Critical Race Theory.

a couple of days old but worth a look

https://www.realcleareducation.com/..._has_no_place_in_american_schools_110595.html

excerpt

In a proposed rule April 19, the Biden administration’s Education Department laid out plans to strongly encourage, if not require, federally funded “American History and Civics Education” programs to focus on “the consequences of slavery” and “the ongoing national reckoning with systemic racism.” The program would “incorporate anti-racist practices into teaching and learning.”

There could be legal problems, however. The use of highly charged and stylized code words like “equity,” “systemic racism,” and “anti-racism” make clear that this is far more than a plan to teach American history, flaws and all. On the contrary, the administration seeks to entrench a comprehensive – almost ontological – historical view, often referred to as critical race theory.

According to the department’s rulemaking notice, grant-funded teachers must emphasize racial “identities” and create an “identity-safe learning environment.” Teachers also must teach the tenets of critical race theory: “systemic racism, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history.” One critical race theory proponent even called Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society “racist.”

Teachers will also be required to emphasize “equity” as the solution.

Here is where the legal problems begin. By incorporating these ideas into a federally funded grant program, the administration sends a clear message: America is not a country that has struggled to overcome racism but one that itself remains deeply racist – and this premise should form the foundation of “American History and Civics.”

This concerns parents like Scarlett Johnson, a Hispanic-American whose children are taught critical race theory in Wisconsin’s Mequon-Thiensville district. She worries that her children “are being exposed to a curriculum that claims the U.S. is an oppressive country, which denies them the ability to learn about history and have hope for their own success, regardless of the color of their skin.”
​

more at the link

​

 

No, it actually was some good articles on historical stuff. As a subscriber to the Times for decades at this point, i can tell you that's what my experience with it was, reading a bunch of articles. Not unlike any thematically organized collection of articles, at least in my experience.

I'm sorry you disagreed and had a worse experience - hopefully in another 2 years you will get past it.

 

wow. I have to hope there's a broader context for that quote. Liberty and equality as ideals are arguably what ended slavery and continue to serve as human rights ideals to combat slavery elsewhere in the world today

 

For whom are these innocuous words "highly charged"?

 

The fact that you're yelling at a stranger on the internet about his recollection of reading an NYT special section from 2 years ago indicates there's something there.

Im an expert in having contemporaneously read the 1619 project special section, and then moving on with my life.

If only you could get to this plane!

 

I don't know about "equity," but certainly "systemic racism" and "anti-racism" have been used in combative and extremely controversial ways. These are not terms that one can simply stipulate and say "that's what the tern means." These terms mean many things to many different people, some benign and some not-so-benign. I believe that's what the author is referring to by saying the terms are "highly charged."

and I suppose if by "equity" one is employing a thinly-disguised argument for things like affirmative action or reparations, that would make the term "equity" highly charged as well

 

Ann Althouse has argued pretty consistently these past couple of weeks that the left has failed to define what CRT is :

see for example:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/06/in-fact-i-dont-even-believe-that-most.html

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/06/these-attacks-on-people-who-are.html

where she writes:

"I challenge proponents of Critical Race Theory to speak to ordinary people in terms they can understand and explain the theory, why it's a theory, and what is meant by 'critical.'... Why can't that be done clearly and straightforwardly? People are right to feel anxious and suspicious about something so big and powerful that can't be talked about. To say 'In fact, I don’t even believe that most people have any real concept of what critical race theory is' is to blame the people for failing to understand what isn't being discussed clearly. That's perverse and elitist."​

 

lol

 

you said "It's not the job of the Democrats (Left) to define CRT since its not part of any democratic platform. That's a trap by Althouse if they start trying to define it they will have to own all of the flamethrowers."

and I laughed at your statement. that's a legitimate response

 

I can tell you with near 100% confidence that I put more thought into my "lol" response than you did in your ad hominem response to my posting Althouse's two blog essays

 

Let's be honest here though - what is happening is that any teaching about racism is now under the umbrella of CRT. What this means you can't even teach about the idea of systemic racism or that racism exists today - conservatives are using CRT as a political weapon to ensure that the education system is slanted towards teaching students that whites have done no wrong and all is good.

 

agreed in part but disagree in part--"to ensure that the education system is slanted towards teaching students that whites have done no wrong" . . . I don't think anyone is arguing that this is what should be taught. That goes for conservatives.

I also think that what @jiggyfly ignores above is that if CRT is not accurately defined or described by its advocates (on the left or otherwise), the narrative will persist that all CRT exists to do is inculcate white guilt in whites and perpetuate black victimhood in blacks.