• 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

Strickland33 said:
They're literally rewriting history to reflect their contemporary ideological orientations. The whole game - the 1619 and CRT "outrage" - is and has always been projection.

When we look back on the history of American conservatism, we'll definitely understand it to be reactionary, but the extent to which American conservatism has evolved into bizarro right-wing Maoism is going to confuse the hell out of historians.
Click to expand...

I think the more interesting evolution for historians is going to be how we got from "there is a communist under every bed" to "there is a racist under all white skin."
 
WakeBored said:
I think the more interesting evolution for historians is going to be how we got from "there is a communist under every bed" to "there is a racist under all white skin."
Click to expand...

Settle down, not all whites are Republicans.
 
WakeBored said:
I think the more interesting evolution for historians is going to be how we got from "there is a communist under every bed" to "there is a racist under all white skin."
Click to expand...

I don't think conservatives have moved away from "there is a communist under every bed." It's playing quite well to the base currently.
 
WakeBored said:
I think the more interesting evolution for historians is going to be how we got from "there is a communist under every bed" to "there is a racist under all white skin."
Click to expand...

If you truly review what white men have done since the beginning of American accurate history, it is not hard to get there.
 
WakeBored said:
I can't edit, but I just re-read the above and the last line isn't clear. I was trying to say that I don't agree with the new law and that disagreement with the new law is perfectly consistent with being anti-CRT. Anti-CRT isn't about not teaching the KKK was morally wrong, MLK's "I have a Dream Speech," Frederick Douglass's writings, etc. Anti-CRT is just opposed to CRT.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to disagree with the new law, but dropping those items as being required is still a terrible look, no matter how one tries to explain it. Why would the TX state legislature deliberately remove those basic items as a curriculum requirement - it all seems very specific what they're leaving out, doesn't it? And it certainly fits with the notion that the ultimate goal of many of these laws isn't just to ban CRT, but to drop many avenues of teaching about racism and racial incidents in US History. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of dropping it as a requirement? And yes, while specific school districts can take the initiative and keep it in the curriculum, how many school districts will not?
 
Last edited:
Colonel Angus said:
Hold on - So an article/tweet posted and pushed by Tunnels scholars such as WakeForestRanger, PhDeac, HighlandDeac, Shooshmoo, and WFFaithful was misleading or less than accurate??

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Lolz. So tell me, Angus, why the TX state legislature would go to the trouble of dropping all of that material - all oriented towards civil rights and racism - as a requirement from the TX school curriculum? Seems awfully targeted, doesn't it? And how many school systems in TX will go to the trouble of keeping that material in there? So it's actually not misleading, unless you can offer a good explanation as to why the Texas bill would decide that teaching about civil rights is not a requirement. It may not be banned, but dropping it as a requirement will have the same effect in some school districts, and it's a terrible look, no matter how you defend it.
 
WokeandBroke said:
But the schools exist only to serve the interests of the families. That's the only reason we build them. Why silence the voices of the most important stakeholders? Whose judgment do you trust more?
Click to expand...

I was of the understanding that schools exist to educate students and make them into productive citizens. That does not mean that they have to cater to the beliefs of every family in the school system. Many parents who want to take their kids out of a school often do so because they don't want their kids to be taught anything that conflicts with their own personal beliefs. I once had a parent whose kids were in a fundamentalist Christian private school tell me that the teachers there shouldn't teach anything that he didn't agree with, because "that's not what I'm paying them for." Seems to me that's more blatant indoctrination than anything they'll get in public school.
 
Last edited:
Highland Deac said:
Nice of you to disagree with the new law, but dropping those items as being required is still a terrible look, no matter how one tries to define it. Why would the TX state legislature deliberately remove those basic items as a curriculum requirement - it all seems very specific what they're leaving out, doesn't it? And it certainly fits with the notion that the ultimate goal of many of these laws isn't just to ban CRT, but to drop many avenues of teaching about racism and racial incidents in US History. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of dropping it as a requirement? And yes, while specific school districts can take the initiative and keep it in the curriculum, how many school districts will not?
Click to expand...

That certainly appears to be what is motivating the TX senate, and, as I said, I disagree with the the new law. I don't see that happening in other states, however, and I don't think that is what is motivating most parents at school board meetings around the country. They just don't want their children to be told they have to "confess their privilege," "reject their whiteness," and other similar garbage.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Question #1; Let the parents pick the best high school for their student. There are a number of factors, each of which is better known to the family of the student than some bureaucracy.

Question #2: The way charters work is you have a 100% blind lottery for new students. Families already enrolled in that school get a sibling preference (that makes sense under any system, but as long as it is blind on the way in there isn't a bias in favor of any one pool of applicants). You could do a ranked choice format, where you pick your preferred school, second and third.
Click to expand...

Parents don’t know much about schools at all. They mostly know location and if it’s in a “good neighborhood” which is defined by race and class. They certainly know less than school board members, administrators, teachers, etc in the district.

WokeandBroke said:
I understand that questions are both unusual and hard for you.
Click to expand...

I’m the one answering questions. You’re the one ducking a simple question.

Science & Math isn’t school choice. Good attempt at a gotcha though. Even if you consider it to be school choice, it’s even a better example of the dilemma you refuse to address.
 
WakeBored said:
That certainly appears to be what is motivating the TX senate, and, as I said, I disagree with the the new law. I don't see that happening in other states, however, and I don't think that is what is motivating most parents at school board meetings around the country. They just don't want their children to be told they have to "confess their privilege," "reject their whiteness," and other similar garbage.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think that is a very naive position to take. I think what many right-wing parents around the country consider CRT is going to prove to be much broader than you think, and will involve issues such as we are seeing in Texas. I will also reiterate that the purpose of many of these state laws around the country isn't just to abolish CRT, as very few districts or schools have been shown to teach kids to reject their whiteness or confess their privilege or whatever. It's to intimidate teachers from bringing up "uncomfortable" racial/sexist/homophobic topics or historical events or people in the classroom that conservative parents don't want their kids to hear about.
 
Junebug, you don’t think there’s an advantage to being white in this country?
 
Colonel Angus said:
Hold on - So an article/tweet posted and pushed by Tunnels scholars such as WakeForestRanger, PhDeac, HighlandDeac, Shooshmoo, and WFFaithful was misleading or less than accurate??

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

There’s nothing misleading in that tweet. All of those things were removed from the state’s curriculum standards.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Question #1; Let the parents pick the best high school for their student. There are a number of factors, each of which is better known to the family of the student than some bureaucracy.

Question #2: The way charters work is you have a 100% blind lottery for new students. Families already enrolled in that school get a sibling preference (that makes sense under any system, but as long as it is blind on the way in there isn't a bias in favor of any one pool of applicants). You could do a ranked choice format, where you pick your preferred school, second and third.
Click to expand...

Others have touched on this with different words, but what percent of people lose this lottery, and how, if at all, should we educate them?
 
WakeBored said:
Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but didn't you go to NC Science and Math?
Click to expand...

Wait, there's a word for that, when your local neighborhood school doesn't offer something that would benefit you, but another public school does, so you apply for that one, get it, and then you get the benefit of a better experience. I know there's a term for that; I'm sure it will come to me...
 
So after all this time arguing that school choice isn’t merit based and is available to everyone, you two give up that whole argument to chase a gotcha.
 
PhDeac said:
So after all this time arguing that school choice isn’t merit based and is available to everyone, you two give up that whole argument to chase a gotcha.
Click to expand...

First, he absolutely gotcha.

Second, the fact that you were wrong about the first point doesn't also keep you from being wrong about the second. You've got a bit of a streak going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top