• 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

Where de facto segregation still exists today in schools, how does conservative outrage over the teaching of racial issues square that there are, essentially, separate and unequal access to education in many places still today? Certainly I presume they don't want to replace race consciousness with class consciousness in the analysis of this inequality? Are we meant to entirely ignore this context in the education of our children? It isn't just the legacy of slavery in curricula, it's reconstruction and Jim Crow segregation, the vestiges of which exist from education to access to health care to real estate to generational wealth building, etc. etc.

I guess if your cognitive dissonance just says we all end up where we end up and race and class plays no role, you wouldn't want to discuss the roles that race and class play in contemporary society, but surely there's a place for discussing its historical context at minimum?
 
birdman said:
You are trying to restrict the conversation to just the OK law...but these laws are being passed, all of a sudden, all over the country, by people who have no idea what they are talking about (See Alabama legislator in the thread above)

Anyway, on that list, I have a problem with g. and h.

g. anyone can claim they feel discomfort or guilt with any subject and get it banned from school. "Organic chemistry makes me feel ashamed of my lack of melanin, an organic compound, we need to ban organic chemistry!"

h. is banning a a potentially valid perspective that gives students the chance to think introspectively about the culture in which they live and how it came about. There is no reason to ban a critical evaluation of the concept of meritocracy or to float the possibility that it has racist origins and facilitate students exploring the concept and deciding on their own.

Also, something seems to be missing from d...or maybe it is too many double negatives for me to follow.

Everything else on that list seems fine at face value and is probably already covered by federal anti-discrimination law.
Click to expand...

All of the state laws I have looked at contain the same basic prohibitions.

Section G does not prohibit teachers from teaching lessons that make people feel uncomfortable or guilty because of their race or sex. Section G prohibits teachers from teaching the lesson that certain people should feel uncomfortable or guilty because of their race or sex.

As for Section H, it seems like a bad idea to tell students--in a course on which they will be graded, no doubt--that meritocracies are racist or that the notion of a hard work ethic is racist. Seems counterproductive to the enterprise of education and, frankly, to our entire economic system.

Section D is worded poorly, but I believe it is trying to prohibit the teaching that people are incapable of--and should not attempt--treating everyone the same, without regard to race or sex.
 
Do you think racism exists?

If so, do you think racism could impact someone's evaluation of other people's hard work?
 
PhDeac said:
Do you think racism exists?

If so, do you think racism could impact someone's evaluation of other people's hard work?
Click to expand...

The statute prohibits teaching that meritocracies or the very concept of a "hard work ethic" were created by White people to keep Black people down. I tend to think more highly of Black people than that, and I don't think we should be teaching our children concepts that will undermine their success in the real world.
 
Nice dodge. Answer the question.
 
WakeBored said:
All of the state laws I have looked at contain the same basic prohibitions.

Section G does not prohibit teachers from teaching lessons that make people feel uncomfortable or guilty because of their race or sex. Section G prohibits teachers from teaching the lesson that certain people should feel uncomfortable or guilty because of their race or sex.

As for Section H, it seems like a bad idea to tell students--in a course on which they will be graded, no doubt--that meritocracies are racist or that the notion of a hard work ethic is racist. Seems counterproductive to the enterprise of education and, frankly, to our entire economic system.

Section D is worded poorly, but I believe it is trying to prohibit the teaching that people are incapable of--and should not attempt--treating everyone the same, without regard to race or sex.
Click to expand...

So then G should also already be covered by federal anti-discrimination laws. D should be reworded or stricken, and H. still seems like a restriction of free speech. Even if you think it is a bad idea to teach that hard work is fruitless because of racism, why should we limit what teachers can teach?

Reading these 8 sections of the law, it is really hard to not conclude that this is a much ado about nothing political stunt to drum up the anger of Trumpers. 6 of the 8 sections are covered by federal anti-discrimination laws, the 7th is poorly worded, and the 8th is stifling critical thinking and free thought.

Plus, who the F is actually teaching kids that they should feel guilty about their race. How many teachers actually say "You should feel guilty about this" that we need a law prohibiting that speech? Kids might end up feeling guilty about the actions of their ancestors when presented with the facts about how their ancestors behaved, but there are extremely few teachers out there say "Whites should feel guilty about being white."

It's so frustrating that again and again the GOP is setting the parameters of the national discourse based on a few rare cases of small problems. Poor women athletes that have to compete against transgender women (that one time in that race in Connecticut)! Poor white student that felt bad because a teacher made them say something once! Lets change all the voting laws because we've had 12 instances of voter fraud in the last 7 years! Y'all are using cranes to crush flies and are just trying to fabricate controversies, over isolated, small problems, just to keep the culture war alive.
 
PhDeac said:
Yet they’ll be applied broadly because even if the law isn’t violated, conservatives will claim that a teacher told them to be guilty for being white.

That clip is exactly what conservatives want. Reasonable thinking people see a dumbass trying to step to someone who knows what he’s talking about. Their base sees one of their own being talked down to by an intelligent Black man which will trigger them even more.
Click to expand...

^This. I'll post this article yet again on how all of this is already being viewed by some teachers.

"She said the proposed bill makes it feel like the thought police are descending on Texas. She said she knows teachers who are already self-censoring. They're "afraid to speak out on issues because they feel there are going to be repercussions from their districts," she said. Paul Kleiman, a high school history teacher in Round Rock, said he's concerned about the provision in Texas' bill that would require him to teach all sides of current events and ugly chapters in history without giving any side deference. He asked how he would do that when teaching subjects such as the Holocaust, or the civil rights movement. "Does the state of Texas want me to stand up and spend class time saying, well, let's look at all sides of this topic?" Kleiman said. "I don't think that's what the state of Texas wants. But that's what this bill does."

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000537206/teachers-laws-banning-critical-race-theory-are-leading-to-self-censorship
 
Weird question, but does JH even agree that the we should ban CRT (whatever it even means)?
 
Since this is a thread about academic topics, I'd like to institute an academic rule. Cite your sources. If you're going to claim something is being taught, cite sources of it being taught, not someone claiming that it's being taught, but someone actually teaching it.
 
birdman said:
So then G should also already be covered by federal anti-discrimination laws. D should be reworded or stricken, and H. still seems like a restriction of free speech. Even if you think it is a bad idea to teach that hard work is fruitless because of racism, why should we limit what teachers can teach?

Reading these 8 sections of the law, it is really hard to not conclude that this is a much ado about nothing political stunt to drum up the anger of Trumpers. 6 of the 8 sections are covered by federal anti-discrimination laws, the 7th is poorly worded, and the 8th is stifling critical thinking and free thought.

Plus, who the F is actually teaching kids that they should feel guilty about their race. How many teachers actually say "You should feel guilty about this" that we need a law prohibiting that speech? Kids might end up feeling guilty about the actions of their ancestors when presented with the facts about how their ancestors behaved, but there are extremely few teachers out there say "Whites should feel guilty about being white."

It's so frustrating that again and again the GOP is setting the parameters of the national discourse based on a few rare cases of small problems. Poor women athletes that have to compete against transgender women (that one time in that race in Connecticut)! Poor white student that felt bad because a teacher made them say something once! Lets change all the voting laws because we've had 12 instances of voter fraud in the last 7 years! Y'all are using cranes to crush flies and are just trying to fabricate controversies, over isolated, small problems, just to keep the culture war alive.
Click to expand...


Yep

Conservatives decided some time ago that this is easier and more effective political strategy than trying to understand or address actual problems.
 
PhDeac said:
Since this is a thread about academic topics, I'd like to institute an academic rule. Cite your sources. If you're going to claim something is being taught, cite sources of it being taught, not someone claiming that it's being taught, but someone actually teaching it.
Click to expand...

This. I'm still waiting to discuss Crenshaw and Harris with jhmd, but dude is allergic to doing the reading.
 
ConnorEl said:
Yep

Conservatives decided some time ago that this is easier and more effective political strategy than trying to understand or address actual problems.
Click to expand...

Right. There is faaaaaaaar more harm being done in our schools by mass shootings than by critical race theory. How about the GOP gets upset about guns and school house mass shootings? Maybe even draft an 8 section law that tries to address the problem.
 
How much longer until a disgruntled white student shoots up his school and blames CRT?
 
birdman said:
Right. There is faaaaaaaar more harm being done in our schools by mass shootings than by critical race theory. How about the GOP gets upset about guns and school house mass shootings? Maybe even draft an 8 section law that tries to address the problem.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! If we just armed every right-thinking student and teacher there would be no more school mass shootings! And as a side benefit, all of those armed conservative students could prevent their worthless Marxist liberal teachers from polluting their brains with stuff like CRT and that our Founding Fathers were racist! #maga
 
PhDeac said:
How much longer until a disgruntled white student shoots up his school and blames CRT?
Click to expand...

5dib30.jpg
 
PhDeac said:
Since this is a thread about academic topics, I'd like to institute an academic rule. Cite your sources. If you're going to claim something is being taught, cite sources of it being taught, not someone claiming that it's being taught, but someone actually teaching it.
Click to expand...

Do docs from the classroom qualify? I'm sure the 3rd grade classroom enjoyed story time from "This Book is Antiracist".

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top