What, exactly, is CRT?

[Emily Lake]

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 seems like a serious stretch of the definition of "indoctrination". Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

So unless you're taking the borderline solipsistic view that the rules of language and mathematics are "moral beliefs" somehow, I don't think that "indoctrination" applies to the vast majority of primary and secondary education.

 

[Politesse]

Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

Sounds like what we need to combat this, then, would be widespread academic support for critical studies of society.

 

[Emily Lake]

Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

Sounds like what we need to combat this, then, would be widespread academic support for critical studies of society.

No, what we need is objective teaching of facts about society, civilization, and a variety of ways that those organizations can be structured.

"Critical" Theories are all pretty much crap. There's no critical thinking in them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

Sounds like what we need to combat this, then, would be widespread academic support for critical studies of society.

No, what we need is objective teaching of facts about society, civilization, and a variety of ways that those organizations can be structured.

"Critical" Theories are all pretty much crap. There's no critical thinking in them.

What we need are people who are being critical of the materials being taught in school, to actually demonstrate what their beef is, instead of:

1) complain about material taught in school
2) we need action!

 

[Politesse]

Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

Sounds like what we need to combat this, then, would be widespread academic support for critical studies of society.

No, what we need is objective teaching of facts about society, civilization, and a variety of ways that those organizations can be structured.

"Critical" Theories are all pretty much crap. There's no critical thinking in them.

So you don't want teaching of critical theory, but you're anti-indoctrination?

What is the basis of these "facts" you want taught? Without engaging in any critical theory, how do you critically evaluate whether something is objectively true or not?

 

[laughing dog]

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 seems like a serious stretch of the definition of "indoctrination". Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

So unless you're taking the borderline solipsistic view that the rules of language and mathematics are "moral beliefs" somehow, I don't think that "indoctrination" applies to the vast majority of primary and secondary education.

First, indoctrination does not necessarily imply the acceptance of moral values. Second, you should think again. What facts to include in the curriculum is an ideological decision just as much as what subjects and how to teach. Do you recall or are you familiar with the "Manifest Destiny"? That was taught as "fact" and it sure as hell was indoctrination about US expansion in North America.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, what we need is objective teaching of facts about society, civilization, and a variety of ways that those organizations can be structured.

"Critical" Theories are all pretty much crap. There's no critical thinking in them.

So you don't want teaching of critical theory, but you're anti-indoctrination?

What is the basis of these "facts" you want taught? Without engaging in any critical theory, how do you critically evaluate whether something is objectively true or not?

Wow.

You're conflating "critical theory" with "critical thinking". They are not at all the same things.

 

[Emily Lake]

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 seems like a serious stretch of the definition of "indoctrination". Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

So unless you're taking the borderline solipsistic view that the rules of language and mathematics are "moral beliefs" somehow, I don't think that "indoctrination" applies to the vast majority of primary and secondary education.

First, indoctrination does not necessarily imply the acceptance of moral values. Second, you should think again. What facts to include in the curriculum is an ideological decision just as much as what subjects and how to teach. Do you recall or are you familiar with the "Manifest Destiny"? That was taught as "fact" and it sure as hell was indoctrination about US expansion in North America.

You're conflating "belief taught as if it were fact" with actual objective facts.

 

[laughing dog]

First, indoctrination does not necessarily imply the acceptance of moral values. Second, you should think again. What facts to include in the curriculum is an ideological decision just as much as what subjects and how to teach. Do you recall or are you familiar with the "Manifest Destiny"? That was taught as "fact" and it sure as hell was indoctrination about US expansion in North America.

You're conflating "belief taught as if it were fact" with actual objective facts.

Nope. I gave an example of accepted theory with attendent facts for decades. Facts without theory are meaningless. Which facts included or excluded is an ideological choice just like which explanations to include or omit is an ideological decision.

 

[Politesse]

No, what we need is objective teaching of facts about society, civilization, and a variety of ways that those organizations can be structured.

"Critical" Theories are all pretty much crap. There's no critical thinking in them.

So you don't want teaching of critical theory, but you're anti-indoctrination?

What is the basis of these "facts" you want taught? Without engaging in any critical theory, how do you critically evaluate whether something is objectively true or not?

Wow.

You're conflating "critical theory" with "critical thinking". They are not at all the same things.

And you're conflating right-wing propoganda with reality.

 

[TomC]

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 seems like a serious stretch of the definition of "indoctrination". Indoctrination involves teaching the subject to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and implies the acceptance of a set of moral values uncritically.

So unless you're taking the borderline solipsistic view that the rules of language and mathematics are "moral beliefs" somehow, I don't think that "indoctrination" applies to the vast majority of primary and secondary education.

I think you and laughing dog have pointed out the real problem.

Most k-12 education subjects have no ideological component. Long division and sentence structure are the same no matter what anyone believes. U.S. history is extremely different.

Even just the highlights of "What happened after the Pilgrims landed" is a gigantic subject. Covering more than a percent or two of all of it is impossible, given the constraints. Choosing which tiny fraction to present necessarily means choosing which 98+% to leave out.

Thomas Jefferson is an example from my own education. He got more coverage than all black individuals put together. He was portrayed as a smart educated man who risked his wealth and position for freedom and human rights. His hypocrisy, Sally Hemming, profligacy, and dying broke didn't get mentioned. Nor did his role in crushing the New World's second republic, in Haiti, or why. On the other hand, Paul Robeson also risked his considerable wealth and position, but I never heard of until I was in my 20s.

With the clarity of hindsight I came to realize that what I was taught as U.S. history was in fact an ideological white wash job. The overall theme was "How white people came across the ocean for freedom and built the world's greatest nation." It was clearly written to conform to the biases of white conservative Christians.

I don't think that there's any way to write such a curriculum and avoid ideological biases. It could certainly be done better than it was when I went to school(mid 60s-mid 70s). But you'll never make everybody happy. And in our polarized society some of those people are going to raise a big stink about it.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First, indoctrination does not necessarily imply the acceptance of moral values. Second, you should think again. What facts to include in the curriculum is an ideological decision just as much as what subjects and how to teach. Do you recall or are you familiar with the "Manifest Destiny"? That was taught as "fact" and it sure as hell was indoctrination about US expansion in North America.

You're conflating "belief taught as if it were fact" with actual objective facts.

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

 

[Swammerdami]

I saw this at USA Today(?).

Oklahoma has the highest mortality rate of police violence of all 50 states and the highest rate of underreporting the killings, according to estimates in a study released Thursday.

About84% of police killings in the state from 1980 to 2018 were unreported or misclassified in official government reports, according to the peer-reviewed study in The Lancet, one of the world's oldest and most renowned medical journals.

The study, which involved more than 90 collaborators, compared data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System, an inter-governmental system that collates all death certificates, to three open-source databases, which collect information on fatal police violence from news reports and public record requests.

Nationwide, more than 55% of deaths from police violence from 1980 to 2018 were misclassified or unreported, the study estimated.

Off-topic? A large portion of police killings, especially in a state like OK, are racist.

 

[Elixir]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

View attachment 35530

Or visa versa... the grandparent's children don't want the grandchildren to learn about their grandparents' position on it.

 

[Trausti]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

View attachment 35530

Motte-and-bailey.

 

[Trausti]

First, indoctrination does not necessarily imply the acceptance of moral values. Second, you should think again. What facts to include in the curriculum is an ideological decision just as much as what subjects and how to teach. Do you recall or are you familiar with the "Manifest Destiny"? That was taught as "fact" and it sure as hell was indoctrination about US expansion in North America.

You're conflating "belief taught as if it were fact" with actual objective facts.

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

 

[laughing dog]

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

Which facts are to be reported? One can easily "editoralize" via the choice of facts to be reported and those that are not.

 

[Trausti]

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

Which facts are to be reported? One can easily "editoralize" via the choice of facts to be reported and those that are not.

You can teach history without telling children that their race is the most important thing about them; you can teach history without asking students to identify as oppressor or oppressed; you can teach history without suggesting that some students are more privileged than others due to their skin hue; you can teach history with resentment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

And yet again... an absolute failure to support that anything is being editorialized at all, forget a large chunk of teaching in the classroom.