stereotyping and reverse racism that’s being taught to schoolchildren as fact: “White people are racially privileged, even when they are economically underprivileged. Privilege and oppression go hand-in-hand.”

More:

Quote

What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color. 

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

White people having "oppressor roles."

“{V}irtually all white people contribute to racism."

“{W}hite male culture” is analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.”

"{E}xecutives were then forced to renounce their 'white male privilege' and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color."

"Oppression matrix" having "straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class."

I don't think a PhD, particularly in a "soft" science like Sociology, is requires to read and understand the meaning and intent of this stuff.

More:

Quote

Teachers ask students to compare their skin color with an arrangement of crayons and watch a video that dramatizes dead black children speaking to them from beyond the grave.

North Carolina’s largest school district launches a campaign against “whiteness in educational spaces.” Parents, according to the teachers, should be considered an impediment to social justice. Ignore parental concerns and push the ideology of antiracism directly to students.

A Black mom is suing her biracial son’s Nevada charter school after she claims he received a failing grade for refusing to link aspects of his identity to oppression and dominance in a sociology class.

A teacher in New Jersey resigned after being forced to teach “whiteness” and group her students into “victim” or “oppressor” categories. View Detail

This stuff just goes on and on and on.

At this point proponents of CRT usually present a No True Scotsman variant, denying that these things are part and parcel of, or heavily influenced by, the precepts of Critical Race Theory.  

Except, they are.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Psychological terms in my experience have precise meanings, but that has not stopped misuse by those who don’t understand them, like cognitive dissonance. 

I don't think CRT is a particularly difficult concept to understand.  I also think CRT is a concept about which its proponents want to obfuscate.  A few further examples of how CRT plays out in the real world:

Quote

1. Californian third-graders were made to “deconstruct” their racial identity and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege” in school. Teachers told students they lived in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speakers.”

2. The U.S. Sandia Labs held a re-education camp for white male employees, forcing them to write apology letters to people of color and women. The training materials claim that “devastating” elements of white male culture include “rugged individualism,” “a can- do attitude,” “hard work” and “striving towards success.”

3. The U.S. DHS held “microaggression trainings” that claimed “individualism, the Protestant work ethic, capitalism, monotheism, [the] written tradition,” and believing that “the most qualified person should get the job” are racist attributes.

4. The Arizona Department of Education created a program for parents to ensure their children aren’t racist. The “equity toolkit” claims that babies as young as 3 months old can be racist because “they look more at faces that match the face of their caregiver.” The materials also insist that people who “have a black friend, partner, or child” can “still be racist.”

5. The Smithsonian Institution publishes and promotes content teaching critical race theory featuring content by CRT scholars like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi. The National African American Museum of History and Culture, for example, claims the United States has inherently believed in “white superiority…since its inception” and Enlightenment ideas like the “natural rights of man” and “religious freedom” formed chattel slavery.

6. California is voting on a new “ethnic studies curriculum” that advocates for “decolonizing” America by celebrating Aztec culture and left-wing ideology, claiming that Christianity killed the gods of indiginous peoples. The curriculum’s goal is to establish a “new regime of countergenocide and counterhegemony,” ridding America of white Christian culture. Primary and secondary students are made to clap and chant to Aztec gods of cannibalism and human sacrifice for “liberation, transformation, and decolonization.”

7. The Walt Disney Corporation’s diversity training forces employees to reckon with “systemic racism” and “white privilege,” going so far as to segregate employees into “affinity groups” separated by race and attended by white corporate leaders known as “executive champions.” Disney’s program, “Reimagine Tomorrow,” has immersed the company in divisive, politicized conflict by targeting white employees and demonizing classic films like Dumbo and Aladdin as “racist.”

8. Seattle Public Schools train teachers that the education system commits “spirit murder” against black kids — “murder[ing] the souls of black children every day through systemic, institutionalized, anti-black, state-sanctioned violence.” In recent training sessions, white teachers were told they needed to “bankrupt [their privilege] in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.”

9. UCLA law professor and renowned critical race theorist Cheryl Harris advocates for suspending private property rights, ultimately seizing and redistributing land and wealth according to race.

10. Coca Cola’s aggressive diversity plan stated the company would punish law firms working with the company if they didn’t hire “diverse attorneys,” half of which were required to be black, for at least 30% of hours billed. The plan also forced employees to watch videos on “how to be less white.”

This is all pretty ugly stuff.

More here:

I think it's telling that when blacks and hispanics express concerns about how they are treated because of their race, we are supposed to lend a listening and compassionate ear.  But when white people do this (often responding to CRT-related stuff), they are ridiculed and scorned.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because someone is misusing terms does not mean they were that malleable.

You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated (that "someone is misusing terms").

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You appear to be assuming is something is frequently misused, that it is poorly made.

No.  I am not assuming that.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I use knives all the time as screwdrivers, but that is no indication that they are not well made precisely for the purpose originally intended. 

I think the foregoing manifestations of CRT are intended, not inadvertent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated (that "someone is misusing terms").

Lol, I was thinking the same thing about your comments, but decided it was not profitable to point it out.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the foregoing manifestations of CRT are intended, not inadvertent.

I don’t think you understood my point, but not in the mood to take this further…at least tonight.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

When you claim Bybee is softpedaling CRT, I have my doubts that you understand how experts intended it to be technically used.

What experts?  Consider these:

Quote

The late Derrick Albert Bell, Jr. is considered the founder, or at least the godfather, of “critical race theory,” an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. As Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” A logical derivative of this premise, according to critical race theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Further, critical race theory holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in the American character, classical liberal ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans that fail to properly combat—or to even acknowledge the existence of—the immense structural inequities that pervade American society and work against black people. Thus, according to critical race theorists, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent bigotry of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.”1

Quote

Born in Pittsburgh on November 6, 1930, Derrick Bell earned a bachelor’s degree from Duquesne University in 1952 and a J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh Law School (where he was the only black student on campus) in 1957. Bell began his legal career by taking a job in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.

Quote

It was in the mid-1970s that Bell pioneered the field of critical race theory. He was angered by what he viewed as the slow progress of racial reform in the United States, and he contended that the gains brought about by the civil rights laws of the 1960s were gradually being eroded.

Quote

In April 1990 Professor Bell demanded that Harvard Law School hire a black woman—specifically, the visiting professor Regina Austin (who was also an adherent of critical race theory)—as a tenured faculty member. Bell explained that black female law students at Harvard were in desperate need of “role models,” like Austin, with whom they could identify. Though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence at the school, Bell issued a “non-negotiable demand” that Austin be given a faculty position.4  And even though 45 percent of Harvard Law’s faculty appointments during the preceding decade had gone to minorities and women, none was both black and female—hence Professor Bell’s objection.5

When the law school would not cave to Bell’s pressure, the professor protested by taking a leave of absence from his $120,000-per-year teaching post. It should be noted, however, that even if Harvard had agreed to grant tenure to Regina Austin, Bell would not have been satisfied. As he would later write in a law-review article condemning schools for hiring only “token” minorities: “The hiring of a few minorities and women—particularly when a faculty is under pressure from students or civil rights agencies—is not a departure from … this power-preserving doctrine” of white male supremacy.6

During his leave of absence from Harvard, Bell in 1990 took a position as a full-time visiting professor at New York University (NYU) School of Law.

In 1991, at the height of the controversy over Professor Austin, then-Harvard Law School student Barack Obama spoke at a well-attended campus rally in support of Bell’s position. Obama described Bell as a man known for “speaking the truth” and for an “excellence of … scholarship” that had not only “opened up new vistas and new horizons,” but had “changed the standards [of what] legal writing is about.”

Quote

Since Bell viewed racial minorities as a permanently oppressed caste—and saw racism as a normal, permanent aspect of American life—he reasoned that equality before the law was unfair to blacks, whose moral claims were superior to those of whites. Thus Bell was a passionate proponent of racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action) as a means of minimizing what he viewed as the inevitably harmful effects of white Americans’ inherently racist impulses. In 1991 Bell was among the first critics to condemn the nomination of Clarence Thomas (who opposed affirmative action) to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating: “To place a person who looks black and who, in conservative terms, thinks white, is an insult.”

Quote

Bell eventually extended his stint as an NYU visiting professor to two years and then, later still, announced that he planned to spend a third year at NYU. But a third year would have required not only NYU’s waiver of time limits on visiting professorships, but also Harvard’s waiver of its firm policy forbidding professors to be on leave for more than two years. Harvard dean Robert Clark warned Bell that if he did not return to his post, he would lose his place on Harvard’s faculty. Bell refused to return, and thus lost his job at Harvard. After that, he continued to teach at NYU until the end of his life.

In 1992 Bell published his most well-known book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. A few of the book’s most notable quotes on the subject of race include the following:

“Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color.”7

“[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead … and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded.”8

“… few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”9

“[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.'”10

“It has begun to seem that blacks, particularly black men, who lack at least two college degrees, are not hired in any position above the most menial.”11

“We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”12

“Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”13

“Black people will never gain full equality in this country.… African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”14

“Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”15

“The fact that, as victims, we suffer racism’s harm but, as a people, [we] cannot share the responsibility for that harm, may be the crucial component in a definition of what it is to be black in America.”16

“Victimized themselves by an uncaring society, some blacks vent their rage on victims like themselves.”17

Racism remains “an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society.”18

Also in Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Bell described the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as “smart and superarticulate,” calling him “perhaps the best living example of a black man ready, willing and able to ‘tell it like it is’ regarding who is responsible for racism in this country.” In a 1992 interview, Bell elaborated: “I see Louis Farrakhan as a great hero for the people. I don’t agree with everything he says and some of his tactics or whatever, but hell, I don’t agree with everything anybody says.”

Quote

In 1992 Bell again articulated to his low regard for white people: “I’ve accepted that as my motto—I liv[e] to harass white folk.”

In August 1993 Bell continued to impugn Harvard Law School—which he said was ever-eager to grant tenure to “the white boys”—for having failed to add “a woman of color” to its tenured faculty.

In 1994 Bell was quoted as having predicted that eventually America would witness the rise of charismatic new black leaders who, in the interests of retributive racial justice, would “urge that instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”19

In a New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, Bell denounced “all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.” The very same interview began with Bell stating: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” (Khalid Muhammad was a Farrakhan ally who referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” whose “father was the devil.”)

Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose stated aim is “to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Moreover, the publication’s guiding principle is: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” In 1999 Bell signed on to a Race Traitor article that stated: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category—in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.” Among Bell’s fellow signatories were Pete Seeger, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

In 2002 Bell said, “I’ve sometimes wondered whether this society could exist without racism. Because this is a country built on property ownership, and most white people don’t have that much property … you know, land and bonds and money in the bank, what they have is a sense of entitlement based on being white. And that’s very hard to give up.”

Quote

In 2007 Bell came to the defense of Ward Churchill, the former University of Colorado professor who had lost his job in 2006 because of academic misconduct. Churchill had previously gained notoriety for his 2001 essay, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” In that piece, the author disclosed his belief that the 9/11 attacks were logical reprisals for unjust U.S. foreign policy measures vis a vis the Middle East, and for the alleged ravages of global capitalism as spearheaded by America.

Bell authored several books on race and the law, including Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (2004); Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth (2002); Race, Racism, and American Law (2000); Constitutional Conflicts  (1997); Confronting Authority: Reflections of an Ardent Protester (1994); Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (1992); And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice (1989); and Civil Rights: Leading Cases (1980).

Quote

Bell died of carcinoid cancer on October 5, 2011.

From https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/derrick-bell

[rongo]

I find the argument about CRT to be fascinating. It's similar to the discussion about "gaslighting" that occurs here sometimes. When people get pedantic about CRT being narrowly defined as only a graduate level course of study that is never taught in K-12, I think they are failing to read the room. The revolution that swept through (and is continuing to sweep through) school boards, communities, schools, etc. isn't moved by the "fact check" tactics of denying that CRT is what people are concerned about. People are couching their concerns under the catchphrase of "CRT," and the "CRT" defenders are losing the PR battle big time --- especially when they keep insisting that it's only a graduate level course of study that is not being taught in any K-12 classrooms, anywhere. And then they learn of the 1619 project, support for BLM, white guilt/fragility, etc., etc. type-stuff being taught in their kids' classrooms, and they are told, "Well, none of that is 'CRT.' CRT is actually a graduate level course of study only found in universities and isn't in any K-12 schools anywhere." And these parents don't care a whit about that, because they are extremely upset about what **is** being taught at their kids' schools.

The district I left a couple of years ago had a mandatory training with a company called "Social Centric." It was an eight-hour "implicit bias" training. At the training (which I didn't attend), people had to make symbolic "chains of oppression" to wear, form anti-racism conga lines, and other things. The pre-training survey had questions like "Put an X on the spectrum where you think the United States falls. Is the US 'the land of the free, home of the brave,' or 'land of the thief, home of the slave?'" Several teachers were upset later because of the offensive, inane content, but also the loss of an entire Saturday. I'm sure that the fact checkers would be quick to point out that what Calvin Terrell presented there "is not CRT." And in the end, that is a distinction without a difference. This is the experience that the pro-CRT people are fighting against in their losing PR battle. The giant Chandler Unified School District made national news when it paid half a million for Corwin's training out of California. When angry parents stormed the school board meeting, administrators insisted that they of course weren't using the offensive parts of the training people didn't like, only the "good" (all whites are racist, systemic racism infects everything, not enough to not be racist --- you have to be actively anti-racist, etc.). That didn't matter in the PR battle, either. Why pay a lot of money for something that you're admitting has a lot of stuff objectionable to the community in it? And, the objectionable stuff was being taught, despite administrator denials.

This is leading to woke districts changing their terminology to do an end run against passed laws and community standards. cf. this sting video from conservative Nampa/Caldwell/Meridian Idaho.

 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's similar to the discussion about "gaslighting" that occurs here sometimes.

Gaslighting was always in the popular vernacular, never used as a technical term in an academic setting.

A better analogy would be the term homophobia, where phobia is used technically when coupled with a prefix to describe extreme dysfunctional, irrational fears.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that many legal topics are not so arcane as to require super specialized knowledge to understand their basic meanings.

So it is, I think, with CRT.  The "appeal to authority" stuff doesn't really work here.  For example, I can read this summary, and this one, and others, and feel like I have the gist of it.  I can read examples of how CRT in education is played out (see below) and feel like I know what is going on.  

I just can't get on board with conclusory declarations of people like Prof. Bybee, particularly when he puts on academic airs.  All the euphemisms and jargon are, I think, intended to obscure the repellant aspects of CRT.  See, e.g., here:

Putting aside the academic jargon and claptrap, when the rubber hits the road, the meaning of CRT comes out in stories like these:

"We must destroy the root."

"{D}isrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure."

"{A}nd would be labled as an 'oppressor.'"

"Mom and dad" as "hateful language."

More:

"{T}heir every single day experience is informed by their encounters with racism."

"Oprression and anti-oppression."

More:

White people having "oppressor roles."

“{V}irtually all white people contribute to racism."

“{W}hite male culture” is analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.”

"{E}xecutives were then forced to renounce their 'white male privilege' and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color."

"Oppression matrix" having "straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class."

I don't think a PhD, particularly in a "soft" science like Sociology, is requires to read and understand the meaning and intent of this stuff.

More:

This stuff just goes on and on and on.

At this point proponents of CRT usually present a No True Scotsman variant, denying that these things are part and parcel of, or heavily influenced by, the precepts of Critical Race Theory.  

Except, they are.

I don't think CRT is a particularly difficult concept to understand.  I also think CRT is a concept about which its proponents want to obfuscate.  A few further examples of how CRT plays out in the real world:

This is all pretty ugly stuff.

More here:

I think it's telling that when blacks and hispanics express concerns about how they are treated because of their race, we are supposed to lend a listening and compassionate ear.  But when white people do this (often responding to CRT-related stuff), they are ridiculed and scorned.

You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated (that "someone is misusing terms").

No.  I am not assuming that.

I think the foregoing manifestations of CRT are intended, not inadvertent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Lots of quotes from right leaning political sources.  

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

I find the argument about CRT to be fascinating. It's similar to the discussion about "gaslighting" that occurs here sometimes. When people get pedantic about CRT being narrowly defined as only a graduate level course of study that is never taught in K-12, I think they are failing to read the room. The revolution that swept through (and is continuing to sweep through) school boards, communities, schools, etc. isn't moved by the "fact check" tactics of denying that CRT is what people are concerned about. People are couching their concerns under the catchphrase of "CRT," and the "CRT" defenders are losing the PR battle big time --- especially when they keep insisting that it's only a graduate level course of study that is not being taught in any K-12 classrooms, anywhere. And then they learn of the 1619 project, support for BLM, white guilt/fragility, etc., etc. type-stuff being taught in their kids' classrooms, and they are told, "Well, none of that is 'CRT.' CRT is actually a graduate level course of study only found in universities and isn't in any K-12 schools anywhere." And these parents don't care a whit about that, because they are extremely upset about what **is** being taught at their kids' schools.

The district I left a couple of years ago had a mandatory training with a company called "Social Centric." It was an eight-hour "implicit bias" training. At the training (which I didn't attend), people had to make symbolic "chains of oppression" to wear, form anti-racism conga lines, and other things. The pre-training survey had questions like "Put an X on the spectrum where you think the United States falls. Is the US 'the land of the free, home of the brave,' or 'land of the thief, home of the slave?'" Several teachers were upset later because of the offensive, inane content, but also the loss of an entire Saturday. I'm sure that the fact checkers would be quick to point out that what Calvin Terrell presented there "is not CRT." And in the end, that is a distinction without a difference. This is the experience that the pro-CRT people are fighting against in their losing PR battle. The giant Chandler Unified School District made national news when it paid half a million for Corwin's training out of California. When angry parents stormed the school board meeting, administrators insisted that they of course weren't using the offensive parts of the training people didn't like, only the "good" (all whites are racist, systemic racism infects everything, not enough to not be racist --- you have to be actively anti-racist, etc.). That didn't matter in the PR battle, either. Why pay a lot of money for something that you're admitting has a lot of stuff objectionable to the community in it? And, the objectionable stuff was being taught, despite administrator denials.

This is leading to woke districts changing their terminology to do an end run against passed laws and community standards. cf. this sting video from conservative Nampa/Caldwell/Meridian Idaho.

 

I mentioned this already, but a 5th grade teacher I sub'd for last week put in her sub plan to read the book pictured below, to the students. I guess because of black history month.  Do you think that's CRT being taught in the schools? Just trying to pinpoint what exactly the issues are. Because that kind of puts me in a predicament if the students tell their parents, it never would have entered my mind before all this stuff about CRT has happened. Do you think they might think I had an agenda?

In the news a little bit ago a representative tried to get a bill passed that all teachers in Utah would need to show the curriculum in advance to the parents, but funny thing is there is already a school website that displays it. I guess they want teachers to pinpoint exactly what is in their lesson plans for each month beforehand. Kind of cray-cray IMO. How do you feel about it, since you're an educator. https://kslnewsradio.com/1963271/teachers-union-opposes-curriculum-bill-under-consideration-in-utah/

Edited March 26, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

funny thing is there is already a school website that displays it

Wouldn’t be the first time someone introduced a law unaware of what was already available.

[bsjkki]

50 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Lots of quotes from right leaning political sources.  

Are they inaccurate? Accuracy is what should matter. Argue the substance.

[bsjkki]

I guess we need a new universally acceptable term for the new race based curriculum and assignments taking place in schools and work places. Any suggestions? I mean, no one should be concerned about professors like this one. 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5035581/CUNY-professor-says-white-families-promote-white-supremacy.html

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by bsjkki

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Are they inaccurate? Accuracy is what should matter. Argue the substance.

I think more important is whether a source is trying to stoke outrage (think anti Mormon literature or say a Senator from Texas quoting about sending white people back to Europe). Often in these cases the actual text or message is twisted so far from its context as to be unrecognizable. I think that many of the sites that SMAC quotes from fall into this category and chasing them down would be exhausting and just not worth it. 
 

I have no doubt that in this country of 330+ million people that you can find egregious examples of people doing just about anything. The question that any responsible person should be answering is whether or not these things are outliers or systemic. Also to be determined are the context in which these ideas are taught. In the example of this homework assignment there has not been a single post in this thread that appears to be familiar with the class in question and the context around the assignment. Instead the assignment is taken out of context and then twisted by sites intentionally designed to evoke outrage. 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Are they inaccurate? Accuracy is what should matter. Argue the substance.

Not only that (ad hominem to dismiss because of source without engaging claims), but many things are going to only be reported by RW media. There is a conspiracy of silence about certain things that legacy media wants to use its influence to tamp down, so of course they will only be covered by RW media. 

Grudging coverage and acknowledgment a year and a half later that Hunter Biden's laptop is real and authentic is one example of this. It was treated as a non-issue,fake news, or Russian propaganda, and was killed as a story during the election, but "legacy media" has no choice but to cover it now. Plus, it's a year and a half after the election. But, "legacy media" testing things as non stories does not in any way indicate that "there's nothing to see here." 

Liberals have their heads in the sand about parent anger about CRT (,as defined by parents, not "legacy media" talking points), and they soft pedal it at their own peril.

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think more important is whether a source is trying to stoke outrage (think anti Mormon literature or say a Senator from Texas quoting about sending white people back to Europe). Often in these cases the actual text or message is twisted so far from its context as to be unrecognizable. I think that many of the sites that SMAC quotes from fall into this category and chasing them down would be exhausting and just not worth it. 
 

I have no doubt that in this country of 330+ million people that you can find egregious examples of people doing just about anything. The question that any responsible person should be answering is whether or not these things are outliers or systemic. Also to be determined are the context in which these ideas are taught. In the example of this homework assignment there has not been a single post in this thread that appears to be familiar with the class in question and the context around the assignment. Instead the assignment is taken out of context and then twisted by sites intentionally designed to evoke outrage. 

The New York Times and other legacy media systemically lie to provoke outrage.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Liberals have their heads in the sand about parent anger about CRT (

I think equally important to acknowledge is that the outrage is not some grass roots phenomenon but a targeted campaign driven by the main stream conservative media outlets. 

[rongo]

The reality in 2022 is that whatever is or isn't taught in any classroom is going to be recorded and disseminated. This is a natural check on radical things being taught (from the left or right). There is kind of a "herd immunity" effect, because this fact is in the back of teachers' minds. It probably helps keep radicalism in check without things going viral.

This is probably going to have a protective effect at BYU, vis a vis Professor Bybee and people like that. They know there are kids in each class who will blow the whistle if they leave the rails.

ETA: there is starting to be footage of multiple BYU professors. I think this is going to be a fascinating thing to watch in the next couple of years, because I'm sensing an administrative backlash to some of the more radical leftwing elements among BYU faculty. They have Elder Holland's musketeers and minutemen to think about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0NmUKtDJrw

Edited March 26, 2022 by rongo

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

The New York Times and other legacy media systemically lie to provoke outrage.

And is that a problem in your view or not?

[rongo]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think equally important to acknowledge is that the outrage is not some grass roots phenomenon but a targeted campaign driven by the main stream conservative media outlets. 

It's both. It's effective (cf. Virginia) because of the parents' own experiences in their local schools. If it were just Tucker Carlson with no personal experience, it would have far less power and effect 

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And is that a problem in your view or not?

It is. That is why accuracy is what should matter. No matter the source. 

 

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think equally important to acknowledge is that the outrage is not some grass roots phenomenon but a targeted campaign driven by the main stream conservative media outlets. 

Actually, this came from parent outrage first. You’re arguing chicken and the egg. The push occurred and assignments were introduced and parents were not happy. That is my first person experience in my county. 

[longview]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The New York Times and other legacy media systemically lie to provoke outrage.

And is that a problem in your view or not?

This is weird.  Is it your implication that it is OK for approved media sources to lie if it furthers your agenda?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, longview said:

This is weird.  Is it your implication that it is OK for approved media sources to lie if it furthers your agenda?

No. It just seemed to me to be defending liars by calling out other liars. 

[longview]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. It just seemed to me to be defending liars by calling out other liars. 

This is weird.  Is it your implication that it is useless to defend liars by calling out "other" liars and vice versa?  I simply don't see your logic?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

This is weird.  Is it your implication that it is useless to defend liars by calling out "other" liars and vice versa?  I simply don't see your logic?

Yes. I think lies should be condemned. Not defended. 

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. It just seemed to me to be defending liars by calling out other liars. 

Did anyone prove any of SMAC's sources were lying? That is the issue. So many with opposing political leanings dismiss all 'right wing media' and tend to believe everything else. If you read legacy media, you are only getting half  the story and they have proven not be very accurate when it comes to political coverage. So while many conservatives are exposed to it all, many liberals only read their approved sources that have lied repeatedly. The more you read, the more informed you are and able to sift through the lies and half truths or propaganda. I would propose people read opposing views or biased views (everything has a bias) and my favorite...original sources. Chase down all the links to the original source.

Watching a local school board kerfuffle, I read the news coverage and it was one sided. They should at least make an effort to have balanced coverage but that is not what I have witnessed. 

[longview]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. I think lies should be condemned. Not defended. 

Your second answer is a little better.  However, your first question is still confusing.  Please clarify what you really mean by this - - -

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The New York Times and other legacy media systemically lie to provoke outrage.

And is that a problem in your view or not?

What kind of bald-faced question is this?  It is obvious bsjkki is stating that systematic lying by the dominant media is a serious problem.  What was your point of your question?  Don't you think bsjkki made an unambiguous statement?  And pretty straightforward?