• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

State legislators making certain lessons literally illegal = Palestinians throwing rocks at tanks huh. You’re lost.

Can you name a single conservative idea or way of thinking that’s being suppressed in college?

It’s just a fake boogeyman trotted out to justify the actual laws being passed. Which you can’t bring yourself to condemn without whatabouting with your boogeyman. You’re a trumper.

Nah! It's a rag tag group of quirky underdogs that have been oppressed by the woke meanies for centuries!
 
A real problem that's going to develop in public education is that what Republicans call "Critical Race Theory" is usually left very vague and discussed in rather broad terms. It's like using "Socialist" or "Communist" to criticize Democrats for things that actually aren't socialist or communist. I strongly suspect that we may soon reach a point at which public school teachers in some places might face dismissal for teaching long-accepted historical facts about the Trail of Tears, the Middle Passage, Antebellum Slavery, Native American massacres like King Philip's War or the Sandy Creek Massacre, or even that the Civil War was caused by slavery.

Usually the specific theory is taught more at the college level, but a lot of these Republican attacks on CRT include high schools and even lower levels in their claims that CRT is being included in the curriculum. Which goes back to the fact that this isn't about just the specific theory, but virtually anything that's being taught in Social Studies that they don't like or approve of. To Republicans CRT is probably a vague umbrella to describe any teacher teaching something that conflicts with their "America is always #1, Greatest Nation of All Times!" line of thought.

Here's a perfect example of what we're talking about. A high school and community college teacher who has taught summer classes in "race and ethnicity studies" for years had her already full summer community college class suddenly cancelled due to the Oklahoma state legislature and governor passing a bill outlawing the teaching of critical race theory. In signing the bill, Oklahoma's GOP governor stated that "We can and should teach the history without labeling a young child as an oppressor or requiring he or she feel guilt or shame based on their race or sex. I refused to tolerate otherwise", but the teacher said that she had never taught that one race is superior over another, but that her classes and students do talk about racism and privilege. "To learn that there are actual disparities between the races in terms of education, housing and income," she said.


One would have thought from reading your posts on this thread, and the posts of many others, that the OK law said it was banning the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" without defining what it was, leading to a chilling of speech in gray areas. I took a look at the language of the OK law, and here's what it actually says, in full, about prohibitions on teaching in the classroom:

No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,

b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,

c. an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,

d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,

e. an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,

f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,

g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or

h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

The OK law doesn't say the words "critical race theory," nor do I think any of these prohibitions are particularly vague. Moreover, the law delegates to the OK State Board of Education the power to promulgate regulations that implement the law, so any vagueness that becomes apparent can be clarified by the Board.

I haven't studied all of the various states' laws, so I don't know if they all read the same way, but my suspicion is that a conservative think tank drafted a model law that the states are using as a baseline, with various tweaks here and there. That's just a guess, though. Maybe your objection is valid with respect to other states' laws, but it isn't with respect to the OK law.

As to the merits of the actual law, I will admit to being conflicted. On the one hand, I don't think that children should be taught, for example, that one race is superior to another, that some people are necessarily racist because of the color of their skin, or that meritocracies (like grading systems in schools) are the product of racism. (I don't know whether these things are actually being taught in schools, but if they are, I think that's a problem.) On the other hand, I'm uneasy with legislatures injecting politics into statewide academic curriculum, much beyond saying things like "students should study US History, Math, etc." Legislatures have control over curriculum, but statewide legislation of viewpoints that can't be taught in schools--beyond things like "Death to America"--strikes me as a very dangerous slippery slope, even if I agree that what the OK bill prohibits shouldn't be taught.

I suppose part of the response to this unease would be the observation (if true) that legislatures aren't injecting politics in to academic curriculum; they are just responding to the injection of politics that has already happened at the board, district, school, or class level. Still, banning a viewpoint on a hot-button social issue--as opposed to say, requiring the opposing viewpoint also be taught--just seems like a heavy-handed and bad precedent-setting way to address the problem, assuming one exists.

Better yet, if conservatives have a problem with what their children are learning in school, they should run for school board and rectify the situation at the local level. I would think that most reasonable people would be opposed to their children learning the bullshit prohibited by the OK law anyway.
 
One would have thought from reading your posts on this thread, and the posts of many others, that the OK law said it was banning the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" without defining what it was, leading to a chilling of speech in gray areas. I took a look at the language of the OK law, and here's what it actually says, in full, about prohibitions on teaching in the classroom:



http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

The OK law doesn't say the words "critical race theory," nor do I think any of these prohibitions are particularly vague. Moreover, the law delegates to the OK State Board of Education the power to promulgate regulations that implement the law, so any vagueness that becomes apparent can be clarified by the Board.

I haven't studied all of the various states' laws, so I don't know if they all read the same way, but my suspicion is that a conservative think tank drafted a model law that the states are using as a baseline, with various tweaks here and there. That's just a guess, though. Maybe your objection is valid with respect to other states' laws, but it isn't with respect to the OK law.

As to the merits of the actual law, I will admit to being conflicted. On the one hand, I don't think that children should be taught, for example, that one race is superior to another, that some people are necessarily racist because of the color of their skin, or that meritocracies (like grading systems in schools) are the product of racism. (I don't know whether these things are actually being taught in schools, but if they are, I think that's a problem.) On the other hand, I'm uneasy with legislatures injecting politics into statewide academic curriculum, much beyond saying things like "students should study US History, Math, etc." Legislatures have control over curriculum, but statewide legislation of viewpoints that can't be taught in schools--beyond things like "Death to America"--strikes me as a very dangerous slippery slope, even if I agree that what the OK bill prohibits shouldn't be taught.

I suppose part of the response to this unease would be the observation (if true) that legislatures aren't injecting politics in to academic curriculum; they are just responding to the injection of politics that has already happened at the board, district, school, or class level. Still, banning a viewpoint on a hot-button social issue--as opposed to say, requiring the opposing viewpoint also be taught--just seems like a heavy-handed and bad precedent-setting way to address the problem, assuming one exists.

Better yet, if conservatives have a problem with what their children are learning in school, they should run for school board and rectify the situation at the local level. I would think that most reasonable people would be opposed to their children learning the bullshit prohibited by the OK law anyway.

"One would have thought from reading your posts on this thread, and the posts of many others, that the OK law said it was banning the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" without defining what it was, leading to a chilling of speech in gray areas. I took a look at the language of the OK law, and here's what it actually says, in full, about prohibitions on teaching in the classroom."

You conveniently ignored the main point of the article, which was that a teacher has already had her full summer class cancelled due to this supposedly harmless law. If the law isn't a problem, then why was her class cancelled when, by her accounts, the class discussed long-standing features of racism and its effects on American society? Is that the "bullshit" you're complaining about? The fact that the bill doesn't use the term Critical Race Theory actually means that the law could be interepreted even more broadly, and could include bans on classes that aren't specifically about CRT, like the class mentioned above. You accused me of being naive - yet you somehow believe that all these red-state legislatures passing similar laws isn't deliberately designed to have a chilling effect on what is taught in classrooms about race, racism, and its effects on American culture.

For example, one of the OK bill's points is that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex." Now that's a rather vague demand. Suppose you're discussing the Trail of Tears in the classroom, or the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, and a parent complains that you're indoctrinating their kid and making them feel "discomfort" or "anguish". What happens to said teacher in that equation? I would argue that some of these orders aren't as clear as you seem to think, and could easily be twisted by some people into violating the strictures of this bill. Defend it all you want and pretend that it's all a joke, but if you're a teacher in a red state it's likely going to make you think twice about teaching things that in some cases you've been discussing for years. I know teachers in some rural NC districts who still catch heat for saying that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Do you really think that these censorship bills passed by state legislatures aren't going to make their jobs that much tougher? Jesus, dude.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why y'all still bother with jhmd tbh. It just seems like you're just giving him handouts he doesn't deserve. Not even he could justify this situation.
 
Nah! It's a rag tag group of quirky underdogs that have been oppressed by the woke meanies for centuries!

I'm sure the Hungarian academics and universities that are fleeing the country would be happy to know that Orban and a few of his friends are helpless when compared to the vast numbers of professors that are being subjugated by these laws.
 
I don't know why y'all still bother with jhmd tbh. It just seems like you're just giving him handouts he doesn't deserve. Not even he could justify this situation.

But he’s trying very hard to justify it. So it’s a bit entertaining to see just how low he’ll go in service of party allegiance.
 
so far his justification is....crickets but also historically liberal cultural institutions continue to reflect liberal values
 
Got to love how the "fuck your feelings" crowd is super sensitive about history and understanding society making people feel uncomfortable.

Explaining that white people did some bad shit in the past and white people today defend it and benefit from it isn't a huge leap given Republican defense of confederate statues and such.
 
Reactionary ideology isn't particularly coherent (or really much of an ideology), but it wins elections.
 
i mean, PA's dumb dumb GOP legislature got an amendment on the ballot (passed) that limited the Governor's abilities in emergency situations b/c trumpfans were salty about having to wear masks in private establishments and sit 6' apart at restaurants
 
"g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or"

This is the crux. There are a lot of parents and pubs that think the honest and balanced discussion of our history will lead to their children feeling shamed in the classroom. Pubs are trying to fight against an accurate, and deeper, portrayal of our complex history and they will use this excuse of their kids feeling shame to support it. This is why jh's view on this is not the reality of what is actually happening and what pubs are trying to do with these laws. They are fighting to continue the whitewashed story telling of our history. You can distract with all of those other reasonable points listed in the other line items. However, this is without serious question conservatives wanting to maintain control of the narrative that displays white people, our country and it founding and development in the most favorable (inaccurate) light. We must continue to cover up and ignore the uncomfortable truths to allow them keep cloaked in their fantasy. Simple as that.
 
1. Donald Trump won the election
2. Covid is a milkwich
3. White Christians face debilitating persecution
4. Migrants are animals
5. Democrats are commie socialists

…and probably a bunch of conservative-ish Christian beliefs whut them mean woke perfessors an’ they fancy librul higher larnin’ so haughtily dismiss.
 
I just can't believe that jh would say with a straight face that he's convinced that any teacher in America, at any level, actually teaches that one race is superior to another.

(I assume he's not thinking of the white supremacist elementary school teacher that must exist somewhere in our country)
 
You conveniently ignored the main point of the article, which was that a teacher has already had her full summer class cancelled due to this supposedly harmless law. If the law isn't a problem, then why was her class cancelled when, by her accounts, the class discussed long-standing features of racism and its effects on American society? Is that the "bullshit" you're complaining about? The fact that the bill doesn't use the term Critical Race Theory actually means that the law could be interepreted even more broadly, and could include bans on classes that aren't specifically about CRT, like the class mentioned above. You accused me of being naive - yet you somehow believe that all these red-state legislatures passing similar laws isn't deliberately designed to have a chilling effect on what is taught in classrooms about race, racism, and its effects on American culture.

For example, one of the OK bill's points is that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex." Now that's a rather vague demand. Suppose you're discussing the Trail of Tears in the classroom, or the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, and a parent complains that you're indoctrinating their kid and making them feel "discomfort" or "anguish". What happens to said teacher in that equation? I would argue that some of these orders aren't as clear as you seem to think, and could easily be twisted by some people into violating the strictures of this bill. Defend it all you want and pretend that it's all a joke, but if you're a teacher in a red state it's likely going to make you think twice about teaching things that in some cases you've been discussing for years. I know teachers in some rural NC districts who still catch heat for saying that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Do you really think that these censorship bills passed by state legislatures aren't going to make their jobs that much tougher? Jesus, dude.

I didn't ignore your article because it was convenient. I ignored it because it isn't probative. I have never sat in on that class, and I have no idea what she actually taught, whether she violated the law, or whether her class was cancelled because she was a terrible teacher and the administrators used the new law as a scapegoat. Nor, I suspect, do you. But the story--a story she told, by the way--fits your narrative, so, by all means, run with it.

First you were outraged that the law didn't define CRT and now you are outraged when you learn that the law defines precisely what it prohibits and what it doesn't? Seems legit. We both know it doesn't really matter. You were going to be outraged either way.

As for your example, the law doesn't forbid teaching topics that make students feel guilt. The law forbids teaching that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.". I know that liberals struggle with this, but the way law works is you read the law and ask if the situation at hand violates the text of the law. Here, a teacher does not violate the law if a White student happens to feel White guilt in response to a lesson. Rather, a teacher violates the law if the lesson is that White students should feel White guilt. This isn't as difficult as you are making it out to be.

By the way, I checked, and the NC law has the same basic text as the OK, although it is likely more lenient insofar as teachers may touch on the prohibited list of topics so long as they don't "promote" them. In any event, under both laws, a teacher may clearly teach that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery, your outrage to the contrary.
 
No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,

b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,

c. an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,

d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,

e. an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,

f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,

g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or

h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

So, which of these do you think should be taught in schools?
 
Back
Top