Daily Show on Critical Race Theory
- Thread starter TommyCracker
- Start date
You know that the 3/5 compromise was actually an anti-slavery measure right? The southern states wanted to count slaves on a 1 by 1 basis, even though they afforded them no rights, because it would have meant greater power for them in the House of Representatives. The 3/5 compromise decreased the power of the slave holding states in Congress. Freed black men were still counted as a whole.
How willing do you think the SJW types would be to letting you teach that treating black slaves as 3/5 of a person was actually a good thing if you were antislavery? You know, since the argument is that teaching history is so important.
Yeah, I screwed that up and noted it later. I was trying poorly to make a point. It didn't come off. I did learn however that the same folks that were all for not counting slaves at all for the purposes of representation in constitutional arguments were totally OK with counting them 100% for taxation purposes when trying to draw up the Articles of Confederation.
My point, again poorly made, was that anything that counts a person as 3/5 (for whatever purpose) was wrong b/c the argument wasn't about treating them as people it was about using them as pawns in a political exercise. Their rights were considered but determined not to be worth doing anything about (at least not for a few more generations).
Mea culpa on the poor argument I made
Yeah, this popped back towards the top and I did not realize I was on page 16 of 22 when I answered.
As to the 3/5 being wrong, the world is not always black and white (no pun intended). In this instance, the southern states wanted to count slaves as citizens for the purposes of political power when they effectively treated these same people as livestock or farm equipment. Freed blacks were still 100% of a person. So it was not so much color that made the determination but the slave status itself. Affording them 100% count would have greatly expanded the power of the slave holding states which could/would have made things much more difficult than they were to resolve that issue down the line. As it was, the 3/5 compromise increased the slave holding delegation in the House of Representatives by 1/3.
Slavery was wrong, treating people like livestock is wrong. However, you can have complex relationships where something that may look wrong on its face is acceptable because of the greater good.
For instance, affirmative action is a racist and discriminatory policy. Period. However, many would argue that because of the greater good that it is a necessary policy even though it is underpinned by racism.
At the end of the day I think many parents are against what is being labeled as CRT because these are complex issues that adults with multiple degrees cannot agree on, yet these things are being taught to students not as "some people think X" but as settled certainties.
One last thing, I keep seeing the comment that not all this stuff is CRT and people don't even know what they are arguing against. I belong to a group that is pushing back on this stuff in my own children's school district. The people I see discussing this are very aware of what CRT is and how intersectionality, antiracism, etc. all occupy the same piece of intellectual territory while approaching it from different angles. The reason CRT is used is because of the argument that Outside Shooter keeps advancing, the idea that they don't want to teach history. If they said they were arguing against anti-racism, then they have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that term does not mean what it looks like it means to the people teaching this. See Brad Stevens conversation with Goat earlier in the thread. It takes a bunch of back and forth and telling people they need to read several hundred page books just to come to agreement on the definition of words because those words are specifically chosen to allow for the type of duck and dodge Outside has been doing in this thread. So yes, CRT is a misnomer for everything that is being fought against but that is only because the right has chosen an all encompassing term for everything they are fighting because the other terms for this are chosen to provide supporters the ability to deflect discussion to arguing over what the definition of "is" is. And even with that people like Joy Reid still want to argue semantics.
Ibram X. Kendi’s Parents Worked to Give Him a Good Life. He Called Them Racists. | Frontpage Mag
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic
Kendi is a fraud, from his fake ass name to his teaching exactly the opposite of what his parents did to break the cycle.
Like many debates of the current day, this one is getting derailed by deliberate means of fringe activists (on both sides) operating in a mix of partial-truth and bad faith. I’ll leave them aside.
It seems most good faith “opponents” are principally concerned with actual CRT and Critical Theory adjacent teachings (the bell hooks, IX Kendi, Dereck Bell variety), but seem less opposed to expanded teaching of events with a focus on POC. Likewise, it seems most supporters of “enhanced curricula” are primarily concerned with the nuts who want to return to the “old way” of teaching history, but have far less appetite for the kind of divisive, extremism of Kendi, Diangelo, “whiteness studies”, etc….
The problem is there is a non-zero number of individuals in this fight who do want to either return to a very sanitized, Trumpy-ish version of American history, or engage in a type of cultural, Mao-like, “re-education” with very agenda-laden goals appeasing to their revolutionary zeal. Both seem to understand, on some level, they can’t be very upfront with their aims, so they nut-pick the other side in hopes that their agenda may slip by on the sly by default.
It would be more interesting to cut past the rhetorical games to a more direct flush-out of actual deliverables. You cold likely build a workable consensus on something that meets some basic academic standards, without the divisive excesses….
It seems most good faith “opponents” are principally concerned with actual CRT and Critical Theory adjacent teachings (the bell hooks, IX Kendi, Dereck Bell variety), but seem less opposed to expanded teaching of events with a focus on POC. Likewise, it seems most supporters of “enhanced curricula” are primarily concerned with the nuts who want to return to the “old way” of teaching history, but have far less appetite for the kind of divisive, extremism of Kendi, Diangelo, “whiteness studies”, etc….
The problem is there is a non-zero number of individuals in this fight who do want to either return to a very sanitized, Trumpy-ish version of American history, or engage in a type of cultural, Mao-like, “re-education” with very agenda-laden goals appeasing to their revolutionary zeal. Both seem to understand, on some level, they can’t be very upfront with their aims, so they nut-pick the other side in hopes that their agenda may slip by on the sly by default.
It would be more interesting to cut past the rhetorical games to a more direct flush-out of actual deliverables. You cold likely build a workable consensus on something that meets some basic academic standards, without the divisive excesses….
- Curriculum that pulls in more events/concepts of history (Tulsa Black Wall Street Massacre, NYC Draft Riots, Wilmington Riot of 1898, red-lining”, etc…) and how they shape ideas/perceptions today.
- Present the above without the historical/sociological editorializing common to Critical Theory (racial essentialism, anti-logic critiques, intersectional theory, “white fragility”, etc).
Socioeconomic is probably a better gauge than race for higher education admissions. Regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, almost all of the kids attending the fancy schools have wealthy parents. And I mean wealthy beyond most or our Midwest understanding.
Your point about semantics is well-stated. If PHD candidates struggle with jargon-heavy theories like CRT, how is the rest of the populace going to fare any better?
It’d be interesting if there was a questionnaire that could be devised that specifically nails-down what is (and isn’t) going to be presented in the curriculum proposals from School Boards. I’ve seen parents who start out on opposite sides of this debate over curriculum reach some common ground when they realize neither represent the boogeymen they assumed they were.
At a minimum, such specific questions may truly separate the folks seeking reasonable curriculum enhancements and those who want to push a politicized agenda through the cloud of confusion over semantics.
Last edited:
I would heartily accept socio-economic advantages. The poor kid, be they Black or White, hasn't attended elite private schools with elite tutors and elite summer camps. If someone whose parents make $30,000 a year gets a 34 ACT and Bill Gates' kid gets a 34 ACT, I have to say an open position should go to the poor kid. It's like choosing a high school team. One kid has grown up playing AAU basketball, and another has never touched a basketball. You hold tryouts and the two perform pretty much identically. You have to think the kid that has never touched a basketball has to have far more upside.
Funny how Trumpers haul out made-up stats like 99.7% of people are fine with COVID when it's probably closer to the truth that 99.7% of K-12 teachers know nothing of CRT and don't teach it even a little. But they will link the same 0.3% story/ancecdote all day long.
www.cbsnews.com
Head of teachers union says critical race theory isn't taught in schools, vows to defend "honest history"
Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, said "culture warriors" are "bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history."
www.cbsnews.com
Funny how Trumpers haul out made-up stats like 99.7% of people are fine with COVID when it's probably closer to the truth that 99.7% of K-12 teachers know nothing of CRT and don't teach it even a little. But they will link the same 0.3% story/ancecdote all day long.
Head of teachers union says critical race theory isn't taught in schools, vows to defend "honest history"
Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, said "culture warriors" are "bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history."
I think most of us agree it isn't high school material except, MAYBE, in some sort of advanced social studies class. Thinking back to my high school days, I took a class on political theory and something like CRT could fit in there with other theories. But overall, it isn't happening very much and shouldn't be.
It's funny how you keep ignoring what is actually being said and instead choose to tilt at windmills.Funny how Trumpers haul out made-up stats like 99.7% of people are fine with COVID when it's probably closer to the truth that 99.7% of K-12 teachers know nothing of CRT and don't teach it even a little. But they will link the same 0.3% story/ancecdote all day long.
Head of teachers union says critical race theory isn't taught in schools, vows to defend "honest history"
Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, said "culture warriors" are "bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history."
So you are coming off your, "that's not what they teach" argument (because the unions clearly say they are and will continue to) to say "well, it is not many of them that are teaching it." How may are teaching anti-racism (Kendi style) as part of their SEL and DEI teaching? How many are pushing the idea that the U.S. is still a systemically racist country today when several people have asked the grown ass college educated adults to name the systems by name and still crickets?
And after that, how many children do you have currently attending K-12 schools? If that number is anything less than 1, when was the last time you had a child in school? I have 4 currently in school. I, as part of a group, am actively obtaining the curriculum (which is hard as hell because the schools REALLY don't want you to have that info) for my school district to see what is being taught. They had CRT, AntiRacism, and all the other things that are falling under that umbrella all over the INDOE website just a few weeks ago. If you try to access links on that site now you will see a message saying they are migrating to another host. The truth of the matter is that fhe site got yanked down because of things that were on the site that were passed to several influential members of the state government by pissed off parents.
So respectfully, if you don't have a kid who is part of a school system who has been steadily declining in the academic rankings (for all colors of students) since the introduction of this crap, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The problem I have experienced in my area and have read about in others is that when you present these very commonsensical notions to those who want CRT taught (and in my area those people firmly control the adminstration and school board right now) you are called a racist or a white supremacist. It shuts down dialogue and scares most away from discussing the issue.
Embracing critical theory, teacher’s union says they — not parents — control what kids learn
The political left wants critical race theory in every school district in the nation.The nation’s largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states and 14,…nypost.com
@TommyCracker - what are your updated thoughts?
Sorry, just saw this (I don't view my notifications).
I think you gave me an opinion piece by one of the biggest crusaders of this political crusade that was printed in one of the most well known right leaning newspapers. Not saying those two things means it's all fairy tale make believe, just that I believe the goal of the article is to scare and shock people.
His first line was-
The political left wants critical race theory in every school district in the nation.
That's quite the statement.
And no, it's not being taught in schools, at least not yet.
The question on if it should be taught in schools is not the debate, at least not the debate I'm having. I've long said actual CRT is a college level curriculum.
My argument is that the right is trying so hard with fear distortions (children are being taught to hate America or children have to feel bad and apologize for being white!!!! ) in an effort to censor or nip in the bud any discussion of how race has played a part in the melting pot that is our country.
That seems like a direct reaction to the Floyd upheavals, not some deep dive of inappropriate curriculum that's currently being taught to again, make the children hate America.
It reminds me of old school Christian censorship of Rock music. Think about the horrible influence the Beatles are to the children!!!!
But per IUCrazy's point, I don't have any kids in school right now so I could be wrong about the curriculum.
I do feel pretty confident this is mainly a fear campaign (and a brilliant one at that).
Last edited:
Again, given your second to last paragraph you still come to the conclusion of the rest of your post that nothing is going on here.
In my district there have been programs that the high school students go through to explain their "white privelege". I have seen some of the screen shots of the show and parents of the children who have seen it because their children were home the majority of last year.
If you have seen the video of the girl who was a foster child whose original homelife involved living in filth and eating cat feces when the police arrived to yank her out of that environment crying over being told she was priveleged and also being forced to talk about sexual things at a young age that were uncomfortable given her early home life...well that is my district. If you have seen the video of four women discussing that even 4th graders are experimenting with anal sex and that therefore we need to talk about sex at a younger age...my district. I would link you a video of that conversation but the school did a copyright claim on YouTube to have it pulled down because parents were losing their shit over it. There were articles on the page of the DEI head for the school district that said white women were the biggest purveyors of white supremacy and that math is racist. After the Chauvin verdict all the parents received emails that the school was going to continue to focus on "anti-racist and equity" education. Employees of the school system from the bus driver up to the administration were being encouraged to attend trainings where the top books suggested for reading were Kendi's How to be an Antiracist and Diangelo's White Fragility. On the children's side the first book was Anti Racist Baby.
It's there. And what you get from the schools is obfuscation of the type that we saw this past few weeks about CRT which is summed up well here:
But that is not the only issue in my school district. Around the same time they really started to push DEI/SEL (which is the umbrella they put everything under...some of it completely fine and some of it pushing the junk I mentioned above) they also changed the curriculum. And those two things have the school system spiraling. The poor curriculum is putting kids behind but students, particularly in Jr and Sr high are having to spend increasingly more time on discussing "why white people suck" (those are the words of some of the kids, so take that for what it is worth).
I linked the Ted Talk below here several years ago. This talk gives one example of how some kids are treated today by the system. Now it might be racism, it might be economics. But if it is economics and a higher percentage of Blacks are dirt poor than Whites, it becomes close racism. I suspect many people here were involved in school fights and never got charged with aggravated assault.
www.ted.com
How we're priming some kids for college — and others for prison
In the United States, two institutions guide teenagers on the journey to adulthood: college and prison. Sociologist Alice Goffman spent six years in a troubled Philadelphia neighborhood and saw first-hand how teenagers of African-American and Latino backgrounds are funneled down the path to...
I am curious, if the books were "how to be an anti-communist" and "communists suck", would you complain? At its heart, what is incorrect about teaching racism is wrong?
And I will ask the question that was asked of Goat the other day, have you read either of those books?
Antiracism is defined in that book. It does not mean what you think it means within this context.
As to the question of having kids read those books and spending an inordinate amount of time addressing them in grade school, no, I would think it would be a waste of time. You know how you get a "Communism Sucks" education? By teaching the history of the second half of the twentieth century.
And again, the vast majority of people against what is going on in schools have zero issue with teaching what happened with the slaves in this country or the civil rights struggle in history class.
My concern is that many Americans believe racism is dead. I don't believe that is true. It is better, there are fewer racists. But above I linked the Ted Talk. The very idea that we need to be firm and tough with Blacks to keep them on the straight and narrow is straight from slavemaster 101. If the kid in Carmel wouldn't be charged with aggravated assault, no kid should be (without a lot of priors and the author doesn't suggest a lot of priors). That's the equality I see and where I think the system struggles. In another thread, Mas proves beyond a doubt antisemitism is real and still happening. We can't teach this stuff as only something from long ago that we have conquered. And if people don't like what anti-racism has become, create a competing course on anti-racism. But again, don't pass it off as only history. Racism WAS wrong, racism IS wrong.
CRT is not about teaching racism is wrong. It’s about teaching whiteness is wrong. You can’t teach anti-racism by teaching racism is good. Kendi argues that only those with power can be racist—meaning white people. The problem is Kendi has power, he is black, and he is the most significant racist on the scene today. He is no different from the KKK. He sees a white person and he sees a person who must atone for their race. His followers throughout government, business, and education specifically force on others a public atonement for the color of their skin. . For the Kendi followers teaching the history of whites owning blacks is not enough. White people of today must attone for the white people of the past on the theory that white people have inherited a privilege. Now go read Hillbilly Elegy or read Crazy’s post.
Teaching that communism is wrong is the same as teaching Naziism is wrong or teaching capitalism is wrong. But also teaching the values advanced by these isms is good—provided it is honest, but that is another issue for a different thread. Teaching that values have a skin color is wrong.
They are not teaching racism is right in school. Again, you are approaching this as an adult. Kids don't need to have the discussion about the criminal justice system that you are discussing up front. You teach children to treat others as they would want to be treated and that people should be judged on how they are as a person, not by what they look like.
I don't think the majority of people believe that racism is dead. Now, there are probably quite a few who believe that the impact of racism today is FAR overstated by liberal whites who are dragging their party further to the left than even their minority allies are comfortable with.
The shift in the American public’s political values
Interactive chart that illustrates the shift in the American public’s political values from 1994-2017, using a scale of 10 questions asked together on seven Pew Research Center surveys.
www.pewresearch.org
If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals - Kevin Drum
On Thursday I posted a series of charts that all documented a similar theme: Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right. This wasn't meant to be a rigorous...
jabberwocking.com
Pay particular attention to that last article. We do not have much diversity on this board. I know there are a few individuals who are not lilly white, college educated males, but people on your side (not mine) are starting to raise alarm bells that the "listen to other voices" crowd is doing a whole lot of speaking on the behalf of others. And you can see that by the diversity of faces that is speaking out against this stuff. There is a percentage of black parents who are not really on board with having their kids told that their future is restricted by what their white classmates are going to be willing to step aside and "let" them have as opposed to them being good and competent enough to take what is theirs. I posted a critique of Kendi yesterday. That guys parents got ahead, facing more discrimination than him, by doing exactly what he teaches against. CRT, Kendi style faux anti-racism, the white supremacy arguments are all anti-intellectual garbage meant to drag everyone's kids down to the equitable position of being morons. Most parents are not on board with that.
One last thing, I find those arguing for this stuff to be exactly the people who have zero real skin in the game anymore. Easy to make these arguments when the school system is not ****ing with your kids future.
(Edit: Accidentally posted same article twice)
This is the heart of the problem, isn’t it Marv. We take data unrelated to race and force it into a racial framework. We see more blacks in trouble with the law and assume it’s about racism. The vast majority of shootings reported in big cities are by blacks, but we never talk about that. When it comes to race we are indeed a nation of cowards. Whites have self-imposed a prohibition on saying anything negative about blacks.
I'm not trying to argue, but here is a copy of the superintendent's handouts from parent meetings.
I don't live in Noblesville, so I admit to being naive about what is going on...but is the school district just out and out lying about their intentions? Many of the problems you address are explained in the memo. Is the memo just liberal eduspeak to defend their marxists teachings and loss of instructional time? (I noticed they even specifically address the term "Marxist".)
Did you attend any of these meetings. What was the tone of the audience? Of the Superintendent? Was she able to sufficiently answer questions, and/or change any minds? Is the information being presented completely different from what is really happening inside the classrooms?
If the handouts were all that was happening, and were a 100% accurate description of what was happening, would you be okay with it? I do admit that some of the concepts they discuss seem pretty vague.
Finally, I have a question that is probably not relevant. Back in the day, Hugh Dillon integrated schools within IPS, which led to white flight to the townships, then later, within Marion County by busing AA students to those same several townships, which led to white flight outside of the county. Was Noblesville's growth a result of this white flight? I know there are many, many factors that lead to this phenomenon (crime, pollution, traffic, etc), but I was just wondering if you have any insight.
Thank you. I realize I am sort of all over the place, and may have it all wrong.
No problem, I enjoy the back and forth. So for your first set of questions, I cannot really speak to them. I am in the weird area of Noblesville where I have a Noblesville address, am within the city limits of Noblesville, but my children go to Hamilton Southeastern Schools (mostly Fishers with some rural areas of southeastern Hamilton County thrown in). It is my understanding that Noblesville is not as far down the DEI trail as HSE. I mean honestly, when they sell this stuff to you it does not sound bad at first. What could be wrong with telling kids to respect each other for their differences? I have zero problem with that. Rockfish is gone and he used to make fun of the lack of diversity in Hamilton County but it is not 2002 anymore. There is a growing diversity in this community and that is good. My problems are when we get to a point where we are pushing the White Fragility/Equity/Antiracism bent. I don't believe in equity, I believe in equality. I would not have a problem with teaching what each meant to high school age children but I frankly do not trust the teachers to keep their opinion out of that topic. I also want the sexual talk to remain at an age appropriate level (4th graders learning about anal sex is not that) and based around functionality. I am 42. We had sex ed. We learned about condoms, STI, how the human reproductive system works, etc. I am fine with that at an age appropriate level. This is not going on in my district that I am aware of, but some districts around the country are teaching little kids about masturbating. I don't think that is appropriate for the schools to do with little kids.
So the meetings, I don't know of the tone of the Noblesville meetings but the HSE meetings are streamed live and available for viewing later. There were parents respectfully disagreeing with the board, the board responded with eye rolls and the dismissive noises we all make when someone is saying something we disagree with and in one instance, after the parents got done talking the board president said that they were going to continue doing what they do. It has not gotten contentious yet but this started picking up steam at the end of the school year and has bled into the summer. The bright light comes back on when school starts back up in August.
Your last question I am not sure of the history. I moved to Indianapolis after I graduated IU in the (very) early 2000's. I moved up to this area in the mid 2000's because I was building a house and this seemed like the area where the schools were good and I was most likely to see a good ROI for the house. There are many nice amenities in the area and crime is low. It made it attractive. Noblesville, Fishers, Carmel, Westfield all kind of bleed into each other and each one has things to offer.
I have no doubt that some of the things you mentioned were part of the flight though. Just this past week there was a shooting at Castleton Mall and another in Nora Plaza. When I first moved to Indy those were still fairly nice areas and constituted the areas I lived and shopped, ate, went to the bars, etc. around (along with Broadripple and occasionally downtown). And now that I think about it, it is probably true for myself that crime was a bit of the reason I left that area (not so much where I ended up, I looked around Indianapolis too and travel to work came into play to stay north at the time). I had a job that allowed me to get first hand knowledge of a shooting that took place at the bank I went to. A business owner was stopping to make a deposit and was held up. They tried to bug out and the criminal fired a few shots into their car which had their children in it. That did play a little part in the decision to start looking elsewhere to live. But the main reasons were just simply time to take the next step and get out of an apartment.
Thank you for your response, and I apologize for the misunderstanding of what school district you lived in, so the questions on the Nobletucky, er...Noblesville school situation were really not on point.
Was it HSE that just hired a new Superintendent, Yvonne Stokes?
We never talk about that? How many times is Chicago mentioned on this board in a year? Baltimore occasionally gets love too.
I think we all agree there are big problems in cities. The question becomes, why? If we know why, we can figure out solutions. It seems to me most on the left want to blame historical racism for a lack of power, a lack of hope, a lack of faith in the system.
On the right I hear social programs cause the problem. Of course we have had high crime ghettos in big cities going back long before LBJ (look up Five Points NYC).
Five Points, Manhattan - Wikipedia
Absolutely no governmental social programs back then.
There seems to be one truism around the world, more crime happens in poverty. Below is a paper reviewing crime in China, and yes, poverty drives crime (the paper argues absolute poverty, not income inequality as the cause).
Is poverty the mother of crime? Evidence from homicide rates in China - PMC
Income inequality is blamed for being the main driver of violent crime by the majority of the literature. However, earlier work on the topic largely neglects the role of poverty and income levels as opposed to income inequality. The current paper ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I like this quote, "Poverty is the mother of crime." It was said by Marcus Aurelius. The link has been known for a long time. Dickens wrote of it long before social welfare programs.
I've suggested, repeatedly, a big factor is that Blacks have been locked out of acquiring wealth for many generations longer than Whites. The passing down of money or property is important. But Blacks were largely blocked until at least the 1960s. And as I pointed out in another thread, there were laws on property inheritance that allowed Whites to take property from Black heirs that are only now being removed from the books.
Education is similar. College graduates tend not to have children that fail to complete high school. The value of education is passed down and Blacks are several generations behind Whites in that value because, well, you know why.
I don't know what the solution is. I am sure "hey, we passed laws and everything is completely equal so we wash our hands of it" is wrong.
Modern-day redlining: Banks discriminate in lending
Mortgage data shows a troubling pattern of lending, even in major cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and San Antonio: Banks block African Americans and Latinos from getting loans.
revealnews.org
For minorities, there's still inequality in the housing market
According to a study released by Zillow this year, less than a quarter of U.S. homeowners are minorities. That low number, experts say, is the result of discriminatory lending practices, financial hurdles, and troublesome market conditions.
www.inquirer.com
And if you missed it, on the problems with farm heirs:
What is heirs’ property? A huge contributor to Black land loss you might not have heard of.
Advocates are working to right a major injustice that has implications for both landowners and the climate.
grist.org
Yes and we are in wait and see mode with Ms. Stokes. I know there has been some reaching out to talk with her but the main focus I have seen has been with the school board. The superintendent tends to go where they lead.
There are other issues wrapped up in the HSE deal that have nothing to do with the DEI/SEL stuff too. Those center around schools of thought as to how the kids are taught (particularly reading) and also the overuse of iPads as a learning tool. That is what makes this all complicated because there is so much going on that everything is kind of getting tossed under the same umbrella.
So some of this is not political and I have seen an effort to reach out to find common ground wherever possible. That was true with Bourff and I believe it is happening with Stokes as well.
I would imagine that one of the consequences of Covid will be the increased dependence on iPads and other technology, even after a return to in-person education.
I know several people who worked with and for your superintendent when she was in Indy. Few had positive things to say. But, maybe she has gained more wisdom in her time at Munster.
Yeah, we are aware of the history too. But you gotta give her a chance.
Teaching racism is wrong is fine. I doubt you’ll find many to object to a statement such as “All people deserve to be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.” Teaching what actions or policies are needed to do away with racism or how it is present today, or what the personal responsibilities of white people today are where I suggest a line is being crossed & we’re talking about indoctrination.
Graduate, get a job, don't have kids before you get married.We never talk about that? How many times is Chicago mentioned on this board in a year? Baltimore occasionally gets love too.
I think we all agree there are big problems in cities. The question becomes, why? If we know why, we can figure out solutions. It seems to me most on the left want to blame historical racism for a lack of power, a lack of hope, a lack of faith in the system.
On the right I hear social programs cause the problem. Of course we have had high crime ghettos in big cities going back long before LBJ (look up Five Points NYC).
Five Points, Manhattan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Absolutely no governmental social programs back then.
There seems to be one truism around the world, more crime happens in poverty. Below is a paper reviewing crime in China, and yes, poverty drives crime (the paper argues absolute poverty, not income inequality as the cause).
Is poverty the mother of crime? Evidence from homicide rates in China - PMC
Income inequality is blamed for being the main driver of violent crime by the majority of the literature. However, earlier work on the topic largely neglects the role of poverty and income levels as opposed to income inequality. The current paper ...
I like this quote, "Poverty is the mother of crime." It was said by Marcus Aurelius. The link has been known for a long time. Dickens wrote of it long before social welfare programs.
I've suggested, repeatedly, a big factor is that Blacks have been locked out of acquiring wealth for many generations longer than Whites. The passing down of money or property is important. But Blacks were largely blocked until at least the 1960s. And as I pointed out in another thread, there were laws on property inheritance that allowed Whites to take property from Black heirs that are only now being removed from the books.
Education is similar. College graduates tend not to have children that fail to complete high school. The value of education is passed down and Blacks are several generations behind Whites in that value because, well, you know why.
I don't know what the solution is. I am sure "hey, we passed laws and everything is completely equal so we wash our hands of it" is wrong.
Modern-day redlining: Banks discriminate in lending
Mortgage data shows a troubling pattern of lending, even in major cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis and San Antonio: Banks block African Americans and Latinos from getting loans.For minorities, there's still inequality in the housing market
According to a study released by Zillow this year, less than a quarter of U.S. homeowners are minorities. That low number, experts say, is the result of discriminatory lending practices, financial hurdles, and troublesome market conditions.
And if you missed it, on the problems with farm heirs:
What is heirs’ property? A huge contributor to Black land loss you might not have heard of.
Advocates are working to right a major injustice that has implications for both landowners and the climate.
98% of the time this is the formula to stay out poverty.
Kids need 2 parent homes.
That's all great, I agree with those ideas. But how do we get it to work on the ground? We can't get people to get vaccinated, we can't get people to quit smoking or overconsume alcohol. We can't end obesity, or get people to wear sunscreen. We can't even get people to believe the earth is round(ish). I am not sure how to get people who do not believe there is a future for them that there is a future if they follow those rules.
And don't even get me started on the divorce rate in this foru...er, country.
What seems to draw conservative ire is teaching that racism is more pervasive than just overt discrimination and overt bigotry. As one example, environmental racism is real. Communities often locate their toxic dumps next to people who can't afford to live anywhere else, and say "deal with it". Ideas like how to combat environmental racism are now being taught, and that makes your white skin boil, for some reason.
Your third paragraph sounds awful, scary and would be something that an extreme left would only possibly agree with. I'm a Buttigieg left and those anecdotes are over the line from my POV, especially for grade school.
I've also heard many accusations from my right wing friends about what schools are making their children do before CRT from having kindergardeners explain why it's okay that Mr Potato Head can be a man or a woman (this was of course right after the Potato Head narrative came out) to discussing sexual id (again right after the narrative came out) to the over glorifying of Obama to including Allah in the pledge of alligence to whatnot.
The best fear campaigns are always based around children (understandably so).
But again, I don't have kids in school so I'm definitely not an expert here (which is why I got miffed when it came out that it's not being taught as my only knowledge of this came from this board which said kids have to stand up and apologize for being white. Which shocked and then when it turned out wasn't happening...yeah, I was perturbed.)
I do have experience in the fear of liberal teachings of public schools in that they are cranking out like an assembly line little AOC's and Bernie's (along with the continued diversity of the country).
My gf's dad swore if he could do it again he'd never let his daughters go to Iowa, they would have gone to a conservative college because in his mind, that's when they changed and were brainwashed.
Which leads us back to public schools. How do they manage a common curriculum in different areas of the country?
Do they micro market it or go with a standard regardless if it's in Monterrey or Shoals or Harlem?
As you say, what we are doing now isn't working.
IMO, We have to take a hard look at how folks qualify for welfare benefits.
And the Medicare disability program is grossly negligent.
I would add that a lot of the abuse and negligence in these programs is colorblind.
We made fairly significant changes to eligibility under Clinton. There may be room for improvement, I'd have to listen to the experts to know what. But if we move more money to Earned Income that would work for me, it would make working more profitable at lower wages. But in a way all that does is subsidizes business by letting them pay less and have the government cover.
And there are real issues with disability. A friend's daughter worked in that field, she was a lawyer representing people making disability claims. She changed out, but the way I understand it too often people get it that don't deserve it, and people with real issues get denied, both at far too high of a rate. Like previous, I don't know the solution but I'm sure there are people who really study this.
I'll open a hole new can of worms, maybe for employment purposes we need to look at year around school. People making lower wages really struggle with childcare.
Similar threads
