What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

Yes folks, a woman with no child at the local public school is upset with how they teach race in the classroom at that school.

Yes folks, a man with no child in the Tennessee public school system is upset with who the Tennessee public school system takes input from.

This woman is complaining about teachings she knows nothing about. But I'm not allowed to comment on it because I don't have a kid in the school?

Good lord man, all I said was you're upset about something there and have no kid there. Where on earth did you get the unrelated notion that I was saying you're not allowed to comment on it?!?

Oh, hang on, does "no child there and yet upset about it" mean "not allowed to comment" in Jimmy Higginsese? Ah, now I see what you were saying when you wrote "Yes folks, a woman with no child at the local public school is upset with how they teach race in the classroom at that school." Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's another story about Tennessee Woman.

'Critical race theory' roils a Tennessee school district

FRANKLIN, Tenn., Sept 21 (Reuters) - Robin Steenman, an Air Force veteran and white mother of three, is fed up with the way public schools in her community of Franklin, Tennessee are teaching kids about race.

She believes that the reading materials and teachers' manuals are biased, specifically the lessons taught to second graders about civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. Kids leave class believing that white people are oppressors and minorities are victims, Steenman claims.

While her only school-age child attends private school, Steenman nevertheless wants the public system, Williamson County Schools, to change its approach. She and a group of local women calling themselves “Moms for Liberty” recently asked the Tennessee Department of Education in a complaint letter to force the district to scrap that material and overhaul its curriculum.

Their protests have made Williamson County the first test of a new Tennessee law that bans the teaching of ideas linked to “critical race theory,” an academic framework that examines how racism has shaped American society.

Snowflakes for Liberty

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This woman is complaining about teachings she knows nothing about. But I'm not allowed to comment on it because I don't have a kid in the school?

Good lord man, all I said was you're upset about something there and have no kid there. Where on earth did you get the unrelated notion that I was saying you're not allowed to comment on it?!?

Okay, so you are just wasting my time. Got it.

 

[Bomb#20]

This woman is complaining about teachings she knows nothing about. But I'm not allowed to comment on it because I don't have a kid in the school?

Good lord man, all I said was you're upset about something there and have no kid there. Where on earth did you get the unrelated notion that I was saying you're not allowed to comment on it?!?

Okay, so you are just wasting my time. Got it.

Yeah, people with double standards usually think someone calling them on their double standards is wasting their time. I knew that going in. But the endless stream of folks who think anyone without a child in the education system should just shut his piehole about how the system trains the next generation tend to have a whole other double standard too: we're unwelcome when it's opinion time, but they welcome us with open arms when it's time to externalize the cost of their breeding onto the taxpayers.

In case any of that went over your head, I'll simplify. What Ms. Steenman said may or may not have had any merit, but your bringing up the detail that she has no child at the local public school was an ad hominem, irrelevant to whether she's allowed to comment and irrelevant to the quality of her comments.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, so you are just wasting my time. Got it.

Yeah, people with double standards usually think someone calling them on their double standards is wasting their time. I knew that going in. But the endless stream of folks who think anyone without a child in the education system should just shut his piehole about how the system trains the next generation tend to have a whole other double standard too: we're unwelcome when it's opinion time, but they welcome us with open arms when it's time to externalize the cost of their breeding onto the taxpayers.

In case any of that went over your head, I'll simplify. What Ms. Steenman said may or may not have had any merit, but your bringing up the detail that she has no child at the local public school was an ad hominem, irrelevant to whether she's allowed to comment and irrelevant to the quality of her comments.

If pointing out Ms Steenman’s double standard is an ad hominem, isn’t your pointing out of a double standard an ad hominem?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What I find interesting is that the new law is being used exactly as some critics said it would be used.

There are a lot more details here:
Local parent group submits grievance to state concerning Wit & Wisdom curriculum

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I find interesting is that the new law is being used exactly as some critics said it would be used.

There are a lot more details here:
Local parent group submits grievance to state concerning Wit & Wisdom curriculum

And of course, when you say details, you mean very vague complaints about specific curriculum.

 

[laughing dog]

What I find interesting is that the new law is being used exactly as some critics said it would be used.

There are a lot more details here:
Local parent group submits grievance to state concerning Wit & Wisdom curriculum

So according that freedom fighter, teaching history violates Tennessee law. Tennessee has not evolved much in education since Scopes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What I find interesting is that the new law is being used exactly as some critics said it would be used.

There are a lot more details here:
Local parent group submits grievance to state concerning Wit & Wisdom curriculum

I see Tennessee law prohibits teaching "An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex"

So, can't use any textbook or anthology that includes or refers to a scifi story, movie or episode which includes a 'humanity on trial' plot or subplot, save where the alien judge considers all humanity to be a single species, while the human culture on trial still distinguishes the races.

So the Trek episode where descendants of Native Americans guilted Picard because his ancestor fought in the Indian Wars isn't saying all whites are oppressors, just Picard's blood line, that could be used if the teacher found that it highlighted a particular concept they were teaching.

Eh, probably not, though, since the complaint is filed not against actual content but against what the plaintiff feels is 'implied' by the curricula. Which really means what she 'infers' from the curricula which may or may not be connected in any way to the textbook, workbook, or video presentation.

 

[Bomb#20]

In case any of that went over your head, I'll simplify. What Ms. Steenman said may or may not have had any merit, but your bringing up the detail that she has no child at the local public school was an ad hominem, irrelevant to whether she's allowed to comment and irrelevant to the quality of her comments.

If pointing out Ms Steenman’s double standard is an ad hominem, isn’t your pointing out of a double standard an ad hominem?

Not having a child in the school is a double standard?

 

[laughing dog]

In case any of that went over your head, I'll simplify. What Ms. Steenman said may or may not have had any merit, but your bringing up the detail that she has no child at the local public school was an ad hominem, irrelevant to whether she's allowed to comment and irrelevant to the quality of her comments.

If pointing out Ms Steenman’s double standard is an ad hominem, isn’t your pointing out of a double standard an ad hominem?

Not having a child in the school is a double standard?

Choosing to send your children to a different school to take advantage of their curriculum and then demanding another school with a different curriculum is a double standard since it is denying those parents who choose that different curriculum the same choice you made.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What I find interesting is that the new law is being used exactly as some critics said it would be used.

There are a lot more details here:
Local parent group submits grievance to state concerning Wit & Wisdom curriculum

I see Tennessee law prohibits teaching "An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex"

So, can't use any textbook or anthology that includes or refers to a scifi story, movie or episode which includes a 'humanity on trial' plot or subplot, save where the alien judge considers all humanity to be a single species, while the human culture on trial still distinguishes the races.

So the Trek episode where descendants of Native Americans guilted Picard because his ancestor fought in the Indian Wars isn't saying all whites are oppressors, just Picard's blood line, that could be used if the teacher found that it highlighted a particular concept they were teaching.

Eh, probably not, though, since the complaint is filed not against actual content but against what the plaintiff feels is 'implied' by the curricula. Which really means what she 'infers' from the curricula which may or may not be connected in any way to the textbook, workbook, or video presentation.

It's worse than that. The new laws are just toop vague, touchy-feely, and cater to emotion. Note in particular these two bullets from the article:

• An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex
...
• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people

Think of some scenarios here...

Teacher: "So Martin Luther King Jr said -"
Conservative Snowflake: "STOP! You are making me feel discomfort because of my race!"
Teacher: "What? No, I am not. I am just teaching history."
Conservative Snowflake: "This is a divisive topic!"
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "Yes, it is."
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "See?"

 

[Trausti]

It's worse than that. The new laws are just toop vague, touchy-feely, and cater to emotion. Note in particular these two bullets from the article:

• An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex
...
• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people

Think of some scenarios here...

Teacher: "So Martin Luther King Jr said -"
Conservative Snowflake: "STOP! You are making me feel discomfort because of my race!"
Teacher: "What? No, I am not. I am just teaching history."
Conservative Snowflake: "This is a divisive topic!"
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "Yes, it is."
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "See?"

Ah, MLK said judge by content of character not skin color. CRT holds the opposite view. That’s why it’s shit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's worse than that. The new laws are just toop vague, touchy-feely, and cater to emotion. Note in particular these two bullets from the article:

• An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex
...
• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people

Think of some scenarios here...

Teacher: "So Martin Luther King Jr said -"
Conservative Snowflake: "STOP! You are making me feel discomfort because of my race!"
Teacher: "What? No, I am not. I am just teaching history."
Conservative Snowflake: "This is a divisive topic!"
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "Yes, it is."
Teacher: "No, it isn't."
Conservative Snowflake: "See?"

Ah, MLK said judge by content of character not skin color. CRT holds the opposite view. That’s why it’s shit.

When conservatives make hyperbolic claims like this that CRT holds such view and is being taught everywhere, the natural logical consequence is that teaching history will be divisive. Students and parents make it divisive by saying it is divisive. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The next step is removal of anything that offends the elite conservative power structure.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, MLK said judge by content of character not skin color. CRT holds the opposite view. That’s why it’s shit.

I always find it bizarre when conservatives put forward Martin Luther King Jr forward as a moral authority, only to immediately disavow him as a racist a few minutes later when a progressive brings up the other things that he said and taught about race relations in America.

And your description of CRT is nonsense, of course, but that point has been made over and over in this thread, so you obviously intend to ignore this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not having a child in the school is a double standard?

Choosing to send your children to a different school to take advantage of their curriculum and then demanding another school with a different curriculum is a double standard since it is denying those parents who choose that different curriculum the same choice you made.

I'm less interested in labels like double standards and more to the point of the continual and equally undocumented insistence of public schools indoctrinating the children. It has been a lie from the right-wing for a while, and now we have this anti-"CRT" thing which again is a incredibly vague critique of school teachings. There are rarely any specific examples of this provided, just that they want it not taught. What is "it"? Even that is generally unestablished in their complaints.

So you have a woman vaguely complaining about education material she doesn't specifically reference and personally has no experience with how it is even taught as her child doesn't even go to that school. This is called a "red flag".

If there is inappropriate education methods being employed, they should be stopped. Yet, we aren't provided any level of descriptions of these in almost all of these anti-"CRT" screeds. These complaints are shrouded in 21st century alt-right speak and have about as much backing in defense as a complete sourced from Q.

 

[laughing dog]

Not having a child in the school is a double standard?

Choosing to send your children to a different school to take advantage of their curriculum and then demanding another school with a different curriculum is a double standard since it is denying those parents who choose that different curriculum the same choice you made.

I'm less interested in labels like double standards and more to the point of the continual and equally undocumented insistence of public schools indoctrinating the children. It has been a lie from the right-wing for a while, and now we have this anti-"CRT" thing which again is a incredibly vague critique of school teachings. There are rarely any specific examples of this provided, just that they want it not taught. What is "it"? Even that is generally unestablished in their complaints.

So you have a woman vaguely complaining about education material she doesn't specifically reference and personally has no experience with how it is even taught as her child doesn't even go to that school. This is called a "red flag".

If there is inappropriate education methods being employed, they should be stopped. Yet, we aren't provided any level of descriptions of these in almost all of these anti-"CRT" screeds. These complaints are shrouded in 21st century alt-right speak and have about as much backing in defense as a complete sourced from Q.

Public schools have been "indoctrinating" students since their inception - it is the nature of education to "indoctrinate" because education involves choices about what to include and what to exclude. Those choices are invariably ideologically based.

This woman chooses a school with a different "indoctrination". She wishes to deny others that choice and her wish is driven by a combination of ignorance and fear. That neither surprises nor dismays me. However, the kneejerk defense of her complaints is rather disappointing. Of course she has the political right to express her ignorance-driven fears. But no one should promote them as rational or correct.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Personally, I don't think she has a right to complain about something she isn't specifically complaining about.

If she is going to complain about CRT in the classroom, it needs to be more specific than "CRT in the classroom".

 

[Politesse]

It looks like the complaints Moms for Liberty have leveled run far beyond just CRT:

http://tennesseeledger.com/williamson-county-moms-for-liberty-presents-wit-and-wisdom-led-by-robin-steenman/

Steenman and Lori Fredhim, the lead researcher on the project, spoke for nearly two hours, presenting in detail the materials they and their army of approximately 1,600 mothers have reviewed. Steenman described several areas of concern, including the teaching of; suicidal ideation, cannibalism, white supremacy and condemnation of White people, death described graphically, denigration of the nuclear family, age-inappropriate content like alcoholism or sexualized behavior in books, dark imagery, and extreme emotions discussed in books for very young children. Explaining that not everything needs to be seen through a depressing lens, at one point, Steenman said to the audience:

“I would submit: why have this book if it has all the warnings?… There’s a lot of beautiful literature out there. Pick something from that pile.”

She also explained that children “are being given books way out of their Lexile range—”meaning the books and the concepts in them are too abstract for young children to grasp.

If not for the CRT angle, this would look like the bog standard drive for social censorship that American schoool districts face on a regular basis, with everything from cannibalism to strong emotions to "big words" on the chopping block. The Concerned Moms of America are perpetually worried that children might accidentally encounter reality through a school textbook, and they don't mind sacrificing theeir own liberties to prevent this from occurring.

Has anyone warned her that if most of those complaints were taken as a given, the Bible would also have to be banned in schools? "Dark imagery" and "extreme emotions", indeed.

 

[KeepTalking]

It looks like the complaints Moms for Liberty have leveled run far beyond just CRT:

http://tennesseeledger.com/williamson-county-moms-for-liberty-presents-wit-and-wisdom-led-by-robin-steenman/

Steenman and Lori Fredhim, the lead researcher on the project, spoke for nearly two hours, presenting in detail the materials they and their army of approximately 1,600 mothers have reviewed. Steenman described several areas of concern, including the teaching of; suicidal ideation, cannibalism, white supremacy and condemnation of White people, death described graphically, denigration of the nuclear family, age-inappropriate content like alcoholism or sexualized behavior in books, dark imagery, and extreme emotions discussed in books for very young children. Explaining that not everything needs to be seen through a depressing lens, at one point, Steenman said to the audience:

“I would submit: why have this book if it has all the warnings?… There’s a lot of beautiful literature out there. Pick something from that pile.”

She also explained that children “are being given books way out of their Lexile range—”meaning the books and the concepts in them are too abstract for young children to grasp.

If not for the CRT angle, this would look like the bog standard drive for social censorship that American schoool districts face on a regular basis, with everything from cannibalism to strong emotions to "big words" on the chopping block. The Concerned Moms of America are perpetually worried that children might accidentally encounter reality through a school textbook, and they don't mind sacrificing theeir own liberties to prevent this from occurring.

Has anyone warned her that if most of those complaints were taken as a given, the Bible would also have to be banned in schools? "Dark imagery" and "extreme emotions", indeed.

The Christ cult is also based on ritual cannibalism...