Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.

[Metaphor]

School board bans CRT, so a state university is no longer sending student teachers to that district

How odd. I thought CRT wasn't being taught in schools anyway. So what is the university worried about?

Probably don't want their students exposed to the bigotry of that district's management.

I see. I suppose indoctrination is more difficult when people are exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Banning CRT is "bigotry" now? But it wasn't being taught in the first place.

Correct. It's not being taught. The factual history of how black, indigenous, and other minority people were treated was being taught and that teaching was smeared as being CRT. Can't have the snowflake children exposed to that.

So, you believe that the school board banning CRT banned the teaching of history? Based on what?

Haven't read the threads on this subject, have you.

This is about a specific school and a specific school board. The claim is they banned CRT. You are claiming they banned the teaching of minority history.

What is your evidence?

Sorry. Not going to waste electrons covering a subject that has already been well covered to satisfy your obtusity.

I thought so.

 

[ZiprHead]

School board bans CRT, so a state university is no longer sending student teachers to that district

How odd. I thought CRT wasn't being taught in schools anyway. So what is the university worried about?

Probably don't want their students exposed to the bigotry of that district's management.

I see. I suppose indoctrination is more difficult when people are exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Banning CRT is "bigotry" now? But it wasn't being taught in the first place.

Correct. It's not being taught. The factual history of how black, indigenous, and other minority people were treated was being taught and that teaching was smeared as being CRT. Can't have the snowflake children exposed to that.

So, you believe that the school board banning CRT banned the teaching of history? Based on what?

Haven't read the threads on this subject, have you.

This is about a specific school and a specific school board. The claim is they banned CRT. You are claiming they banned the teaching of minority history.

What is your evidence?

Sorry. Not going to waste electrons covering a subject that has already been well covered to satisfy your obtusity.

I thought so.

Glad you do.

 

[laughing dog]

School board bans CRT, so a state university is no longer sending student teachers to that district

How odd. I thought CRT wasn't being taught in schools anyway. So what is the university worried about?

Probably don't want their students exposed to the bigotry of that district's management.

I see. I suppose indoctrination is more difficult when people are exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Banning CRT is "bigotry" now? But it wasn't being taught in the first place.

Whether it is being taught or not has nothing to do with whether banning it is bigotry,

How is banning it 'bigotry'?

I think a better question is why anyone wouldn't think banning a subject is a form of bigotry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

School board bans CRT, so a state university is no longer sending student teachers to that district

How odd. I thought CRT wasn't being taught in schools anyway. So what is the university worried about?

Because it's a dog-whistle for teaching anything other than the QOP-sanitized version of history.

 

[Metaphor]

I think a better question is why anyone wouldn't think banning a subject is a form of bigotry.

big·ot·ry
[ˈbɪɡətri]
NOUN

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

 

[Shadowy Man]

“Teach the controversy!!”

Oh wait…. We meant “teach *our* controversy!!”

 

[laughing dog]

I think a better question is why anyone wouldn't think banning a subject is a form of bigotry.

big·ot·ry
[ˈbɪɡətri]
NOUN

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

Apparently, you don't read all the posts (#184, the one right before your response) gives a reason.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Banning CRT is "bigotry" now? But it wasn't being taught in the first place.

Exactly -- when the government goes out of its way to "solve" a problem that wasn't there in the first place, you don't want to send potential scapegoats their way.

After all, someone needs to be blamed when their "solution" fixes nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

I think a better question is why anyone wouldn't think banning a subject is a form of bigotry.

big·ot·ry
[ˈbɪɡətri]
NOUN

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

Apparently, you don't read all the posts (#184, the one right before your response) gives a reason.

#184 makes an assertion: basically, that the school banned something other than CRT, and therefore the curriculum had to change because whatever was being taught before is now banned.

What is the evidence the school was teaching the "proper" version of history, but now has made sure only the "QOP-santised" version of history can be taught?

 

[laughing dog]

I think a better question is why anyone wouldn't think banning a subject is a form of bigotry.

big·ot·ry
[ˈbɪɡətri]
NOUN

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

Apparently, you don't read all the posts (#184, the one right before your response) gives a reason.

#184 makes an assertion: basically, that the school banned something other than CRT, and therefore the curriculum had to change because whatever was being taught before is now banned.

What is the evidence the school was teaching the "proper" version of history, but now has made sure only the "QOP-santised" version of history can be taught?

I have no idea what evidence there is and why it is even worth bothering about.

I agree that if the school system was not teaching CRT, banning it is a non-binding constraint. It may send a potentially chilling message that this school board is going to monkey around with curriculum even though it has no clue what is actually happening.

 

[Gospel]

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

The problem is making laws to stop something that isn't happening. I presume you're ok with your government making laws in response to make believe problems but I'm not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is with this technicality and red herring BS? The issue is only partly the legislation. The huge issue is that the alt-right are campaigning and the propagating this idea that CRT is everywhere, systemic, harming our children in grade schools and in high schools. The politicians are one of the main sources for the claim of CRT in local schools. They are lying to the people. THIS is the problem.

 

[laughing dog]

What is with this technicality and red herring BS? The issue is only partly the legislation. The huge issue is that the alt-right are campaigning and the propagating this idea that CRT is everywhere, systemic, harming our children in grade schools and in high schools. The politicians are one of the main sources for the claim of CRT in local schools. They are lying to the people. THIS is the problem.

And it "weaponizes" the feelings of those parents to challenge and harass school personnel whose instruction and counselling violates the parent's social values.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is with this technicality and red herring BS? The issue is only partly the legislation. The huge issue is that the alt-right are campaigning and the propagating this idea that CRT is everywhere, systemic, harming our children in grade schools and in high schools. The politicians are one of the main sources for the claim of CRT in local schools. They are lying to the people. THIS is the problem.

And it "weaponizes" the feelings of those parents to challenge and harass school personnel whose instruction and counselling violates the parent's social values.

Yes, the term weaponize is accurate, because these people aren't campaigning on readdressing teaching standards because there are errors. They know that isn't true. They are manipulating people, shouting about how children are being made to feel personally responsible and shamed for slavery, much like the children were actually mentally abused in the documentary Jesus Camp to feel responsible for abortion.

bomb#20 keeps going on about this being some honest partisan misunderstanding, when the reality is, "CRT" is just the "gay marriage" of the early 2000s for the 2020s, where the GOP was riling people up about gay marriage and putting gay marriage bans on the ballot, in order to push conservative voter turnout.

And the cost is the rage from parents against teachers... who had a hard enough job as it was.

 

[Metaphor]

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

The problem is making laws to stop something that isn't happening. I presume you're ok with your government making laws in response to make believe problems but I'm not.

This school board didn't make a law. It made a decision for its own school district.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

The problem is making laws to stop something that isn't happening. I presume you're ok with your government making laws in response to make believe problems but I'm not.

This school board didn't make a law.

And in many cases that'd be the state legislatures making the law... Like a third-ish of the states in the US, to address a lie propagated by GOP politicians.

 

[Gospel]

But, of course, no K-12 school teaches it, so what's the problem?

The problem is making laws to stop something that isn't happening. I presume you're ok with your government making laws in response to make believe problems but I'm not.

This school board didn't make a law. It made a decision for its own school district.

Again, the school allegedly made a decision in reaction to a decision made by the district which was allegedly based on nothing. You're looking at the last domino falling and ignore the others I presume?

 

[Politesse]

Whatever happened to the whole "leave and cleave" ethos that used to be a part of the conservative mindset? When I was growing up, it was supposed to be the political left that wanted to (allegedly) smother and overprotect the young, while the right wing felt you should exit high school essentially as an adult, fully ready to marry, have sex in the missionary position with a nice girl from church, birth a half dozen kids, and work some shitty factory job just like everyone else in your shitty little former farm town. Now, it seems, they want parents in every high school classroom, closely micromanaging every aspect of their kids' education and carefully censoring what ideas they are allowed to encounter, let alone express. What ever happened to libertarianism? Is freedom passe?

 

[Politesse]

If it's really true that CRT is not being taught to anyone under the age of 18 in this country, I wholeheartedly object to that. There should be no topics off the table for a junior or senior classroom, especially not key concepts that are critical to understanding the main political debates of our era. If CRT or prostitution or global warming or abortion are the central issues in the political and legislative conflicts of our time, then refusing to address them in school isn't just irresponsible and damaging to students individually, but to our entire democratic system. How are students supposed to make the transition from student to informed voter, if even the definition of key terms and ideas is being selectively concealed from them until after they've reached voting age, and then is only accessible to the ever-shrinking minority that pursue a college degree? If the public is voting on ballot measures that ban or allow censorship of CRT, restricting knowledge of its contents exclusively to graduate law students is not a viable option.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it's really true that CRT is not being taught to anyone under the age of 18 in this country, I wholeheartedly object to that. There should be no topics off the table for a junior or senior classroom, especially not key concepts that are critical to understanding the main political debates of our era.

CRT is to deal with complicated legal sides of things. There isn't enough time in the year to touch this in school. There is time to touch the issues of race in the US, but CRT is well in advance. Kind of like how Calculus is fine, but Differential Equations or Linear Algebra... could be a stretch.