• 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

yea just save that shit for unconscious bias training they force on you at work
 
replace "sex" with "gender" and I can entertain a genuine discussion about d, f, and h.
 
yea just save that shit for unconscious bias training they force on you at work


...also banned for students in schools/universities by the OK law.


A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher
education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall
be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual
diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling
shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited.
 
aren't y'all supposed to be the party of small government, against government overreach into civic/private life, and not creating laws to enforce partisan curricular priorities?
 
i mean, the stuff that Republican posters say about teachers on this board alone is gross enough without concern trolling/advocating turning our profession into an even bigger dumpster fire.

ETA: I hope y'all don't talk to your kids' educators this way (or talk to your kids about their educators this way).
 
Last edited:
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.

LOL. You dismiss an actual case of teacher's class getting cancelled due to this law because neither of us know her personally, yet you're convinced that I'm outraged even though you don't know me personally. I had no idea that I was dealing with such a master of psychology and psychic ability. I'm not outraged. Concerned, yes, as anyone who is honest and in their right mind would be, but hardly outraged. Of course you dismissed the teacher's case because it was inconvenient. Your entire argument has been that these state laws are really nothing to worry about, and liberals are just being drama queens. Yet here is an actual case of a teacher's class being dismissed because of this law, which undermines your argument. And so at first you don't even mention it, and then when you do acknowledge it you airily dismiss it because neither of us happen to know the teacher personally (which is irrelevant, unless you have evidence that her class wasn't cancelled) and it's not enough evidence for you. You and I both know that no amount of cases will convince you, as you will simply keep deflecting and dismissing that these state laws will likely have a chilling effect on what is being taught in the classrooms, and that their purpose is to do that.

As for your claim that I'm being contradictory on CRT, I have repeatedly said in this thread that CRT is not the real target - otherwise public schools would not be included in these bills, as CRT is not usually taught at the high school level. At any rate, do you really think that CRT was not a factor in OK passing this law? Strange how they passed this bill when CRT became a hot topic, isn't it? Why would OK pass a bill with this wording if it was not aimed at CRT (or what they imagine it to be)?

I also love your explanation of how the wording of the OK law would prevent teachers from possibly getting into trouble: "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." I'm sure that your average Trumpite parent will be willing to parse the letter of the law if they get pissed that their kid's Social Studies teacher is teaching things about slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that they don't agree with. I know that conservatives have spent the last five years laughing off Trump's words and those of his minions, but to argue that just as long as teachers don't explicitly say that Whites should feel guilt about racism that they'll be fine is rich, especially given the deadening effect of such laws throughout American history. Remember McCarthyism? How many innocent people were fired in that era even though the wording of national security laws supposedly didn't/wouldn't affect them?

Again, I know teachers who have faced blowback in rural NC because they taught their students that the Civil War was caused by slavery. Again, your arguments about the NC law fail to take into account the ability of Trumpites to twist things to their advantage. You've already admitted that you're concerned about banning ideas, yet you now seem to be arguing that it's not really a big deal. I assume you also saw Connor's post about the ban on diversity training and counseling. How many things does a law have to ban before liberals should be concerned about it? And if these things are no big deal, why pass the law to begin with? Is there evidence in OK that teachers and professors are teaching that whites are inferior or minorities are superior? Why pass these laws if it's no big deal - what's the intent here?
 
aren't y'all supposed to be the party of small government, against government overreach into civic/private life, and not creating laws to enforce partisan curricular priorities?

A public school is not private life, ya donk.

Also, welcome back.
 
A public school is not private life, ya donk.

Also, welcome back.

Republicans believe by ideology that public schools should largely be governed via local control, no? They used to believe that even federal intervention into things like curricular standards constituted governmental overreach (until W promoted it, of course).
 
Just thought I'd add this here. An NPR article talks with teachers who say these laws are already having a chilling effect on what they teach in the classroom - even though the wording of said laws presumably doesn't apply to them. Which is the point that I and many others have been making all along.

"In Oklahoma City, teacher Telannia Norfar said she and her colleagues at Northwest Classen High School had planned to discuss a schoolwide approach to help students understand current events – including the murder of George Floyd, family separation at the Mexico border and the use of racist terms such as the "China virus." "We need to do it, because our students desire it," she said. "But how do we do that without opening Oklahoma City public schools up to a lawsuit?"

She said how and whether they'll do that is now unclear. Paula Lewis, chair of the Oklahoma City School Board, said though the state's new law bans teachers from discussing concepts they weren't discussing anyway, and though its penalties are not yet clear, the danger is the fear it instills. "What if they say the wrong thing?" Lewis said. "What if somebody in their class during the critical thinking brings up the word oppression or systemic racism? Are they in danger? Is their job in danger?"

But remember folks, these new laws won't affect classroom teaching at all, and it's nothing but liberal outrage and a big nothingburger.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000537206/teachers-laws-banning-critical-race-theory-are-leading-to-self-censorship
 
soooooo, what are the good ideas conservatives have in 2021? judge smails is still waiting.

Why don't you start a thread on it instead of polluting this one with unrelated trolling?
 
LOL. You dismiss an actual case of teacher's class getting cancelled due to this law because neither of us know her personally, yet you're convinced that I'm outraged even though you don't know me personally. I had no idea that I was dealing with such a master of psychology and psychic ability. I'm not outraged. Concerned, yes, as anyone who is honest and in their right mind would be, but hardly outraged. Of course you dismissed the teacher's case because it was inconvenient. Your entire argument has been that these state laws are really nothing to worry about, and liberals are just being drama queens. Yet here is an actual case of a teacher's class being dismissed because of this law, which undermines your argument. And so at first you don't even mention it, and then when you do acknowledge it you airily dismiss it because neither of us happen to know the teacher personally (which is irrelevant, unless you have evidence that her class wasn't cancelled) and it's not enough evidence for you. You and I both know that no amount of cases will convince you, as you will simply keep deflecting and dismissing that these state laws will likely have a chilling effect on what is being taught in the classrooms, and that their purpose is to do that.

As for your claim that I'm being contradictory on CRT, I have repeatedly said in this thread that CRT is not the real target - otherwise public schools would not be included in these bills, as CRT is not usually taught at the high school level. At any rate, do you really think that CRT was not a factor in OK passing this law? Strange how they passed this bill when CRT became a hot topic, isn't it? Why would OK pass a bill with this wording if it was not aimed at CRT (or what they imagine it to be)?

I also love your explanation of how the wording of the OK law would prevent teachers from possibly getting into trouble: "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." I'm sure that your average Trumpite parent will be willing to parse the letter of the law if they get pissed that their kid's Social Studies teacher is teaching things about slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that they don't agree with. I know that conservatives have spent the last five years laughing off Trump's words and those of his minions, but to argue that just as long as teachers don't explicitly say that Whites should feel guilt about racism that they'll be fine is rich, especially given the deadening effect of such laws throughout American history. Remember McCarthyism? How many innocent people were fired in that era even though the wording of national security laws supposedly didn't/wouldn't affect them?

Again, I know teachers who have faced blowback in rural NC because they taught their students that the Civil War was caused by slavery. Again, your arguments about the NC law fail to take into account the ability of Trumpites to twist things to their advantage. You've already admitted that you're concerned about banning ideas, yet you now seem to be arguing that it's not really a big deal. I assume you also saw Connor's post about the ban on diversity training and counseling. How many things does a law have to ban before liberals should be concerned about it? And if these things are no big deal, why pass the law to begin with? Is there evidence in OK that teachers and professors are teaching that whites are inferior or minorities are superior? Why pass these laws if it's no big deal - what's the intent here?

My "entire argument has been..."? What in God's name are you talking about? I made my first post in this thread today. I assume you are getting me confused with Woke and Broke.

Of course CRT is what these laws are targeting. I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out that you accused these laws of being vague and ill-defined before you ever even bothered to look and see what they actually, you know, said.

I don't give a damn if an average Trumpite parent is going to misunderstand something. The law says what it says, regardless of whether someone--present company included--misunderstands it. We don't gauge laws on how well the populace is likely to understand them.

I said it in my first post earlier today, and I'll say it again--I would prefer conservatives run for school board seats and implement the ideas behind these laws instead of statewide legislatures passing these laws, but I agree that the things prohibited by these laws should not be taught in our schools.
 
Pretty sure teaching that stuff has been banned by liberal politicians and university faculties.
 
Pretty sure teaching that stuff has been banned by liberal politicians and university faculties.

It would be nice if you stopped advocating policies that directly undermine it, given that it actually works. No offense to the policies that make you feel good.
 
Those sections of the OK law I indicated I would be comfortable teaching named race, yes.
 
My "entire argument has been..."? What in God's name are you talking about? I made my first post in this thread today. I assume you are getting me confused with Woke and Broke.

Of course CRT is what these laws are targeting. I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out that you accused these laws of being vague and ill-defined before you ever even bothered to look and see what they actually, you know, said.

I don't give a damn if an average Trumpite parent is going to misunderstand something. The law says what it says, regardless of whether someone--present company included--misunderstands it. We don't gauge laws on how well the populace is likely to understand them.

I said it in my first post earlier today, and I'll say it again--I would prefer conservatives run for school board seats and implement the ideas behind these laws instead of statewide legislatures passing these laws, but I agree that the things prohibited by these laws should not be taught in our schools.

Sorry if I can't keep up with all the board name changes of conservative posters around here. You keep acting as if the wording of these laws won't affect what is being taught in the classroom - read the NPR article. Are you saying that discussions of race and racism shouldn't be taught in schools? As the NPR article shows, these laws are already affecting how it is taught in some places, in spite of the wording of the law. And that is the intent.
 
Back
Top