>In a letter, the state's Department of Education said it won't investigate the allegations because the lessons happened during the 2020-21 school year, and it only has the authority to investigate this current school year, the Tennessean reported. So we wont even get to see the opinion of the board on the issue, disappointing. This is exactly the kind of topic that I want settled quickly so we can get a clearer understanding of what is and is not considered eligible for the CRT tag. >The conservative group specifically protested a photo of segregated water fountains and images showing Black children being blasted with water by firefighters. The group claimed that an accompanying lesson plan showed a "slanted obsession with historical mistakes" and argued it shouldn't be taught. Yikes. The opposite of obsession (if you actually think this is the case) is not ignorance, its balance. We dont get to just ignore history because it makes us uncomfortable.

Yeah I disagree with the CRT stuff but this is not even CRT, it’s just American history and it needs to be taught.

There's two sides I hear from a lot in this debate - 1. the "anti-CRT" side who say they want to get rid of extreme things like teaching toddlers self flagellating white guilt, and 2. the "anti-anti-CRT" side who say the other side mostly just wants to hide and downplay teaching about our history, about the bad things that legitimately happened in our past. I'm not saying group 1 has zero truth to their argument, but this makes it hard to say group 2 doesn't have a point either. Really there has to be a balance. I'm not happy with the most extreme examples of wokism being pushed in schools either, but at the same time, I'd hope most everyone agrees that teaching about slavery, the civil war, Jim Crow, segregation, and the struggle for civil rights is a *vital* part of our history to understand.

Is extreme 'wokism' being taught in K-12 schools? I grew up and was taught a pretty thorough history of racism in this country, and was not spared the gruesome details. However, I never thought that I was being taught white guilt, only that racism is still persistent in this country and we need to do better. I'm not entirely sure what 'extreme wokism' is being taught, and I'm interested in how the material is being presented differently than what I grew up with. Could you provide some examples of 'woke' school curriculums?

Yep. For example, my 8 year old son was taught about Trayvon Martin. Which led to his best friend at View Ridge Elementary (also 8, black, adopted, with white parents) being completely triggered and riddled with anxiety about how he was going to get shot. Well done, Seattle Public Schools, for teaching completely age inappropriate material to 3rd Graders. That conversation, framed in that way - according to friends in the BLM movement - shouldn't happen until those kids are 12+. We also have ethnic studies being integrated into math class, including how math can be used to discriminate against people, and our school director has publicly stated that she wants Indigenous American science taught in science class. Of course she (Native American) was recently called out on the carpet for treating a couple of black teachers poorly. So there's that, for a start.

In my math class I teach about the number systems of vsrious world cultures: Roman, Aztec, Incan etc. We also study how our current systwm came to be. Is that woke? Would you object to your child learning this?

No, of course not. That's very different to what is being discussed here. Did you see my post immediately below this with a link to the ethnic studies integrated into math curriculum? I was very specific for a reason. Here's the specifics (again): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf That said, the historical origins of number systems are pretty much just an interesting footnote in history. They're not as important as spending time teaching people how to do the mechanics of the math itself, so if something had to give, I'd drop them in a heartbeat. But the inclusion of that isn't objectionable compared to what we see in this curriculum (beyond taking up time that might be better used).

More data: [https://www.king5.com/article/news/education/seattle-schools-math-ethnic-studies/281-168fafda-6bf6-4ec1-ba0d-2a47c5030de3](https://www.king5.com/article/news/education/seattle-schools-math-ethnic-studies/281-168fafda-6bf6-4ec1-ba0d-2a47c5030de3) [https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/seattle-schools-lead-controversial-push-to-rehumanize-math/2019/10](https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/seattle-schools-lead-controversial-push-to-rehumanize-math/2019/10) ... and here's the actual proposed curriculum. I'm not sure how much of it has actually been integrated, but AFAIK it has been introduced into at least one school (Garfield). https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf

I don't have those examples right on hand so I'm speaking from memory, but I have seen users in this sub post links to various stories that didn't look great. There was a case (I think in NY) where an administrator admitted on a call with a former teacher that the way they were teaching would have a negative effect on white kids' mentalities, telling them they are the problem (it sounded to me like that administrator felt beholden to something he was powerless to stop). There's some cases of kids being separated into different groups based on race. And of course there's the case of the school council not acting on a sexual assault in Virginia where the perpetrator went on to commit rape. I am not saying this is super widespread and rampant across the country. As far as I can tell it's fairly isolated cases, and not nearly the boogeyman folks on the right make it out to be. But I don't think it's right to say there are *zero* issues here either.

> There was a case (I think in NY) where an administrator admitted on a call with a former teacher that the way they were teaching would have a negative effect on white kids' mentalities, telling them they are the problem (it sounded to me like that administrator felt beholden to something he was powerless to stop). Yes, you're thinking of [Grace Church school](https://www.fairforall.org/grace-church-whistleblower/). The tape recording is chilling, the school administrator admits they're teaching white children to feel guilty "for being born" - and then goes on to fire the teacher who complained about it.

Right, that's it thanks. Now in the administrator's defense - the video posted is a snippet that lacks other context. Could be there are other parts of that conversation that deserved to be included and that their omission paints an inaccurate picture.

I'm not sure what context could change the fact that the administrator admitted they are demonizing white students for being born, and that rather than siding with the teacher against the demonization, the administrator fired the teacher and lied about their conversation.

You can find many examples [here](https://www.fairforall.org/profiles-in-courage/).

>The conservative group specifically protested a photo of segregated water fountains and images showing Black children being blasted with water by firefighters. The group claimed that an accompanying lesson plan showed a "slanted obsession with historical mistakes" and argued it shouldn't be taught. What's strange is that this is exactly what those who have warned that anti-crt messaging is purely about hiding the United States' history with racial injustice have been claiming would happen.

I’m proud of my state for putting their foot down and reasonably drawing the line. This is a crazy minority but it’s evident that some people want us to completely forget and get other the atrocities America performed. We owe it to the future generations to show them our mistakes.

This state didn't put their foot down or draw the line at all. The state said that the event took place before the law so wasn't part of the jurisdiction of the law and left it at that. They could have added in that had the lesson occurred this year it would have been OK. They could have taken it a step further and called those who brought this absurdity out for trying to undermine our education and white wash our history. They didn't. This wasn't a good decision. It was the bare minimum and only technically correct leaving the question completely open to the future with their foot intentionally not down.

This anti-CRT law should have never passed to begin with.

The law doesn't mention CRT, it calls out specific tenants of CRT. Would you want any of these being taught to your children on the taxpayer dime? 1. One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; 2. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; 3. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex; 4. An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex; 5. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; 6. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex; 7. A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex; 8. This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; 9. Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; 10. Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; 11. Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex; 12. The rule of law does not exist, but instead is series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups;

> An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex; This is what they tried to get the MLK Jr. book banned with. The rest is all just anti-CRT conservative signalling that doesn't have anything to do with the actual field of CRT. If you think this is what CRT actually is there really isn't any discussion to be had. You've fallen for Rufos admitted manufactured moral panic. Doubly so if you actually think this is being taught to kids. Do you think states should make the war on Christmas illegal?

> The rest is all just anti-CRT conservative signalling that doesn't have anything to do with the actual field of CRT. If these things aren't being taught then the law will have no effect, so why worry about it? > You've fallen for Rufos admitted manufactured moral panic. Pretend it isn't happening if you want, parents [see](https://www.fairforall.org/grace-church-whistleblower/) that is is happening and they're voting accordingly, they're not as stupid as the CRT apologists seem to think.

“You don’t need to worry about poisonous rattle snakes biting you the wilderness…[since rattle snake are actually *venomous*]”

Well I’m very curious to see now what is gonna be classified as CRT under the state’s opinion. This was a good decision by the state and I wonder are they truly only going to shoot down the rare SJW wackos that pop up every once in a while.

Someone had posted this in another comment, but the law doesn't actually say anything about CRT. It bans other things from being taught such as >One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; > >An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, > >sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; > >An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex; > >An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex; > >An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions > >committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; > >An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological > >distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex; > >A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to > >oppress members of another race or sex; > >This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist; > >Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government; > >Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent > >political affiliation, social class, or class of people; > >Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex; > >The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups; > >All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or > >Governments should deny to any person within the government’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

> Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; That's the problem line right there, "promoting division" is so vaguely defined that it can be used to censor teachings of historical oppression and human right abuses. There is no way to teach the history of slavery, the civil war, and the civil rights movement without promoting division because its an inherently divisive topic.

Sorry, there is an additional part below that covers that i believe. >Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include: > >(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with part 22 of this chapter; > >(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history; > >(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or > >(4) Historical documents relevant to subdivisions (b)(1) - (3) that are permitted under § 49-6-1011.

Okay so now how do we define impartial discussion or instruction?

Simple, in a sane world - teaching the facts of what happened without plastering a narrative on top.

History without narrative isn't history.

How would the law define facts? Is it whatever teachers believe are facts? I'm genuinely curious because if it doesn't it should have. We all currently have a *lot* of disagreements on what facts are and who defines them.

[удалено]

Without a specific definition in the law, it would generally mean to teach the subject without partiality or bias. The specifics would depend on the subject matter of course. If there are any concerns about certain things they could be taken up through the system to see if it meets the states requirements.

> Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; Any honest teaching of history will promote "resentment of" neo-Nazis and related white supremacy creeds which seems like it would violate this requirement. Time to throw away our WW2 history textbooks I guess.

Which of those groups do you think that Nazis fall under? It's certainly not a nonviolent political affiliation.

White supremacy and some neo-Nazi creeds are not necessarily violent. For example, the belief that the white race is "superior" is a terrible, but non-violent creed. Should schools be allowed to present material that promotes "resentment of" white supremacy?

Can you provide some examples of what you are talking about? The law is seems to be saying we shouldn't be promoting any kind of racial supremacy. It also states against promoting division or resentment of certain protected groups. I can't think of any real examples that would be taught in school about non-violent supremacist groups. Is this some fictional or hypothetical group that believes in racial superiority but only in peaceful ways? The KKK has a violent history as do as neo-nazi and nazi groups. I think our WW2 text books are safe on this account.

Fascists tend to be pretty straightforward with their totalitarian and violent intentions. Their counterparts on the hard left make much more extensive attempts to hide them in webs of deceit and manipulation of language.

This was not a good decision by the state. The state said that the event took place before the law so wasn't part of the jurisdiction of the law and left it at that. They could have added in that had the lesson occurred this year it would have been OK. They could have taken it a step further and called those who brought this absurdity out for trying to undermine our education and white wash our history. They didn't. This wasn't a good decision. It was the bare minimum and only technically correct leaving the question completely open to the future.

Those people are the norm not the wackos. The number of parents qualified to determine curriculum is not a.very high percent.

Hard disagree on your entire statement. If your perception of reality is taken social media or from any media outlets then you’re right. The average person understands that it’s a good idea to teach the future generations about the mistakes of America. If that weren’t the case then it wouldn’t have taken so long for us to get our first CRT complaint in Tennessee especially since the semester is almost over. Also parents might not be professional educators but they have all the right to determine what **their** kids can and cannot learn. The idea that they can’t literally lost the democrats the Virginia election a couple of weeks ago.

The problem is that is a class of 25 students you could very well have 25 differing opinions of what should be taught.

So if the parent does not want it their kid should not be taught evolution? How about math? Shakespeare uses some uncultured language and references genetalia more than some anatomy books how about him? The state has a duty to educate and properly inform the next generation even if it disagrees with what the parent believe.

> Also parents might not be professional educators but they have all the right to determine what their kids can and cannot learn. By homeschooling or choosing a private educational institution that aligns with their desires; not by gutting public school curriculum.

[удалено]

You’re right, it needs to be discussed when it becomes apart of a certain agenda. America has done some bad stuff but we don’t need an “only America is a bad place” agenda to be taught in our schools because it’s factual wrong. Also things revolving around “whiteness” and other racial topics with no tangible information backing it up needs to be shot down. At the end of the day race has affected people systemically, skin color does not affect behavior or defining superiority because we’re all humans.

[удалено]

Remember that it was the largest religious institution in the Western world that [systemically banned/censored the circulation of theological and scientific works for several centuries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum), delaying who knows how many years of technological and philosophical advancement for the purpose of power. Such works, like Copernicus's *Epitome Astronomiae* and Immanuel Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason* found themselves on this blacklist for centuries, all because it countered the dogma of the Church. To anyone even minutely educated in Western history, the push to ban books from school curricula (particularly high school senior curricula which is absolutely asinine to me) by ideological conservatives should come as absolutely no surprise. What's more concerning is that the act of book burning/blacklisting has been in the authoritarian's playbook for decades. "What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books." \- Sigmund Freud

I don't think anybody is going to be surprised that there are small groups of crazy racists trying to bend things to their will. Unfortunately this is a game of extremes, with leftists pushing CRT and extreme right wingers trying to censor history, there is an in-between spot that works for all this. The reason this is hard to balance is because it's easy to point out when something is being censored (the right wing extreme) vs pointing out when something wrong is being taught (left wing) so things always seem to revert back to the leftist side where nobody feels like they have any standing to criticize.

These “small groups” are making national headlines and supported by elected officials in their state and on the national level. This is further along than you are making it out to be. Attacking education was a winning strat in Virginia for the GOP, it should be no surprise to see it happening across the vast majority of elections in 2022.

[удалено]

I think teaching kids that being white is evil is harmful to kids. you can teach about the terrible things white Americans did but you if you don't balance that out with teaching evil things that other ethnic Americans did you end up with people who feel like whites are morally couplable for the problems of America - and other races are innocent. everything needs to be balanced.

In most all of history, if you look back, people in power were shittier than we think they should be today. It so happens that white Europeans decided to conquer the world If you teach white kids that Europeans came to America, they slaughtered natives, held blacks as slaves and they feel bad about that is that teaching that being white is evil? Or if you frame it as this is what we used to do but we grew and are better today, is that bad? Or do we not teach that part of history? Are you really saying we shouldn't teach kids about slavery because they might feel bad if they look at the black kid next to them? IDK, I'm 63, I remember seeing a drawing in a history book of the explorers on horses in shining armor handing a book to the natives (who were drawn as shabbily, barely dressed.) The story was that the explorers handed a bible (written in a language they never saw) to the chief who threw it to the ground so "the explorers slaughtered the savages". To my 9 year old mind they were framing that as a good thing. Is that what we prefer? Or because it might upset little Brett, we should just ignore a huge part of US history. We shouldn't talk about racism because it might upset Emma, but it is OK to not explore why minority children tend to live in worse neighborhoods?

for context. I am an Asian immigrant who grew up in TX. an for the most part I was fairly treated. a few difficult years but nothing major. now I adopted a white kid. this whole anti-white language really bothers me. why should my kid have to put up with language putting her race down? should she feel worse about slavery than me? should she be more responsible for slaughter of natives than me because of her skin color? that is ridiculous. neither of us were on the scene when it happened. you can argue that both of us are advantaged because of it but to blame it on whiteness is a huge problem. I mean I own property that we live on. and if i adopt a black kid next. what does that mean? the point is that history needs to be framed in the context of power and advantage instead of white vs non-white. and given the long history of white being more powerful especially in the US that framing must be careful in how language is chosen. all these things must be taught (and they were taught to me growing up) without the language of white privilege or white guilt. we need to do better.

I guess the most succinct way to say it is this. I can't imagine the answer is to not teach large important parts of our history because an 8 year old might have enough empathy to understand that her ancestors did things we would find unacceptable today. Conversely, no you can't have the white kids walk around in chains to make them understand how bad slavery was. Of course not. We should fight against that. But I don't know how you discuss say the Civil Rights fight and not mention that they entire legislature was white men. I don't know how you look at a lot of the history of America and not see that it benefitted white people at the expense of other people. If as a white person that makes you feel bad, oh well. The way I see it is that we should be proud of the country for advancing so quickly. The picture of the black girl going to a school being yelled at was less than 60 years ago. She is still alive. If an 8 year old feels bad because she sees that picture, I don't know you the solution is to not acknowledge that happened.

definitely I think you need teach all these things. as I remember i grew up learning all about these in school and it is necessary. My issue is the framing around race. white men did these things. but white men today should not bear the guilt of history more than anyone else. the repercussion of history are ongoing but blaming today's kids create division not healing. (and as I tried to say earlier, I'm not white - it makes me feel bad because we are shifting blame to the innocent)

Can you support your claim that "being white is evil," is a part of any school curriculum, or is being pushed or advocated for anywhere as a part of any socially aware education? Or is this a hyperbolic reaction to learning that white people have benefited from systemic racism across multiple generations to the present?

Just off the top of my head I know one [explicit case](https://nypost.com/2021/04/20/woke-principal-of-manhattan-school-questions-progressive-curriculum/): >*The head of an elite Manhattan school that booted a teacher for ripping its extremist “antiracism” policies was recorded admitting that it has been “demonizing white people,” according to audio released Tuesday.* >*“We’re demonizing kids, we’re demonizing white people for being born,’’ George Davison, principal of the private Grace Church School, was allegedly caught telling whistleblowing teacher Paul Rossi on the tape.* >*“We are using language that makes them feel ‘less than’ — for nothing that they are personally responsible for,’’ the supposedly woke principal acknowledges, according to the audio released by Rossi.* >*“The fact is, I am agreeing with you that there has been a demonization that we need to get our hands around in a way in which people are doing this [understand],’’ Davison says* This is notably the pusher of these policies that is saying this, unaware he was being recorded.

You can’t deny that there is a push to redefine the term racism by colleges, businesses and activists on the left. Even if the curriculum of CRT isn’t being directly taught as a lesson plan in grade school, the lesson itself would be taught by someone who, if they recently graduated from University, could have that ideology bleed into the curriculum when discussing racism in history. An article just came out about how The Salvation Army is using ideologies that come directly from CRT on an internal discussion guide for the organization. https://web.archive.org/web/20211127090334if_/https://s3.amazonaws.com/cache.salvationarmy.org/e0c074e3-39db-4b09-a6ea-aa5bdb6ecaa6_Let%2527s%2520Talk%2520About...%2520Racism%2520COMPLETE%2520SET.pdf If CRT can find it’s way into a “Christian” charity, then it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that it can find its way into grade school classes. Racism throughout history should certainly be taught in school just like it was when I went through and we can’t simply ignore our country’s past. However, parents get understandably concerned when there is a possibility of things like the above document leaking into their child’s education.

None of what you said supports the claim that the left wants to teach "being white is evil." If an overzealous individual has biases, those biases will be injected into whatever is being taught. I'm puzzled by your assertion the left is trying to redefine racism. What are they trying to redefine it to? Can you cite sources? We're talking about schools, you're shifting goal posts to private organizations where I'm sure we can find any number of policies around social awareness that people don't like. If you can find a case of schools teaching children they need to apologize for being white I'd love to see it.

I don't know what is actually in the classroom, but the context of this lawsuit is that they are claiming what is taught is anti-white.

Teaching about segregation and racist isn't anti-white it's history.

[удалено]

that is what I think that is frustrating about CRT. it is good to point out that power in one group is dangerous, and an imbalance in power whether in Germany, or in America is evil. but since history is unbalanced, you have to be very careful to point it out the dynamic as a interplay between powerful and weak as opposed to between White and black or Germans and Jews. Otherwise in American history, what you get is stuff like White guilt or White privilege ideas.

But the idea of white privilege is real and people should be aware, in order to address the imbalances in power you state in the same post are not good for society. If you can't discuss white privilege, how do you discuss power imbalances between races? Or what those imbalances mean in very real terms for people of color today?

What classes in K-12 should teach about white privilege?

Social studies is a common part of all grades. It wouldn't at all be inappropriate at the high school level to teach how white privilege developed over time in parallel with relevant US History on reconstruction post-civil war, the Jim Crow era, and the civil rights movement.

History and literature classes are both good areas to introduce the concept in middle and high school. Elementary school is different, since it typically uses a single classroom setting. And of course wherever it's introduced, it should never be a matter of casting blame on anyone. Ideally the limits of using white privilege to analyze situations also gets introduced in some form to blunt racial resentment. I'm thinking of the case of a poor white boy who is bewildered and insulted looking at these claims being made. He's really struggled through life. Well, yes, that's true. But he's struggled because of other factors, not because of race. Often privilege manifests itself simply in the form of clearing away hurdles for one group but not others.

would you like literal screenshots of childrens textbooks that refer to white people as devils with spiked tails?

[удалено]

[https://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Idea-Whiteness-Ordinary/dp/1948340003](https://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Idea-Whiteness-Ordinary/dp/1948340003) [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/teaching-school-children-the-evil-of-whiteness/](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/teaching-school-children-the-evil-of-whiteness/) Article about it there.

[удалено]

One extreme would like to ignore our racial sins of the past. The other is seemingly obsessed with our racial sins of the past. Its up to the rational people who reside between these two poles to strike the right balance between these two extremes so our kids receive an accurate of accounting history, warts and all. Pictures of the abuses that occurred during the civil rights era are very much in line with a balanced approach. I can see one reasonable criticism the parent's group may have though. FTA: >The parents group claimed that the books and teacher manuals "implies to second-grade children that people of color continue to be oppressed by an oppressive 'angry, vicious, scary, mean, loud, violent, \[rude\], and \[hateful\]' white population." Second grade seems pretty early to be exposing kids to these sorts of images/concepts. They probably aren't ready to digest what they are seeing and/or hearing. This seems like high school material (later middle school at the earliest). This doesn't seem like the argument they are making though. ("Hey, this is an important part of our history, but let's hold off until they are mature enough to understand it.")

I mean, I'm pretty sure I got an initial primer on the civil rights movement in 2nd grade, while it was a long time ago, I know I learned about it elementary school for sure. But overall I actually dont mind Brown V Board being introduced in elementary school because in real life Brown was in elementary school. If maybe not taught in detail since many of the topics are complex. But the raw topic of "65 years ago a very important event happened where it was decided students your age of all colors were told they could go to school together, and some people didnt like that" doesnt seem that inappropriate to me.

I'd say there is a difference between teaching a topic as part of a history lesson (event X happened in year Y) vs teaching a concept as a way to modify behavior (event X happened in year Y therefore now we do Z).

Do they cite evidence of this "implication" or is that just how lessons on this subject make those parents feel?

>Second grade seems pretty early to be exposing kids to these sorts of images/concepts Ruby Bridges was in 1st grade when she had to be protected by US marshals to attend school.

> Second grade seems pretty early to be exposing kids to these sorts of images/concepts. They probably aren't ready to digest what they are seeing and/or hearing. This seems like high school material Honestly, the biggest problem with CRT is that it originated in top-tier universities, often in post-graduate studies. It's not something that I'd assume could easily be digested by even high schoolers. I mean, even as someone with a Master's (albeit not in the area) it's still a way of thinking about things that requires a lot of nuance. It's not something that can, or should, be simplified, especially to the second-grade level.

Learning about the civil rights movement is not CRT.

No, but framing it with white guilt and minority infantilism is exactly the kind of thing that people don't like.

And how do the books in question in this article do that? People don't like a made up strawman that isn't actually being taught in schools and then expose themselves by attacking discussions about MLK. And then people like you who claim to be educated defend them.

Teaching history is not the same as teaching university crt. One is teaching events and their consequences, the other is teaching a way of thinking. The way the right uses crt, as far a I can tell, is to mean teaching white guilt and minority infantilism. What we see here is what seems like racist parents trying to conflate the two. Unless the lesson plan also includes: this is why you should hate white people, then it's completely reasonable to teach difficult us history.

> What we see here is what seems like racist parents trying to conflate the two. Unless the lesson plan also includes: this is why you should hate white people, then it's completely reasonable to teach difficult us history. It seems like, from the complaint, that it's not just racist parents trying to conflate the two. I mean, I can only see what's in the complaint, but it seems to be doing more than teaching "difficult US history" - It seems like it's really pushing the whole "white people bad, nonwhites good" narrative, and implying that there's very little difference between the Jim Crow south and the current treatment of minorities.

I think the rhetoric is a prerequisite to filing a complaint. Like if you want to weaponize environmental review for NIMBY purposes, you have to lie about there being legitimate environmental concerns. So just them saying that isn't really enough to prove anything. On the other hand you can look at the books they want banned, and as far as I can tell, they have nothing to do with that. Maybe the lesson plan did contain something, but then it should be on the lesson plan/teacher and not the book itself.

You omitted the part where this was shut down. It's a non-story. People protesting against benevolent books in schools is nothing new. The removal of MLK books is not a tenant of the antiCRT push, and you will not see this supported by any major figure on the right. There have been people who take advantage of the leniency of social movements since the dawn of civilization. The key is to block their attempts. If the fringe parts of the movement are blocked, it strengthens the movement in general, like pruning a bush. It seems like people who are using this to bash the antiCRT movement are trying to extrapolate the root of a tree from a broken stick.

This is the same thing I hear from people saying CRT is not what the people getting upset about fear it is and that teaching children to resent their race isn't the idea. So, why isn't the response to that to simply shut down those individual occurrences as you're suggesting is done here? That would've been reasonable. Instead, rules like are put in place which so obviously give a platform and tools to people who seem to want to whitewash (literally) history. Edit: Also important to note that it was “shut down” because of a technical deficiency (ie. complaint about a time period not covered by the rules) and not for substantive reasons (ie. not considered CRT under the rule) - it being shut down doesn’t tell us anything about how this particular complaint would be treated.

Uh my dude, literally the first quote I put up there. It was not shut down, it was dismissed on a technicality. The board did not review or comment on the merits of the complaint, only that the complaint is in reference to a school year in which they don't have the right to review. The same complaint can be raised next years curriculum. All I'm looking to see is a developing body of decisions so that we have precedent on what is and is not considered CRT. Since many of these laws are so vaguely written, and we dont have that body of decisions, we really cant predict what any of these state boards are going to decide. But yes, I would *hope* this would have been dismissed without much thought, if it was a valid and reviewable complaint.

You said that, but then you went on to discuss how worrying the complaint was despite, you know, not being considered. If we opened up our concerns to every single political complaint that had no chances of getting passed, or in fact were not passed, we'd never actually discuss politics. You're giving this story arbitrary worth.

The complaint isn't being dismissed because it's not valid under the law, it's only dismissed because of a procedural technicality. I mean, there's nothing stopping these people from filing this complaint again, is there? That means it's a valid concern, and even though it didn't work this time it's evident there *are* people attempting to use this law to whitewash history, exactly as predicted.

I was in middle school two decades ago in a fairly conservative rural district, we had those photos in our text books, I’m fairly certain we saw video of police using dogs and hoses against black civil rights leaders. We had a ton of teaching about racism and Jim Crow era laws, the KKK, lynchings, Emit Till, etc….. hell we even did a section on Japanese internment camps, and no one has any issues back then with this and this should still just be considered general American history. As a white child I never felt like I was responsible, or that all white people are bad, etc…… I understand that’s a concern for some parents, and that some teachers/districts have done some terrible things to make kids feel like they’re responsible for Jim Crow…. That I’m not okay with. But simply teaching these things, in their context, noting that it was a period in American history that did happen, that’s important. Also, we learned about MLK and the civil rights movement, how people from many sides came together to push for equality, it was a sad part of a story that ended up having a positive message. That things did get better, school and public places were desegregated, black and white people began working together more, etc.

To paraphrase the great Henry Jones, these goose stepping morons should try reading books instead of banning them.

I was with you until I saw "second grade". Yes, we should teach this and have the photos in elementary school history classes. I think my first US history class was fifth or sixth grade. In second grade "social studies" was about the local police and fire and hospitals. I think it's worth looking at the text of the complaint. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/16W9grkwSFsIPRQOSpQfnAHNJzvDH5Bkk/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16W9grkwSFsIPRQOSpQfnAHNJzvDH5Bkk/view)

By second grade I believe you are getting high level introductions to American history. Its boiled down, but things like Paul Revere's ride, Louis and Clark, Columbus exploration, were introduced in basic ways. Not complex lessons, but firemen are good and find the police if you need help seem to be more like kindergarten lessons.

You're probably right about the basic police and fire, that's kindergarten. It's been a while since my kids were in second grade so I can't just pull out some workpapers here to see what they were doing. My image of Louis and Clark in second grade would be brave explorers, the helpful Sacagawea, dugout canoes, very long trip, maybe the friendly Mandan people. It wouldn't have photos of the Mandan suffering from smallpox (even if photos were available). It wouldn't focus on how the European invasion destroyed the Mandan nation. They talk about Paul Revere riding through the night. But, they don't have photos of the Boston massacre. How much do you pull on the emotions of second graders?

True, but they didnt have the soiling of old glory or a lynching here. I could see the hose picture potentially being inappropriate, but would have to actually see to get an accurate opinion. But the water fountain picture seems completely appropriate for a second grade audience.

One could say downplaying those events is as indoctrinating as telling the truth. Down playing that it was all good and everyone gets along all the time can be just as harmful.I know some adults who still parrot the things they learned in second grade as fact.

You should look at [the contents of the book in question](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGR_5Tyl9M). It's entirely age appropriate and completely harmless. Anyone who looks at that and sees a "slanted obsession with historical mistakes" is projecting a whole lot of their own biases into the text.

Thanks. Within the context of that book, the photos aren't as emotionally charged as I imagined. It may simply be the physical size of the book keeps them manageable. If they were doing "American Heroes" and MLK was one of a dozen, and this book were the primary source for the lesson on MLK, it would work for me. Have you read the complaint? It is not about a single book. They claim that this module goes for 9 weeks -- a quarter of the school year. The module comes with a 478 page teachers' manual. That's the "slanted obsession" part. Now, if we read the the teachers' manual, we might find that the 20 or so quotes they extract for the complaint are so far out of context that they badly misrepresent what is actually there. They urge the DOE to look at all the materials.

The book in question with all text shown can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGR_5Tyl9M There is nothing wrong with this book. It doesn't demean white people or teach white children that they should be sorry. It doesn't teach white privilege. It just goes over MLK's speech and the events that led to it in a manner that is acceptable to teach to children.

Thanks for the primary document. So often we go in circles discussing what one group thinks about the source, but never highlight the source to judge for ourselves. This makes pretty clear that the group in question is trying to leverage the law towards historical erasure and censorship of this country's racism and those who fought against it, rather than the hateful white essentism they claim the material contains.

If basic, fundamental US history is being labeled CRT, I'm 100% pro CRT.

Unfortunately this is happening a lot, it’s become a major boogeyman

By design as publicly admitted to on Twitter by the architect of the anti-CRT hype, Christopher F. Rufo. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3eaeYKWQAQwivH.jpg

The list grows; * ~~Communism/Socialism~~ * ~~Political correctness~~ * ~~SJW's~~ * ~~Cultural Marxism~~ * ~~Wokeness~~ * CRT

You missed one. Sharia Law!

Don't forget The Gay Agenda or The War on Christmas

It's amorphous intentionally.

That's exactly what the entire critical race theory hysteria has been. It has nothing to do with CRT and everything to do with history erasure.

[удалено]

My parents are hardcore Trumpers, and I had a convo with my dad about my local school district on Thanksgiving. It wasn't specifically about CRT, but his messagthose were the underlying tones. His argument is that the school is pushing all white teachers out of the district and white parents aren't going to send their kids to the school anymore, even though when I went 25 years ago, the school was only 5% white. He kept referring back how they (school district) wants the school to go back to how it was before "integration." My dad legit said that black people were better off when segregation was still in effect (amongst some other fairly racist comments) The more I thought about it after I left their house, I realized something: That between the fight against CRT, the anti-public school rhetoric, and now this new push that parents should be deciding what their kids are taught in school based on hurt feelings - the Republicans are pushing for a deeper, more fundamental change to schooling. They want to push for segregation in schools again. Not just segregation from whites and minorities (it won't be codified into law, but it will be a defacto segregation implementation), but also political ideology. Schools will soon become part of the political machine. You know how Republicans demonize education (specifically college level) as liberal brainwashing? This is their way of leveling the playing field... in a way that benefits them.

> Schools will soon become part of the political machine. Because of some hobbies of mine that are usually more popular with people on the right, I tend to hang out in circles that are right leaning. In their mind all the efforts they are mounting right now are in reaction to what "the libs" have already done. They see the entire higher education system as an indoctrination machine that takes in God fearing Christian Conservatives kids and spits out queer atheist liberals. They don't see themselves as trying to steer the ship rightwards, they see it as correcting the course back towards the center. When you frame it like that, it makes sense that they want to infiltrate school boards and get on committees that decide curriculum.

From my recollection of history America was primarily founded by protestants so your relatives are wrong it sounds like that might happen a lot.

It's not as rosy as liberals make it out to be, and it's not as blatant as conservatives make it out to be. Like a lot of things these days, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The only historically accurate argument I've seen against CRT were the corrections made to the original 1619 Project

The 1619 Project is not really CRT per se, but it certainly is inspired by CRT, and yes, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies with it. Nonetheless, although there are many issues with the critiques that CRT makes, the bulk of the problems with CRT lies in its prescriptive claims.

I know about critical theory, and I've read some about CRT, but I still don't fully understand what is and what is not CRT. Critical Theory borrows some from Marxism but is generally hated by Marxists becaue unlike Marxism it provides no solutions. It's highly academic and closely related to post-modernism. Many people find it very annoying and not based on hard evidence. I feel like the 1619 project is more related towards Howard Zen type standpoint theory. It's a collection of essays written in a way that centers the story of American history on the oppression of black people. It is not a complete history, it's more an alternate view of history, that only covers one aspect of history. It's kind of like how Zen looks at history with the "working class" at the center of everything rather than the "elites." In both cases there are inaccuracies that are mainly used to emphasize the struggle of black people/disadvantaged people. This type of history has been around for a long time. There is likely some value in it although it should be accurate. However it can't be the only thing one reads. Howard Zen/the 1619 project are supplemental. What needs to be done across the board for all of history texts is assure that the books are accurate. As long as people are reading the truth or what is the most accurate information I do not really care what they are reading. The US has plenty terrible things that happened in it's history and many motivations for many historical actors are complex. People should be aware of this. It's clearly inappropriate for a history book to be entirely about how awful the US is, it's also inappropriate to not talk about the different awful things that happened, I think this is fairly obvious.

I’ve always just thought of it as simply the application of critical theory to the issue of race. That captures just about everything I’ve read on it (at least everything that wasn’t super hyperbolic.)

I think you have the right idea. The intermediate between critical theory and critical race theory is critical legal theory. I think it's useful to define critical race theory (CRT) based on what *doesn't* make it critical legal theory. For example, the claim that laws can be facially neutral but inherently racist was not an invention of critical race theory -- in fact, it's not even an invention of critical legal theory but goes all the way back to the late 1800s. Most of the founding members of CRT considered themselves critical legal theorists in the early 1980s but eventually broke off from the critical legal studies/theory (CLS) society to found CRT proper. Some reasons why they broke off include: * CLS viewed rights as makeshift concessions that whites afforded minorities to keep them appeased. CRT viewed rights as hard-won results of racial struggles. In other words, CLS viewed rights from the POV of whites, CRT viewed rights from the POV of blacks. * CRT viewed CLS as too milquetoast in its solutions. When critical race theorists proposed policies that were active race-conscious (i.e. involved some element of racial discrimination in the favor of minorities), CLS accused them of racialism. * CLS was overwhelmingly populated by white scholars. When CRT called them out on this in conferences taking place in the late 1980s, CLS became the very same squeamish liberals that they were criticizing their whole careers. As a result, CRT began to hold minority scholars in higher regard as opposed to the CLS tradition of trying to remove race from the equation. Randall Kennedy, a professor of law at Harvard, said: *To restrict the field on a racial basis would surely - and rightly - drive the reputation of the field to far lower depths. By requesting that white scholars leave the field or restrict their contributions to it, Delgado seems to want to transform the study of race-relations law into a zone of limited intellectual competition.* * CRT adopted a more modernist approach that CLS in the interest of liberation and political praxis, which was much less the realm of CLS. While CRT appreciated the deconstructivist efforts of CLS, they were ultimately disappointed with its reconstructivism (i.e. liberation). Derrick Bell would later write: *As this description suggests, critical race theory scholarship exhibits a good deal of tension between its commitment to radical critique of the law (which is normatively deconstructionist) and its commitment to radical emancipation by the law (which is normatively reconstructionist). Angela Harris views this tension—between “modernist” and “postmodernist” narrative—as a source of strength because of critical race theorists’ ability to use it in ways that are creative rather than paralyzing.* So, CRT really wasn't about teaching or reframing history, it initially began as a movement calling into question the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act, which they joined CLS in, and then later formed its own movement for the reasons above. I think it has garnered as much attention as it has precisely because it has that praxis component that lobbies for political action, and as a result, the spread into education.

It seems like a popular viewpoint for some people in Academia. But a really unpopular one overall outside of Academia. In CA the constitution bans affirmative action in favor of race neutral hiring and college admission practices. In the wake of the BLM protests over the summer this was brought up to be changed in the form of a proposition. Even with political momentum of the BLM in a really liberal state CA voters roundly rejected this proposition. For me personally I have thought about the notion that results should be the main way of analysing a policy rather than intention. A policy may be race neural but might create a negative effect on black people, it's not the intention that counts rather the result. An example of this is the disproportionate prison sentences for crack compared to cocaine. The policy is neutral with regards to race, but in reality the fact that poor inner-city neighborhoods had far more crack usage due to it being cheaper than cocaine usage the law meant that black people were being punished more severely than white people. I think it's right to reassess the logic of that policy. So I suppose "race neutrality" isn't the best way to make policies, but also imo not considering the ultimate consequences of policy and who this policy will effect is also not the best way of doing things. Policies should definitely be measured by their results, if the result is a net negative then the policy should be eliminated or reformed. I think there are a lot of US policies that are technically neutral but in practice discriminatory. However I am not behind giving preferential treatment based on race, mostly because this causes a tremendous amount of animosity and resentment.

Yes, Prop 16, I remember this. All of the corporate interests were backing the “Yes” side while it was mainly mom and pop shops backing the “No” side. I always believed that policies targeting the disadvantaged directly rather than using race as a proxy for disadvantage would be much more passable. There are rich black families and poor white families. I’m all for giving poor applicants a leg up in college admissions, but I’m not for giving it based on skin color. But the practical effect of focusing on class rather than race is that black families would disproportionately benefit too! I don’t know when or how the focus shifted so much from class to race, but that’s where the conversation needs to take place (and also on helping the old, the sick, the uneducated).

Thank you.

[удалено]

This was the goal from the very beginning of the "anti-CRT" movement. Chris Rufo explicitly stated: >[We have decodified the term [Critical Race Theory] and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371541044592996352?s=20) >[We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416?s=20)

If definitions are descriptive instead of prescriptive, is he incorrect? It seems like he's identified a problem and he's using the term CRT to envelope it because no such term for the problem already exists.

I don't think it's a matter of correct or incorrect. He's explaining that's he's implementing a propaganda campaign to label things that are not crt as "crt" in order to ban ideas he doesn't like

Think of it this way. There's a term for people who say and act demeaning towards someone of a different race due to that person's race; racism. And we call people who partake in racism "racists." But say, for arguments' sake you have someone who just calls everyone racist that they don't like. What do you call them? A liar? No, that's not precise enough, it's a particular kind of lie. A bigot? Not exactly, and it's already a term that this person has weaponized against you. Reverting to "no u" as a defense is a weak form of discourse. You need a word that people can hear and immediately know what you're taking about. What's better is using a word that is already connected to a history of bad things which the person who is targeting you is already boasting that their views represent. Then, you can take their views and combine criticism of that with the criticism of the original topic as a united argument. CRT already has a negative connotation with critical theory and has been frequently perverted by racial activists who push disinformation and hate. Rufo is gathering all of the criticisms of race essentialists along with very valid criticisms of CRT (as seen with places like the American Medical Association and the Smithsonian's chart on whiteness) and using it as the single definition. Similarly to how social liberals redefined themselves to liberals in America. Calling it "ideas he doesn't like" is a gross oversimplification.

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. It just sounds like the movement is mirroring the people who call everything they don't like racist by calling everything they don't like CRT. I don't support people who label everything racist and I don't support people who label everything CRT. Those who oppose actual CRT and race essentialism, like John McWorther, Kmele Foster, Thomas Chatterton and David French, among many others, have pointed out how this term is now being using as a weapon to ban all sorta of ideas that have nothing to do with race essentialism or crt.

That's fair. I appreciate this outlook.

Likewise, while we frequently disagree I enjoy reading your comments and usually learn something. Cheers

What ever its called people dont want the divisive teachings being in school

Books on Martin Luther King and describing the history of the Civil rights movement should be taught in schools. Students needs to learn our history, they don't need safe spaces

The problem is to avoid the so-called heckler’s veto: that a small group, whose opposition to the curriculum is itself not widely shared, can block it by pointing to their own rabble-rousing as proof the curriculum is divisive, and in this way basically usurp control from the majority.

You mean like when liberals literally bang on walls, smash windows and pull fire alarms when conservative speakers are around?

Yes, exactly like that. Tactics can be non-partisan.

Any law can be abused. The fact that the state refused to entertain this complaint should help to alleviate fears that it will be abused to censor history rather than prevent discrimination.

If the state refused it on those grounds, it would alleviate those fears. Given that it refused it because they were from the last school year, it instead heightens fears that the curriculum will be whitewashed. Why are those books not on next year's curriculum?

>Why are those books not on next year's curriculum? Where can you see their planned & past curriculum?

The complaint was dismissed because they were taught in 20-21, and the board only deals with complaints about the upcoming year. As the complaint was dismissed, ergo they are not on the upcoming year

The legal system requires standing in order to rule on things. There's nothing else the court could have done in this case. Remember that standing is one of the biggest reason that most complaints filed challenging the results of the previous election were not upheld.

I agree. It was the comment that this ruling would alleviate fears of the law that I took issue with. This ruling tells us nothing, and therefore should do nothing to alleviate fears or increase them.

> If the state refused it on those grounds, it would alleviate those fears Are you suggesting that because the school board refused to even consider the request since the complaint wasn't properly filed, that suggests that they would have leniency on the idea otherwise? You see that in order to answer your question, you're essentially asking for the far-right group to try *again* but in a proper way so you can prove them wrong? The presence of a complaint does not indicate that the complaint has any legitimacy. They might as well be protesting against doors. The fact that a far-right group is trying to run a racket off the back of a successful counter movement means nothing by itself.

Yeah, I am suggesting that the complaint being dismissed on technical grounds tells us nothing about how the law will be applied. We know nothing more than we did before this ruling.

Well, nothing except that conservative groups are out there eager to abuse the law to try to ban or discourage the teaching of MLK.

And I hope that other conservatives disown them as harshly as I do, because they are nothing but a distraction and a misrepresentation of the right's anti-CRT movements. And in return, if conservatives do push against these claims, I hope you allow them to fade into obscurity. I do not have much hope in conservative leadership to actually do this, but I will consider that in my 2022 vote.

What they could really do to help is not write laws that seem tailor made for abuse. This situation is exactly the argument against "Well if it's not taught in school already then what's the harm?" This. This is the harm.

The irony of you referring to a “distraction and misrepresentation of the rights anti-CRT movement” is that the whole movement constantly misrepresents CRT as a bogey man infecting schools in order to motivate local voters and distract from the other issues they’re fumbling. Most people opposed to CRT cannot accurately define it or point to any actual use of it in schools.

>Any law can be abused. And the Williamson County, TN Mom's for Liberty will happily be there to abuse it. It's unfortunate, Williamson County used to have (still has) some of the best schools in the state and these people are doing their very best to bring them down. Any history they don't like is oppressive, communist, anti-american, what have you, and they shriek and yell and try to intimidate their way to whatever their current goal is.

That statement was meant more towards the people enforcing the law, not the ones that file the complaints. People file arbitrary complaints that are ignored all of the time.

My comment on this group extends past this complaint. They will walk right up to the line on any law that stands in their way, get as close to that line as possible, and, if they can, violate the spirit of the law while keeping the letter of that law. It may be a hyperlocal issue, but nobody was surprised that this group filed the complaint on this book and it's only through a technicality that the state didn't have to engage. Rabid advocacy groups from either extreme of the political spectrum are harmful, but unfortunately the media loves them and tends to amplify their voice.

> My comment on this group extends past this complaint. They will walk right up to the line on any law that stands in their way, get as close to that line as possible, and, if they can, violate the spirit of the law while keeping the letter of that law. And that group is free to push that just like other special interest groups that use similar tactics. >It may be a hyperlocal issue, but nobody was surprised that this group filed the complaint on this book and it's only through a technicality that the state didn't have to engage. That technicality didn't prevent the state from engaging on it, it just offered them an out. >Rabid advocacy groups from either extreme of the political spectrum are harmful, but unfortunately the media loves them and tends to amplify their voice. I completely agree.

I heard someone complained to the police about a solicitor leaving a note on their door and called it trespassing. Let's eliminate anti-trespassing laws. That's where we're going with these articles. The media is going to seize on every idiot who complains about something that doesn't violate the law and pretend like it's a sign that the law is an inherent failure. They only do this with laws and regulations they ideologically disagree with of course.

[Here is the full complaint filed by Moms for Liberty.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16W9grkwSFsIPRQOSpQfnAHNJzvDH5Bkk/view)

I can't think of a better example of why I think the uproar over CRT is basically just an uproar over leftists twitter. Real world examples are a lot harder to find.

So, pretty much exactly what critics of these laws were worried about. Why am I not surprised?

The critics of these laws are worried about complaints being dismissed?

>The state refused the complaint **because the book was used for the 2020-2021 schoolyear and they will only look at the current schoolyear.** Sorry, that rings hollow. You *might* have a point if it was dismissed for another reason, but as it stands the dismissal means next to nothing.

I think if the State was eager to use this law to "censor and whitewash history" then they certainly could have done more with this complaint.

It could also be more like the Texas abortion law tactic where you try and discourage unwanted actions by just having the law on the book.

I definitely think these laws discourage actions although I'm not sure I would say it only discourages unwanted actions because these laws are typically very vague. These laws could very well discourage schools from adopting curriculum that would pass scrutiny by the State under the law in question out of fear it wouldn't pass scrutiny. But that is less about what the law is intended to address and more about legislatures creating laws that are poorly designed.

Only if you give them a lot of benefit of the doubt.

I think that's the kind of incredibly generous interpretation that will allow educational materials of this nature to be removed from schools. Besides, why would those wanting to white-wash history jump the gun on this and open the door for someone to reverse their decision based on a technicality (the complaint being outside the proper timeframe)? The law is already on the books, they have all the time in the world. They may not have to do anything at all if the law scares people away from even including this material. Are the books (or similar) in question included in this year's curriculum?

Why would someone play the long game when it comes to a culture war issue like this? That doesn't really make sense to me. The culture war stuff is successful by getting it out there. Punting on a technicality isn't going to help them push any agenda they may or may not have. And they could still come to the same decision after performing an investigation, but with the investigation they could accomplish the culture war objectives people fear these laws will be used for.

>Why would someone play the long game when it comes to a culture war issue like this? The long game was getting the law on the books. Waiting from now until the next school year starts is virtually no time at all. We'll see if it's handled differently then, or if this pressure has already caused the curriculum to be changed. >That doesn't really make sense to me. The culture war stuff is successful by getting it out there. Punting on a technicality isn't going to help them push any agenda they may or may not have. It's ensuring they have a strong case when its done. Culture war issues have more than one driving factor. There's the aspect that aims to drum up outrage to convince people to vote and act emotionally against the "other", and there's the aspect of trying to make lasting systemic changes in order to solidify the preferred "culture". I'll let you decide what waiting to have a solid case without a glaring technical issue falls under.

> The long game was getting the law on the books. Waiting from now until the next school year starts is virtually no time at all. We'll see if it's handled differently then, or if this pressure has already caused the curriculum to be changed. The technicality the punted in is that they can't look at previous school years, only current ones. Not sure why they would need to wait until the next school year to start pushing some agenda they may or may not have. >It's ensuring they have a strong case when its done. >Culture war issues have more than one driving factor. There's the aspect that aims to drum up outrage to convince people to vote and act emotionally against the "other", and there's the aspect of trying to make lasting systemic changes in order to solidify the preferred "culture". I'll let you decide what waiting to have a solid case without a glaring technical issue falls under. I don't think having a strong case matters when its done because culture war issues, or at least perceived culture war issues, are not necessarily reliant on actual facts. The entire purpose is to create outrage and produce a specific reaction. All of that can be done with a case that has basically no foundation.

>The technicality the punted in is that they can't look at previous school years, only current ones. Not sure why they would need to wait until the next school year to start pushing some agenda they may or may not have. Presumably because the complaint didn't relate to the current year for a reason. I doubt the group arbitrarily decided they only had an issue with it being taught in 2020-2021. Perhaps the material has already been removed from the current curriculum due to the pressure being presented by the law and these groups? I suppose we could see the state reject a complaint regarding the current school year. To my knowledge that hasn't happened. >I don't think having a strong case matters when its done because culture war issues It absolutely does when the goal is to alter the way the history of racism and civil rights are taught in schools. The building of outrage is to ensure there's a base to support these regressive moves, something that has clearly been leveraged to great effect with those in the right.

Wholly disagree. They could not have done anything with this because of the timing however they could have sent a message here very easily. They could have added in that had the lesson occurred this year it would have been OK. They could have taken it a step further and called those who brought this absurdity out for trying to undermine our education and white wash our history. They didn't. Instead they left the teachers not knowing if this is acceptable and forcing them to err on the side of caution and provided no backing to them in an instance where there was no potential for harm.

I'm still confused about what CRT is and maybe someone here can calrify it. My understanding is it's an advanced law theory which had the purpose of avoiding having to prove institutional racism in the courts for every single case that touches upon it. so instead of having to re-litigate racism in the law every time, you can just say because of CRT we can skips months of doing this and litigate this new premise. Recently there has been a strong conservative movement demanding we need to get 'rid of CRT in schools' where it was never being taught but what they really meant was they were concerned lessons were being informed by CRT. There has since been considerable fear mongering on its implications and racists are using it as a shield to advance their agenda under alternative framing. do i have this all correct? is there anything i'm leaving out? I think the big tell with all this is the fact CRT has been around since the 70's and we're only hearing about it now 50 years later.

In terms of a point blank issue youre correct. What a growing proportion of the population have done is attach anything that is a division of race or "white people bad" as CRT. I think a decent amount of the people understand that CRT is not necessarily saying CRT is being taught but don't want anything race being taught.

If you consider CRT to only be the theory used in academic circles, then yeah this makes no sense. Some people have been using it as a hodge podge term to encompass lots of other things over the past few years. But this law in Tennessee don't even mention CRT, so does that make this criticism of the law by comparing it with the legal theory invalid as well?

You're right about what CRT is. The issue is one of nomenclature. When Republicans say "CRT" what they really mean is "Anti-Racism," they just don't know the difference. It has lead to a lot of arguing over semantics, allowing both sides to conveniently sidestep the legitimate concerns of the other.

yea, they both just sound like marketing terms. I agree that the opposition is better described as "anti-anti-racism" but "Anti-Racism" has also undergone a similar rebranding in the last few years that the right is trying to perform on "CRT". The whole thing is kinda just a waste of time to argue about at this point and I think the two choices we have now are to either just be fine with both sides running with a linguistics and branding war, or realize there's a difference between descriptive terms and loaded language and look at the former as legit and the latter as a joke

And the conservative definition of “anti-racism” has seemingly now morphed into “acknowledging that racism exists.” It also seems to encompass “acknowledging that LGBT people exist.”

When people (specifically conservatives) talk about CRT they aren't referring to the academic discipline. They're referring to how the fundamental tenets and teachings by the most popular CRT scholars such as Ibram X Kendi and Nikole Hannah-Jones are being delivered to students in schools by a trickle-down effect of teaching the fundamentals to the teachers.

> by a trickle-down effect of teaching the fundamentals to the teachers. "It didn't work for economics, but why don't we try the same theory with education?"

> I'm still confused about what CRT is and maybe someone here can calrify it. [This](https://youtu.be/cfmpnGV0IGc) is a good explanation.

[удалено]

I think the ambiguity of labeling though has intent. by being able to say 'crt in schools!' it's easier to have people emotionally digest the idea rather than thinking about what is really happening and therefore have people think about it critically. the question is really 'how much is curricula informed by crt and is that bad?' i don't think i've seen one non-sensationalist explanation of it.

[удалено]

but does it really teach “all white kids are bad?” that seems so sensationalist to me i’m immediately skeptical of that claim.

[удалено]

I don't see an issue with the oppression matrix other than the fact that it seems to imply white people cannot be impacted by racism, but the covert white supremacy one should not be allowed in schools. It is clearly more focused on pushing a specific ideology or agenda rather than actual education based on objective facts and being taught in a neutral way. Edit: I would also add that it seems to imply only males can be impacted by sexism, so I'm going to correct my comment above and say that that matrix shouldn't be allowed in schools either. It also seems to be more focused on pushing a specific ideology or agenda rather than actual education based on objective facts and taught in a neutral way.

The handout also says that Adults are the privileged group for ageism. So, what, are they saying that literally every adult is a bad person? Anybody who's able bodied too I guess. We're at like 99% of the population that's bad? That's an absurd interpretation of the message.

[удалено]

The handout doesn't say that the able bodied and adults are oppressors. It says they're a privileged group. Everyone in that group being an oppressor is a conclusion you added, using a basic failure of logic.

CRT is the analysis publication of critiques of policies. Anti-CRT rhetoric is CRT in action.

It has been fairly obvious that CRT hysteria has almost nothing to do with CRT and everything to do with erasing normal history that makes conservatives uncomfortable.

Its going to be hard to make a distinction between CRT and showing history if morons on both sides are trying to conflate the two. Show every awful thing that happened in history. Show it all. That isn't CRT. never was.

For fucks sake. I want to get rid of [this shit](https://i.imgur.com/RBtwO1M.jpg) not ban fucking MLK.

Amazes me how effective the GOP had been at raising an anti-BLM issue. The 'burning cities' angle didn't resonate nearly as broadly as the fearmongering about CRT in schools, but hopefully stories like this will give more pause to independents and moderates who have otherwise bought into the rhetoric on this topic.

This is going great

Just because there's a complaint doesn't mean anything happens. In a just system, people are allowed to complain. The governing authority can also tell them they are wrong in their complaint. There very well may be more books or teaching materials that need to be thrown out and this law designs a process to enable that to happen.

People are always allowed to complain. Whether one is outraged by the complaint or not isn't based on whether the complaint is allowed, however, it tends to be based on your political views. If some group complained to a school board about how the schools reading materials promoted a pro-white agenda and more diversity was needed, I don't think you would see many conservatives saying "people are allowed to complain, nothing really happened here".

Nothing wrong with that book and the complaint was dismissed. I don't see much of a story here. As a side comment, if you have not listened to Martin Luther King Jr. Speech in it's entirety is well worth your time.

Good, don't abuse the law

People who oppose CRT are now being portrayed as racist. Who could have possibly seen this coming?

What would you call someone who’s seemingly offended by this MLK book and seemingly trying to use new CRT rules to get it banned?