Say bro if you're gonna reference me be a man and alert me. I didn't say the **** you are attributing to me in this post so thats really b**** made not to alert me As far as your quote, what lies are taught in history class?
"Teacher Dana Stangel-Plowe Speaks Out About Dwight-Englewood School": https://www.fairforall.org/profiles-in-courage/dwight-englewood-whistleblower/ including her resignation letter
Actually, you can find what it says here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping I think its main flaw is that it mischaracterizes and straw-mans the "CRT" argument (in quotes because I don't like the label) to be teaching something akin to black supremacy, and then instructs the federal agencies to interpret the trainings of their agencies through this lens. Your bulleted list is pulled form the Sec2.a, "Divisive Comments". Given this EO, I think it'd be hard to teach concepts of systemic racism, unconscious bias, or affirmative action without running the risk of sanction by higher-ups. For example, if a training were to point out that a black family couldn't acquire real estate eighty years ago because of redlining that could be the basis of intergenerational wealth while a white family could and has benefited from that and that advantage could have since snowballed into more benefits in education and wealth, that could be interpreted as skating close to the line of Sec 2.a.2 that the US is fundamentally racist because it has allowed the effects of systemic racism to echo through the economy, 2.a.3 that the white family is unconsciously contributing to systemic racism, or 2.a.9 that the white family didn't really achieve their wealth solely with hard work and merit but by historical systemic racism. That past racist policies are still having intergenerational impacts on family wealth is obviously true, but it would be dangerous for a federal agency to say it with this EO in place. They could of course argue that this training doesn't run afoul of the rule, but per the old adage - 'if you're arguing, you're losing.' I'd also point out Section 2.b: So if I were to say in a government training that white people benefit from intergenerational wealth, or are psychologically ascribed more status or respect, I would be 'race stereotyping.' An EO that says agencies can't say things that are demonstrably true and proven in studies is a problem.
"Activist Judges" = judges who make decisions that right wingers don't like "Federalism" = rejecting federal authority in favor of state authority, but only for policies that right wingers don't like "Fiscally conservative" = only spend money and run deficits on things that right wingers like "CRT, 1619 Project" = talking about slavery or racism in a way that right wingers don't like None of these things actually mean what they would common-sense mean - the Fox News Extended Universe epistemology revels in this kind of doublespeak, but obviously it predates that. There is of course one thread that ties all of it together though.
Some bomb-throwers. Bruce Gilley: Bruce Gilley vs Cancel Culture – Quillette Peter Boghossian: Author of recent academic hoax faces disciplinary action by Portland State (insidehighered.com) James Lindsay: Why grievance studies hoaxer and atheist James Lindsay wants to save Southern Baptists (religionnews.com) What kind of stuff are you getting into, Mojo?
Not trying to besmirch them as academics. Just pointing out they look like active alt-right propagandists given what I find with a 2 minute google search. Which makes sense given how propagandy the infographic is. You might read me repeat something here that sounds eerily similar to what some anti-racist propagandist might have espoused. But I don't deliver their articles, memes, and infographics here in full form. I don't understand why some posters just want to be conduits to magnify what some other guy is saying instead of sharing what they themselves believe.
Gilley's schtick appears to be defending colonialism and them claiming cancel culture when people disagree with his writings. The three appear to focus on the right wing opposition to "woke."
Imagine being over 40 and centering your career around combating "wokeness" like a 15 year old red pilled incel addicted to right wing YouTube gaming channels. Legit.
Rando professors who tweet a lot and call themselves "IDW" and "redpillers" to earn extra money on the side.
