Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.

[fromderinside]

I've tried about a dozen different searches. Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a factor in social science education in k-12 district curricula. This seems a fair way for proceeding in development of a robust educational system in the US.

District deserve to tailor their education programs to the populations they serve for the most part. There is some evidence that aspects of CRT are taught at upper division some universities and laws schools are teaching CRT courses and programs.

Communities need to explain as best they can to their students why some people are killed, poor, without wealth are often due to the nature of local state, and national our laws.

However some report Republicans have brought this up as a wedge issue as being taught taught in most or all public schools. Such seems to be a cover for reintroducing racism into public education.

False issues such as these should be ferreted out and exposed as racist meat, inappropriate for educational curricula discussions. Using falsehoods to influence voters should be outlawed and strong sanctions should be imposed.

 

[TV and credit cards]

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

And the world is such a small place now with what you want to hear transmitted to every available ear in less than a second. There are generations still living who have not grown up with the easy proliferation of falsehoods. There are generations that have. My daughter, now 30, having entered her teen years with MySpace is on that point of inflection or angle or repose perhaps. Can this get drastically worse? If listening to your preferred falsehoods is all you’ve ever known? When these falsehoods are just opinion, we can hardly outlaw opinion. We can however prevent it from harming our children. Just as we outlaw other substances that harm the cognitive development of our children, so should social media be placed in this category. We can at least ensure our children are taught to think critically without the harmful influence of social media at least through their secondary education.
For now we are moving in the wrong direction. CRT is one thing. Can we commit to not teaching what is not being taught in school? Shouldn’t be too hard. I’m waiting for the attack on “critical thinking” or “liberal thinking” as I suspect it will be called.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I've tried about a dozen different searches. Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a factor in social science education in k-12 district curricula. This seems a fair way for proceeding in development of a robust educational system in the US.

District deserve to tailor their education programs to the populations they serve for the most part. There is some evidence that aspects of CRT are taught at upper division some universities and laws schools are teaching CRT courses and programs.

Communities need to explain as best they can to their students why some people are killed, poor, without wealth are often due to the nature of local state, and national our laws.

However some report Republicans have brought this up as a wedge issue as being taught taught in most or all public schools. Such seems to be a cover for reintroducing racism into public education.

False issues such as these should be ferreted out and exposed as racist meat, inappropriate for educational curricula discussions. Using falsehoods to influence voters should be outlawed and strong sanctions should be imposed.

Yep. And climate change is real, the vaccine saves lives, masks prevent spreading germs, democrats aren't socialists, Biden won, Trump lost, and etc. Republicans are full of shit most of the time.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Just because it's not called "Critical Race Theory" doesn't mean it isn't being promoted.

Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) . . .

I.e., they don't use the term "Critical Race Theory" in their classes or instructions to teachers. However, teaching a theory and naming it to the students or the teachers are not the same thing.

So, how do you know they are not in fact teaching this theory without naming it?

The theory seems to be: America is a racist nation in its basic structure, or is systemically racist in its practical functioning, even though racism is officially condemned. So people who think they are not racists are still practicing racism in their behavior, because they operate within the basically racist system, or a system which gives special privilege to Whites and puts other races at a disadvantage.

In addition, there is an element in the theory charging guilt, or defective thinking, on the part of all Whites, for their de facto racism and their failure to recognize the reality of this systemic racism.

It's not unreasonable for people to believe that this theory is being taught or promoted, because they think the actual teaching in classes is based on this theory, even though the term "Critical Race Theory" is never used.

It's not unreasonable to think that "Ethnic Studies" is based on CRT, because its function is to partially atone for the systemic White racism supposed by CRT.

If this is not what "Ethnic Studies" is, then why not include White Studies as part of the Ethnic Studies curricula? or Anglo Studies? or Northern European Studies? etc.

 

[fromderinside]

Just because it's not called "Critical Race Theory" doesn't mean it isn't being promoted.

Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) . . .

I.e., they don't use the term "Critical Race Theory" in their classes or instructions to teachers. However, teaching a theory and naming it to the students or the teachers are not the same thing.

So, how do you know they are not in fact teaching this theory without naming it?

The theory seems to be: America is a racist nation in its basic structure, or is systemically racist in its practical functioning, even though racism is officially condemned. So people who think they are not racists are still practicing racism in their behavior, because they operate within the basically racist system, or a system which gives special privilege to Whites and puts other races at a disadvantage.

In addition, there is an element in the theory charging guilt, or defective thinking, on the part of all Whites, for their de facto racism and their failure to recognize the reality of this systemic racism.

It's not unreasonable for people to believe that this theory is being taught or promoted, because they think the actual teaching in classes is based on this theory, even though the term "Critical Race Theory" is never used.

It's not unreasonable to think that "Ethnic Studies" is based on CRT, because its function is to partially atone for the systemic White racism supposed by CRT.

If this is not what "Ethnic Studies" is, then why not include White Studies as part of the Ethnic Studies curricula? or Anglo Studies? or Northern European Studies? etc.

To your last. It was tried in the sixties Didn't work then isn't working now. I believe Black, Asian, Minority, Women's, etc are still in demand at many campuses, even middle schools.

 

[ZiprHead]

Critical Race Theory is a class taught at graduate level law schools. Teaching the racial history of the country or ethnic studies is not CRT.

 

[fromderinside]

Just because it's not called "Critical Race Theory" doesn't mean it isn't being promoted.

Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) . . .

I.e., they don't use the term "Critical Race Theory" in their classes or instructions to teachers. However, teaching a theory and naming it to the students or the teachers are not the same thing.

So, how do you know they are not in fact teaching this theory without naming it?

The theory seems to be: America is a racist nation in its basic structure, or is systemically racist in its practical functioning, even though racism is officially condemned. So people who think they are not racists are still practicing racism in their behavior, because they operate within the basically racist system, or a system which gives special privilege to Whites and puts other races at a disadvantage.

In addition, there is an element in the theory charging guilt, or defective thinking, on the part of all Whites, for their de facto racism and their failure to recognize the reality of this systemic racism.

It's not unreasonable for people to believe that this theory is being taught or promoted, because they think the actual teaching in classes is based on this theory, even though the term "Critical Race Theory" is never used.

It's not unreasonable to think that "Ethnic Studies" is based on CRT, because its function is to partially atone for the systemic White racism supposed by CRT.

If this is not what "Ethnic Studies" is, then why not include White Studies as part of the Ethnic Studies curricula? or Anglo Studies? or Northern European Studies? etc.

To your last. It was tried in the sixties Didn't work then isn't working now. I believe Black, Asian, Minority, Women's, etc are still in demand at many campuses, even middle schools.

To your first we know laws were race based in the past and we know that because consequences of applying these laws have demonstrably lead to further inequities that race based decision making is still being applied to these laws.

 

[fromderinside]

IOW what racists decry is a cause based explanation for why history is thus and so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the public schools insidious plan is to teach CRT without mentioning anything about it, that way you can't stop them from not not teaching it.

 

[Elixir]

I always hated history classes. So-and-so did such-and-such on whatever date. So what?
That was my feeling in 2nd grade.
I got over it.
Failure to teach historical facts that illuminate reasons for current circumstances is the path to an ignorant populace, enslaved to a false manufactured past.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If a public school teacher says to his/her class: "America is a racist country!" -- is that CRT?

Should this be taught in a social science book? What if most of the parents or taxpayers disagree with this and want it not to be taught? Do they need to be reprogrammed?

Do parents or taxpayers have a right to disallow teachers from saying this in class? Or should this be mandatory instruction to all public school students regardless what the citizens think? Should it also be mandatory in private schools (like basic reading and math is required)?

Should school students recite "America is a racist country!" just like they recite the multiplication tables or the ABCs?

If this is to be mandatory for students to recite, like the Pledge of Allegiance is (or used to be), can we all at least agree that students should be allowed to opt out of it? Usually it has been permitted for a student to decline to recite the pledge, though they would probably get a lecture. Would that be sufficient for students who prefer not to recite the "America is racist" ideology?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If a public school teacher says to his/her class: "America is a racist country!" -- is that CRT?

Can we step outside the hypothetical and get to where the teachers are actually saying this?

 

[TomC]

If a public school teacher says to his/her class: "America is a racist country!" -- is that CRT?

No.

It's just a fact of life.

2021 America isn't as racist as 1921 America. 1921 America wasn't as racist as 1821 America. 1821 America wasn't as racist as 1721 America.

But yeah, the USA is racist still. Getting better, huge improvement in the last couple of decades. But America is a racist nation. Saying so is simply stating a fact.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Vote count so far:

"America is racist" is a fact and so should be taught --- 1

It is not a fact and so should not be taught ------------- 2


Everyone agrees that the facts should be taught, but not anything that isn't proven fact. And to say it's not being taught is effectively saying it's not true and that's why it's not being taught.

(The new format doesn't include polls, so after this anyone wanting a poll has to improvise their own.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Vote count so far:

"America is racist" is a fact and so should be taught --- 1

It is not a fact and so should not be taught ------------- 2

You can count me in for "America is racist" is true, but should not be taught as such:
"America is racist" is a truth but should NOT be taught --- 1

Specific instances and persons who are racist or engaged in racist events or statistics involving racist perceptions are examples of things that ought to be taught in classes where those concrete facts are relevant. There isn't any value to teaching the general truth that there is systemic racism in the US because it is only in dealing with more specifics that concrete actions can be undertaken and it is also politically incorrect because a number of people will think all individuals are being targeted which just isn't true. It's like if I say my car is red, the brake pad might not be red, but the car is generally red. It's an okay thing to say, but if it were a political truth to say my car is red, the brake pad would start screaming and hollering about brake pad victimhood and reverse paint job-ism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Vote count so far:

"America is racist" is a fact and so should be taught --- 1

It is not a fact and so should not be taught ------------- 2


Everyone agrees that the facts should be taught, but not anything that isn't proven fact. And to say it's not being taught is effectively saying it's not true and that's why it's not being taught.

(The new format doesn't include polls, so after this anyone wanting a poll has to improvise their own.)

So you've got shit, well not even that apparently, for actual evidence. And you feel the need to present scenarios from your imagination for others to have to defend.

 

[Bomb#20]

Critical Race Theory is a class taught at graduate level law schools. Teaching the racial history of the country or ethnic studies is not CRT.

But the public schools insidious plan is to teach CRT without mentioning anything about it, that way you can't stop them from not not teaching it.

IOW what racists decry is a cause based explanation for why history is thus and so.

Treating people's concerns dismissively for not having mastered your jargon and insulting them for having the concerns in the first place is a proven strategy for winning elections. You guys should definitely double down on that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Critical Race Theory is a class taught at graduate level law schools. Teaching the racial history of the country or ethnic studies is not CRT.

But the public schools insidious plan is to teach CRT without mentioning anything about it, that way you can't stop them from not not teaching it.

IOW what racists decry is a cause based explanation for why history is thus and so.

Treating people's concerns dismissively for not having mastered your jargon and insulting them for having the concerns in the first place is a proven strategy for winning elections. You guys should definitely double down on that.

Please, inform us of all of the institutionalized CRT-esque education in our Public Schools. Because other than the occasional case of a teacher doing something ridiculous and the school punishing them for it, there doesn't appear to be any fire... only smoke. Yes, there is a lot of smoke because fanned by the right-wing, but there doesn't appear to be fire, and when we ask to see the fire, there is nothing but silence.

 

[Politesse]

What does the hypothetical have to do with Critical Race Theory? It doesn't sound remotely critical...

If you're going to hawk censorship and expect consensus agreement, you'd be better off showing that you have even a passing familiarity with the material you're trying to censor, and formulate an argument against it on rational grounds.

 

[Politesse]

Critical Race Theory is a class taught at graduate level law schools. Teaching the racial history of the country or ethnic studies is not CRT.

But the public schools insidious plan is to teach CRT without mentioning anything about it, that way you can't stop them from not not teaching it.

IOW what racists decry is a cause based explanation for why history is thus and so.

Treating people's concerns dismissively for not having mastered your jargon and insulting them for having the concerns in the first place is a proven strategy for winning elections. You guys should definitely double down on that.

If you're going to tell teachers what they ought to teach and not teach, then yes, you should "master their jargon" first. You have no grounds, no grounds at all, for accusing working professionals trying to do their job of arrogance while you claim to know better than they how to do their job right. You're being "dismissive" as all hell, trying to play volunteer government censor despite never having studied the subjects you want to purge. Get some basic education, then tell teachers how to do their job.