Home schooling increasing, and not just due to Covid

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 41
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8

An agency of the Census Bureau that has been doing Household Pulse Surveys has found that in thre past year, Home Schooling has tripled in volume. Of course, much of that increase has been due to Covid, but the agency is sensing some indications that, while originally predicting that the rate wold fall again when students in greater volumes return to the classroom, that prediction is revising; not due to a new rise in Covid, but due to curriculum. Parents are, in greater numbers, speaking out over their discontent with curricula such as CRT. The movement, itself, has indicated that it is a theory camped on a theory https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05, which does not bode well for its stability of argument.

What is the education industry's response? That parents are domestic terrorists. Apparently, advancing the theory of systemic racism, since the education industry is a government agency complex, is self-fulfilling. Sure. So is home schooling. The PTA, after all, which predates CRT, begins with parents.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT) is "a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of US civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to critically examine the intersection of race and US law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.  CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.  A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals."

As such, CRT is not taught to K-12 students or even teachable without a significant  pre-requisite.  Anybody claiming as much is ignorant of even the basic definition of that subject of study and demonstrates susceptibility to the FOX fake news machine.


949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, 
So, the educational institution is not part of that?

It's being discussed, seriouusly
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.
Are schools currently promoting curriculum material that examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US?


A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals.
Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
It's being discussed, seriouusly

Then you should provide a newspaper article that includes at least one example of Critical Race Theory being taught in K-12.  Your USA Today article merely demonstrates that most parents oppose teaching  CRT in high school which considering the perquisites of legal scholarship should be uncontroversial whether that opinion is informed or ignorant.   Reading Derrick Bell would be CRT101 so see if you can find an example of K-12 public school students reading Derrick Bell.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->@oromagi
CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US.
Are schools currently promoting curriculum material that examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US?
The Ku Klux Klan also examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the US but the Klan is no more "promoting" CRT than public schools are.

By  way of analogy,

Trigonometry examines the relationship between the sides and angles of triangles.  Triangles are taught in Kindergarten but Kindergarteners aren't studying trigonometry.  Angles are taught in 4th grade but 4th graders aren't studying trigonometry because resolving functions needs some solid algebra.

Likewise, public schools may examine some legal issues as they relate to race but without a solid background in critical theory, civil procedure, criminal and constitutional law you aren't study Critical Race Theory any more than you are studying Trigonometry. 

I learned what Marxism and Feminism were in high school but I didn't study Critical Marxist Theory or Critical Feminist Theory until I had surveyed English literature and studied Literary Criticism.

If you aren't reading Derrick Bell's critique of 20th century Liberalism and that movement's approaches to criminal justice, then you aren't studying CRT.


cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,069
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
It is not a stretch to predict that home schooling will take on ever increasing popularity. Is CRT being taught in lower education? The answer to that is merely an exercise in semantics:


Technically, no, but in general terms, kinda sorta. What one calls it should be quite secondary to the actual content and ideological agenda behind it. Then there are schools such as in Seattle, which go so far as to mix identity politics with mathematics, of all things:


Semantical arguments regarding CRT make for a smokescreen with an air of academic authority in the meantime. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” while your children are “properly” educated and enlightened…

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@cristo71
In principle, I agree with all you've said. 

I only started feeling indoctrinated, rather than taught, in a late high school history class, when the teacher objected to my firm and supportable position that the US was not the aggressor in WWII. Curiously, he didn't want to talk about Viet Nam much. Being an avowed pacifist [whereas, I was, then a bit of a hawk, though very disappointed in our prosecution of Viet Nam], I didn't doubt his attitude on WWII. He would not comment on, and disagreed with Reagan's mantra, peace though strength, which I support. Then in college, knowing I was an avowed theist, I had a philosophy professor who guaranteed I would be an atheist before the semester was done. In the end, I nearly converted him!

Yeah, the man behind the curtain doesn't even have a curtain to hide behind anymore.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
And the second question...

Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
I think you know the answer to this second  question is yes. Which means that schools are promoting at least one crucial tenet of CRT in their curriculum materials. Systemic racism, as it is understood in the context of CRT, is being taught in public schools.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@oromagi
And the second question...

Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
I thought it was obvious that the argument applies to both of your examples.  Teaching triangles is not teaching trigonometry.   Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.  If you are arguing that teaching high school children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is a good reason to pull your children out of public schools, I disagree.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
Agreed, but teaching children that systemic racism plagues Amerrica when not one systemic [read government at any level legal statute of policy statement] statement currently exists is harmful. let schools teach that individual racism is rampant, because that is true. I have long challenged that a single statute or agency policy exists that is racist be demonstrated. No one can do it, because it currently does not exist. Jim Crow died with the compliance to Civil Rights Act in 1964. All such laws and policies were eradicated. That does not mean that individuals in the system are following law and policy, but that's my point: it's individual racism, not systemic.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.
That's not what I asked because you didn't address the latter portion of my question. Here is my question again:
  • Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
A yes or no would be helpful.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
not a very good argument from you.
Individual  bias makes it systemic.
  All such laws and policies were eradicated
Slightly true the war on drugs made a bunch of racist laws.
But if that still were true that wouldnt change the fact that these laws in the past put people in bad neighborhoods and such.
Thus you would expect their descendents would also be born into said neighborhoods and the cycle continues.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
-->@oromagi
Agreed, but teaching children that systemic racism plagues Amerrica when not one systemic [read government at any level legal statute of policy statement] statement currently exists is harmful. let schools teach that individual racism is rampant, because that is true. I have long challenged that a single statute or agency policy exists that is racist be demonstrated. No one can do it, because it currently does not exist. Jim Crow died with the compliance to Civil Rights Act in 1964. All such laws and policies were eradicated. That does not mean that individuals in the system are following law and policy, but that's my point: it's individual racism, not systemic.
  • We've discussed this before.  Your FOX News definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is overly narrow.
  • WIKIPEDIA:  Institutional racism, also known as SYSTEMIC RACISM, is a term that refers to a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, education, and political representation. The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.  Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".
  • Your definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is explicitly racist instructions in government statute which fails to account for most of what Americans mean when they talk about systemic racism.
    • Take as an example the recent case of Gabby Petito and what Gwen Ifil used to term "Missing White Woman Syndrome."  Some critics noted that some 350  underage Indigenous girls have been reported missing in the state of Wyoming over the past ten years without ever once eliciting the sort of massive manhunt, Federal resources, and daily media attention allocated to the search for an out-of-state young and pretty white girl.  If you assume about 3500 underage Indigenous girls in Wyoming's total Indigenous population of 14,000, that makes roughly one out of ten girls under 18 in that population has gone missing in the last ten years.
      • You would correctly argue that there's no Wyoming statute requiring State police to treat missing white girls with more urgency than missing Native girls but I don't think its reasonable to conclude that therefore there's no evidence of institutionalized racism to be discovered in the difference.
      • If I was a high school teacher and a student asked me to explain the discrepancies between Petito's case and these hundreds of cases, I think I would be hard-pressed not to discuss the history of American Indian reservations as racist institutions and how that legacy of segregation, poverty, dual-classed citizenship, etc. plays a role in that discrepancy.  That would definitely be teaching about systemic racism in Wyoming but it would have nothing to do with CRT.  Nevertheless, FOX News viewers would call that teaching CRT.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@oromagi
Teaching (high school) children that racism is complex, changing, and subtle is not teaching Critical Race Theory.
That's not what I asked because you didn't address the latter portion of my question. Here is my question again:
  • Are schools currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
A yes or no would be helpful.
No, I think many high school teachers teach racism is the result of intentional individual prejudice as well as complex and subtle social dynamics.  Neither is teaching CRT any more than teaching triangles is teaching trigonometry.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@oromagi
  • Your definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM is explicitly racist instructions in government statute which fails to account for most of what Americans mean when they talk about systemic racism.
well stated
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
No, I think many high school teachers teach racism is the result of intentional individual prejudice as well as complex and subtle social dynamics.
So would you say that some teachers in public schools are currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Slightly true the war on drugs made a bunch of racist laws.
Show me. Don't show me statements by so-called academics, or legal scholars, who just say that. Show me the statute. Show me the department policy that says that.

Time for the rubber to hit the road. I want evidence, not just claims.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Asked and answered- POST#16

No.  Schools are currently promoting curriculum material teaching that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, as well as explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals?

BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc

anti drug abuse act of 1986

In short, this made it so a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams.

SO now we have that down let's get to how this causes racial discrepancies.

In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission concluded that the disparity created a "racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. ... As a result, thousands of people – mostly African Americans – have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences."

BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
You blindly assume that for policies and laws to be racist they must explicitly say "black people must receive harsher sentences".
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I find it rather ironic that the “don’t erase our history” brigade are particularly touchy when their history is actually ends up being taught.

Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.

That is not being taught.

What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.

There’s the occasional “let’s use inclusive language and understand how we talk about each other can have wider impact on those that are different”, which is more “teaching people how not to be dicks”, than  “CRT”

Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Let me try to be more specific.

Is it being taught in public schools that race is a social category and a power dynamic—a marker of a racial group’s positional power in society—and that racism is fundamentally about power?
see point "7. TALK ABOUT RACISM AND RACIAL EQUITY")

Is it being taught in public schools that every individual can be prejudiced and biased at one time or another about various people and behaviors, but racism is based on power and systematic oppression - meaning that individual prejudice and systemic racism cannot be equated?
see definition for "Reverse racism")

Is it being taught in public schools that racism is an historically rooted system of power hierarchies based on race — infused in our institutions, policies and culture — that benefits white people and hurts people of color?
see definition for "racism")

Is it being taught in public schools that interpersonal manifestations of racism are often just the superficial symptoms of broader systems with deeper root causes, and that students should engage in systems analysis to identify these deeper causes and generate options for solutions?
See point "7. TALK ABOUT RACISM AND RACIAL EQUITY")
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,069
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.

That is not being taught.

What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.
I have so many questions/concerns about this issue that I will refrain from asking them all at once. To start, if CRT is an inaccurate label, what should this push to alter lower education be called?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Allow me to simply make my point.

I am not ultimately arguing about whether public schools are "teaching Critical Race Theory" or not. While I believe they are to a certain degree as shown by my questions, we could go back and forth continually trying to argue that point. But that's what you want, isn't it? Because there is perhaps some truth in your argument that schools, on a large scale at least, are not "teaching Critical Race Theory" as a theory in total.

But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT. So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence. This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them.

So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions while students are continually being subjected to critical praxis, turning them into little social justice revolutionaries. But you already knew that, didn't you?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am not ultimately arguing about whether public schools are "teaching Critical Race Theory" or not.   While I believe they are to a certain degree as shown by my questions, we could go back and forth continually trying to argue that point. But that's what you want, isn't it? Because there is perhaps some truth in your argument that schools, on a large scale at least, are not "teaching Critical Race Theory" as a theory in total.
The OP claimed parents were checking their kids out of public school because they were pissed about schools teaching CRT.

I countered that was bullshit because CRT is a fairly sophisticated law school term that FOX News has recently turned into one of its many euphemisms employed to codify racism in less explicit terms.  As the Atlantic Monthly puts it:

[Critical Race] Theory soon stood in for anything resembling an examination of America’s history with race. Conservatives would boil it down further: Critical race theory taught Americans to hate America. Today, across the country, school curricula and workplace trainings include materials that defenders and opponents alike insist are inspired by critical race theory but that academic critical race theorists do not characterize as such.
Since academic critical race theorists came up with the term let's agree they control the term's meaning  and "defenders and opponents alike" are most mostly misusing the term and distorting its meaning beyond all use for claims like this forum.

Fox News gave only passing thought to critical race theory until last year. .... after Derek Chauvin was captured on video kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, and the United States became awash in anti-racist reading lists—some of which included books and articles that discussed critical race theory—Fox suddenly took a great interest in the idea. It became the latest in a long line of racialized topics (affirmative action perhaps being the most prominent) that the network has jumped on. Since June 5, 2020, the phrase has been invoked during 150 broadcasts.
So, this very recent and very deliberately mis-defined use of the word as it appears in Republican legislation and  punditry over the past year is almost entirely a Frankenstein of FOX News' manufacture.  If FOX News had not been misinforming you for the past year, you would not now be trying to argue that anti-racist classroom conversation are "engaged in praxis that founded upon the ideology of CRT."  FOX News taught you that- not law professors and certainly not classroom observation.

It is false to say that parents are upset about teaching CRT.  It is correct to say that parents have been made upset by FOX News propaganda painting all anti-racist speech as "radical CRT" without ever worrying too much about the meaning of the term or the truth.

But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT.
Bullshit.   I think you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT.

So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence.
  • Now "raising consciousness about one's oppression"  is CRT?  Really?  Would you say that Moses was praxising CRT in Egypt?
  • Can you explain what you find objectionable about raising consciousness about oppression?
This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them.
Again, that's not just CRT- that is the nature of all Civil Rights movements.  Harvey Milk raised my consciousness about my oppressed existence as a closeted gay man, we identified that closet and the absence of civil ceremony as systems of our oppression and dismantled them with some real success over 40 years.  This reads to me as if you are using CRT to conceal an objection to civil rights movements generally.  Patrick Henry raised Americans' consciousness about  their oppressed existence as colonial subjects of the King of England, they identified the monarchy's taxes and armies as the systems of that oppression and dismantled them.   Is it only CRT when black people's consciousness is raised?  What's wrong with dismantling systems of oppression?

So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions
Beg pardon but I firmly believe there's no point in debating until both sides are in agreement on definitions.  Definitions are an essential pre-requisite and never a distraction because the debate can't be truly engaged until definitions are resolved.   I don't understand people who pretend to discuss the truth of any idea without first making sure they are discussing the same idea.

while students are continually being subjected to critical praxis, turning them into little social justice revolutionaries. But you already knew that, didn't you?
So you're objecting to students being taught to strive for a more just society?  It sounds like a good thing to me.

  • "revolutionary" is a relative term you've used twice.  To be clear, I do not see any encouragement of violence and  I do see active encouragement of non-violence in revolution in all the K-12 civil rights education that I'm aware of.
  • In terms of threats of violence and active harm to the peace of our Nation, I see any apology or endorsement for the seditions of Jan 6th as far more revolutionary and favoring the restoration of old, defeated tools of oppression- voter nullification, angry mobs, nooses on the Capitol lawn, anti-vax, etc.  I think its clear that FOX News and Trump are teaching our children far more radical  and far less sustainable ideologies than civil rights in the classroom.
It never seems to come up in these discussions but CRT is also an inherently anti-Liberal theory which I consider quite wrongheaded.  Where Derrick Bell  argues that liberation movements and equal rights under the law will never resolve the imbalances in power so long as the majority outnumbers, I counter that Feminism and gay rights even just since Bell coined Critical Race Theory demonstrates that non-violent integration is achievable and probably even the only really sustainable approach.  Equity is a fine objective but not at the expense of equality.

Whatever my objections to CRT, I oppose the suppression of CRT or any theory in the classroom.  Get it out there, let's discuss it.  The shutting down of any discussion of CRT by Republican controlled State legislatures; that is the only really revolutionary violence being done to America here.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
If FOX News had not been misinforming you for the past year, you would not now be trying to argue that anti-racist classroom conversation are "engaged in praxis that founded upon the ideology of CRT." FOX News taught you that- not law professors and certainly not classroom observation.
I don't read/watch Fox News so this accusation is completely baseless and untrue.


So placing the focus of the argument on whether schools are "teaching CRT" is simply a distraction of definitions
Beg pardon but I firmly believe there's no point in debating until both sides are in agreement on definitions. Definitions are an essential pre-requisite and never a distraction because the debate can't be truly engaged until definitions are resolved.
Then why are we still playing the game where you pretend that you don't understand exactly what I am talking about when I use specific terminology and phrases in this statement:
  • "But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT. So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence. This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them."
I know that you are too intelligent not to understand how definitions operate in understanding and disseminating these ideas. Yet you are still asking insincere questions like whether or not I want a just society, as though we have the same definition of justice.


But let me reiterate my post #24 as statements about what the largest teacher union in the country is promoting for teachers to engage students with in the classroom:
These above points are the practical application of Critical Race Theory. The language and the ideology are both present. But if you can identify a different ideology or framework that would be a more plausible foundation than CRT for the above points that are currently being taught in public schools, I would be happy to hear it.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't read/watch Fox News so this accusation is completely baseless and untrue.
As the Atlantic Monthly article demonstrated, CRT did not exist in the American conversation until Fox News put it there last summer.  FOX News is the origin point for your misconceptions about CRT, whether or not you know it.

Then why are we still playing the game where you pretend that you don't understand exactly what I am talking about when I use specific terminology and phrases in this statement:
  • "But you and I both know that teachers are engaged in praxis that is founded upon the ideology of CRT. So even if they are not teaching the particulars of the theory, they are encouraging students to reflect in order to raise consciousness of their oppressed existence. This consciousness raising serves as a revolutionary call to action to further identify systems of oppression in order to dismantle them."
No game. 

  • Raising children's consciousness about racism is not teaching the legal theory CRT, as you concede when you say "even if [teachers] are not teaching the particulars of [CRT]....".  This is the point where where our disagreement ends since my argument is only that teachers are not teaching the particulars of CRT and so claiming as much is a fake, invented, false reason to pull your kids out of school.
  • Objections to raising a child's awareness on most  any subject is a poor reason to pull your kids out of school.
  • Raising children's consciousness about racism is a necessary part of American learning.  I don't know how you teach American history, society, literature, etc. without raising consciousness about racism in America. 
  • I have no objection to teaching (high school) children how to identify the means of oppression and how to non-violently dismantle those mean.  I don't know how you teach about voting in a Democratic society, for example,  without talking about voting as an instrument used to dismantle the systems of oppression as opposed to say, assaulting the Capitol to prevent democratic change.
if you can identify a different ideology or framework that would be a more plausible foundation than CRT for the above points that are currently being taught in public schools, I would be happy to hear it.
I could not have been more clear on this, I don't know why you are pretending otherwise.  I said:

"....you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT."




Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
As the Atlantic Monthly article demonstrated, CRT did not exist in the American conversation until Fox News put it there last summer. FOX News is the origin point for your misconceptions about CRT, whether or not you know it.
Again, this assertion of yours is both baseless and untrue. I have been studying CRT for the past few years. I can't put an exact date on when it popped up on my radar, but it was well before last summer. If Fox News did not start talking about before last summer, then it cannot possibly be the source of my "misconceptions" about CRT.


  • Raising children's consciousness about racism is not teaching the legal theory CRT, as you concede when you say "even if [teachers] are not teaching the particulars of [CRT]....". This is the point where where our disagreement ends since my argument is only that teachers are not teaching the particulars of CRT and so claiming as much is a fake, invented, false reason to pull your kids out of school.
That may be your argument. And I am simply making the point that you don't have to teach the theory of CRT in order to train children to see the world as defined by CRT. And it is this critical praxis that is the cause for many parents pulling their kids out of school. While they may not articulate it clearly, that is a good reason.


Objections to raising a child's awareness on most any subject is a poor reason to pull your kids out of school.
At face value, this statement might have some merit. But when "raising awareness/consciousness" means training children to see oppression of non-whites by whites in pretty much everything, with the goal of tearing down the alleged systems of oppression, then your statement doesn't seem so innocent.


Raising children's consciousness about racism is a necessary part of American learning. I don't know how you teach American history, society, literature, etc. without raising consciousness about racism in America.
There is the game. You are misusing the term racism in order to insert your foreign definition into the conversation.


I have no objection to teaching (high school) children how to identify the means of oppression and how to non-violently dismantle those mean.
Is the Constitution a system of oppression?


I could not have been more clear on this, I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. I said:

"....you are mis-characterizing anti-racist speech as CRT."
"Anti-racist" as defined by who?