You are lying. https://nypost.com/2021/06/15/parents-seeing-through-educrats-lies-about-critical-race-theory/ Parents seeing through educrats’ lies about critical race theory can ‘fight the power’ and win It’s hard to know what’s worse — brainwashing kids or lying about it. Parents are worried that their kids are being indoctrinated with critical race theory — a highly ideological account of US history and society that frames the nation as irredeemably racist and white Americans as uniformly bigoted. But they can’t get straight answers. Local school officials lie to them, claiming children are merely being taught to be “critical thinkers.” On Saturday, the truth came out. Teachers unions and activists held rallies in 22 cities to support critical race theory — and the organizers have unabashedly made it clear the goal is to recruit students to far-left causes. The Zinn Education Project, which organized Saturday’s events, cranks out race-centric material for schools across the country. Lesson plans are free for schools to download. Parents wondering where the anti-American ideas their kids are getting come from can visit the Web site. Prepare to be shocked. The project was founded by the late Howard Zinn, a Marxist historian who famously said that teaching social studies wasn’t about dates and events and forming well-informed citizens: The goal, he insisted, was to impel students to want to change the world, overthrowing the status quo. A Zinn lesson called “Students Design a Reparations Bill” asks students to improve on the “flimsy” reparations bills floating in Congress. Critical thinking isn’t encouraged. This isn’t a debate about whether there should be reparations. It’s one-sided indoctrination. “As racial justice activists, students are all on the ‘same side’ in this role play,” says the Zinn site. Other hard-left groups supplying social-studies materials for schools include the Southern Poverty Law Center and Black Lives Matter at School. SPLC instructs educators to stand their ground against parents and “resist efforts to maintain the status quo.” No wonder parents get the runaround. The pushback is gathering momentum, even so, and it isn’t just white families protesting. Keisha King, a black mother from Duval County, Florida, warned her state’s board of education that telling a minority child that he’s the victim of oppression is “the essence of holding a child back.” Michael Rivera, a Hispanic Virginian, explains that he married a wonderful woman who happens to be white. “My son is white.” He objects that “according to critical race theory, my son should have white guilt and white privilege.” In Guilford, Conn., some 500 parents are petitioning for a curriculum that allows students to learn “without the titles of racist and victim.” Yet Guilford’s superintendent insists schools aren’t teaching critical race theory. Does he think parents are lying about the homework in their kids’ backpacks? In Greenwich, Conn., parents lined up at the microphone at a school-board meeting to quote materials their children had brought home, including a “white-bias” survey for seventh-graders. The board members and local superintendent sat silently, tolerating parents but showing no interest in engaging. Last week, the superintendent sent a response to parents saying Greenwich wants students to be “critical thinkers” but deftly denying that critical race theory is part of the curriculum. That may be technically true. Critical race theory originated in the academic ivory tower. But what’s being taught in schools across the country is a simplified version of the same nonsense. Since school administrators will lie or obfuscate to push critical race theory, parents have one choice: They have to run candidates to replace school boards. School-board elections are usually quiet because unions and other insiders like it that way. Now is the time for parents to grab control. Twenty states with GOP legislative majorities are trying to ban critical race theory. They aren’t calling for whitewashing American history, contra the lies of activists and their big-media allies. All the lawmakers want are diverse viewpoints — real critical thinking. And they would prohibit shaming students for their “privilege.” Even so, state bans are not ideal because it’s hard to know what’s going on in each school. That’s what local school boards are for. Even in blue states like New York and Connecticut, Republican candidates who challenge local school boards will make inroads and gain converts. This is a winning issue for the right: Parents — Democrats and Republicans, black and white — want their children educated, not indoctrinated. Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
99.9% of people have no idea what CRT is. I remember learning about CRT way back in 2004 (in high school no less). But the big thing is that CRT was written as a critique of the basic language of legislation in the US and the US legal system. It has nothing to do with guilt or or shame. It was designed as a method to explain why the civil rights movement largely stalled in the 70s and 80s. The point was that civil rights legislation in the 60s ended segregation but other relics of racial segregation and discrimination were embedded in other laws and within the justice system itself. And these structural issues inhibited the ability of the civil rights movement to make further progress in racial equity. But the key is that this was all a critique of the legal system. It has nothing to do with white guilt or personal feelings. I was actually taught CRT in high school and in hindsight its such a complex and difficult topic to consume as a high schooler. And frankly, CRT is a very obscure area of study and analysis that only law students really understand with any depth. And CRT itself is only a part of a broader legal analysis of inequity in the legal system (there are other parts of critical legal studies that focus on women and LGBT communities as well). So while I think that CRT is frankly too advanced for most high schoolers to understand, I also acknowledge that the right has basically morphed CRT into something that doesn't resemble the actual legal theory and have just turned this into a new culture war issue to wage war with. There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching CRT other than the fact that most kids will misunderstand the legal theories. A lot of law students don't even understand critical legal studies.
No. I am not lying. That article doesn't address what CRT even is or teaches. It isn't for elementary school children at all. Once again, you seem to have fallen for hype and hysteria, rather than do some research. Most people aren't aware of what it actually is. This article doesn't explain it. The right has gone out of the way to label all sorts of things as CRT. My guess is that many of the teachers who were supporting it probably don't understand what it is. There are parts of it that almost everyone would consider common sense. The author of the piece you posted isn't an educator or scholar and doesn't seem to have a real understanding of CRT either.
I noticed you never express any anything beyond basic analysis in your own words and just spam a article. If you want to be more credible when you link an article, after the article express in your own words the key points and evidence the article presents. It tells us you are engaged and not just looking at click bait titles and forming your entire world views on them
That isn't answering the question. Do you believe the current factual state that the median white household having 1000% more wealth than the median black household is due to past transgressions that effect a community systemically or do you believe that 1000% wealth gap is due to white families having 1000% more gumption and work ethic?
setting aside the part about being shamed because of skin color for a minute.. You use an interesting word: “were”. I don’t know if that is intentional or meaningful, because I asked if Jim Crow and Slavery “are” causes of economic disparity. So, I gotta ask, do you mean slavery and Jim Crow “were” causes of economic disparity … meaning that in the past they “were” causes, but as of today, so much time has passed that they “are” no longer causes. I’m not trying to nit pick, but it is a rather important distinction.
That would make you an anti-racist and a supporter of a major tenet of CRT. This is what I mean that a lot of people don't understand these ideas
I think you are over-analyzing. Slavery and Jim Crow were obviously in the past, hence the "were", but to your obvious question, while the effects carry into present times, there will be different opinions on how to address this best.
One reasons cities are bad at providing these things is that they have less tax dollars per capita than rural or suburban areas. Often this is because money paid by city residents get redistributed to other areas of the state and nation. That's politics and our system as a Republic. I don't disagree about shaming white people. No one should be ashamed or be meant to feel guilty. But I don't think that's the goal here - it's not about making white people feel guilty, rather it is to help everyone gain awareness of why problems exist based on what happened in the past...all so we can move forward. Knowing history and understanding the injustices a people suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the past isn't about making anyone feel guilty, it's about inspiring people to do the right thing. Justice benefits everyone.
https://www.heritage.org/civil-righ...eory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America SUMMARY Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes “normalized,” along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement. KEY TAKEAWAYS Critical Race Theory makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, which reimagines the U.S. as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. CRT’s intolerance can be found in schools, the workplace, and the entertainment sector, “normalizing” beliefin systemic racism for the average American. (longer read at the link)
One of the core principles of critical race theory is that race is a social construct. So if this right wing think tank can't get a core basic aspect of the theory right why should we believe anything else?
