First off, I'd never even heard of the concept before half the country started going apsh*t about it. Second, I think we all know that it's basically nonsense. I'd offer up every lesson plan I ever wrote, every activity I ever facilitated, and every assignment ever put forth (and I do have copies of all of them for the last three years). You'd be hard pressed to find Marxist-Malcolm X-America hating-white hatred-socialist-communist-whatever else anywhere. That being said... I really hate being thrown (as a profession) under the spotlight of a controversial issue for the second summer in a row (last year it was about whether we were getting in the way of life returning to normal). The absolute vitriolic frenzy with which the hard and even moderate Right gets whipped into these days is just absolutely shocking in it's swiftness and ferocity. Do you think this will pass? Just another cause of the moment for that portion of the country? I mean, it seems like they've been trying to kick down our doors for awhile now (charters, private school vouchers, online private, etc). Seems little can stop the directionless outrage anymore. "They're coming for our GUNS!" "They're going to force us to have ABORTIONS!" "They're going to take away our BIBLES!" "There's going to be DEATH PANELS!" "They're going to give all the jobs to FOREIGNERS!" and on and on and on. And now it's...us. I truly never thought I'd live to see an age where I had to wonder if teaching what prefixes and root words are is going to p*ss someone off. For the record, the middle school I teach at has mandatory Pledge of Allegiance recitation at the beginning of every day. Take that for what it's worth.
Well. The idea is that racism, classism, bigotry and all that can be blatent. There is the KKK, the Tulsa massacre, the relative ease with which lower economic class people, especially those of color, are arrested and rushed through the system to prison, while it takes years and tremendous effort to put a rich white thief through the system, with little likelihood of jail time. There is plenty of overt, systemic stuff like that. And then there is the rest of the spectrum of less overt actions and attitudes that maintain the stratified race, gender, religious status quo. I don't feel guilty about being an old white guy that can pass as belonging to an acceptable religious group. I was born that way. Well, not the old part. But, in any case, I have always known that gave me an advantage. The fact that those things are advantages, overtly and subtlety, isn't nonsense at all.
You misconstrued what I meant by "nonsense." By that I meant the idea that we as a collective spend our time shoving left wing ideology into our student's faces. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The concept of CRT started long ago but morphed along the way. People are complaining about how it morphed and how teachers, schools, and school board wants to implement changes based on CRT. People have every right to discuss and be concerned about these changes. Just because you didn't hear about it does not mean it wasn't around. Knowing you are talking about individual teachers shoving ideologies in students faces, I agree most don't do so, but more and more schools and school boards are changing their policies to enact changes based on race. Hmmm. I guess police feel the same. Oh my. Vitriolic frenzy. I could point out things that are said on the other side, but since we are supposed to keep politics out of discussions, I will not add to the political portion of your post. I am not saying there are not racists (of all color) in our society. I am not saying that the laws used to specifically deny people rights by race. That is a sad part of our history. I will submit that the biggest problem we have now in is not race, but poverty. Poor people fair poorly in our legal system and educational system. I will also submit that many laws passed to help black people had unintended consequences which prolonged the poverty brought about by the sad part of our history where races and sexes were not treated equally. Please explain. Are you saying the Pledge must be said by each and every student every day or that it will be said every day and students can recite it or stand and be respectful to the others who are reciting it?
Yes, vitriolic frenzy. The sort of thing that makes people have a violent riot at a capital when an election doesn't go their way, as one hypothetical example.
Damien, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by mandatory Pledge of Allegiance recitation.
The problems are not in the past. The laws, old and new, are still specific to race, as well as economic station. As it was, it still is. These are not just history. They are now as well.
I was going to reply but decided that this issues is so polarized and political at this point that this is not the forum to discuss it any further. If you would like to discuss privately, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Agreed. And it's tough to avoid controversy when discussing anything of substance. Thus, the problem with teaching anything involving critical thinking.
I'm wondering also, as depending what it means it could indicate what kind of school he's in. If he says it's mandatory for students to stand/recite, then it would suggest it's either a private school or one that's very loose about the law. Anyway, as to the main topic of CRT bans, what concerns me the most about them is how broadly they're phrased -- some going so far as to say no student should be made to feel "uncomfortable" about their race. While that sounds nice, and I agree that no student *should* feel uncomfortable, the fact is that a simple and fair reading of history could make some feel uncomfortable, so essentially it becomes a license to kill almost any curriculum involving history (or English). Race is also poorly defined, so could Germans or Japanese object to teaching about WWII? (well, not really... we know how that would work out... the law are only proposed to protect white sensibilities).
So true. CRT is a college-level tool developed to examine systemic racism, not individual racism. It's not intended nor appropriate for K-12 use. However, right-leaning opinion and news outlets have made it an issue claiming that it's being used in schools to make white kids feel bad about themselves. CRT is framed as part of a liberal plot to harm white kids. That's not to say schools should avoid learning about systemic racism, just not use CRT to do it. Nor should the instructional goal be to make anyone feel bad about themselves. An example: If a certain political party makes a law limiting voting on Sundays, it disproportionately affects Black Christian voters (who traditionally vote after church services). This is an example of systemic racism that is appropriate for discussion with students who are studying current events. The point of the discussion is not to make anyone feel bad about their race, but to understand current events. I think it's entirely appropriate to mention that CRT is not being used in your school nor in your class when communicating with parents.
This is great, and I am happy for your students. Out of curiosity though, do you believe it is nonsense that individual teachers aren't teaching their activist views in their classroom? I know overall people are fighting this being board policy, but in paragraph you are discussing this in individual classrooms. I have been a part of many facebook groups where teachers have written about discussing their political views in the classroom. I have little doubt I could look through the A to Z teacher forum boards and find teachers doing this as well. Sadly, this is happening in classrooms all the time. While I hope it isn't the majority of teachers, from looking at teacher groups I can say with confidence this isn't rare.
It may be an appropriate subject of discussion, but isn't it exactly the type of thing that members of a certain political party would object to? One person's activist views are another's critical thinking.
Doesn't it depend on why they decided to limit voting on Sundays? You can look at causation of consequences and say "ah, this is systemic racism because it impacts blacks the most", but the motivation of the limiting on Sundays is really what determines whether it is racism at all. For example, in a highly religious area where it is near impossible to get poll workers on a Sunday, it wouldn't necessarily be racism that limits voting on Sundays. It could be as simple as not being able to consistently man the polls on a Sunday. Now some would claim that it is still racist because: Option 1 - if you do anything that impacts one race more than another it is automatically racist. Option 2 - it is unconscious racism that causes people to not be able to figure out how to get the polls open on Sunday. Please don't think I am naive and think that racism was never at the heart of changes, but it isn't always the cause even if some would like to blame it on racism.
Yes, I agree with your point. What appears to be racism, might not be when you look at it closer. I think when many of the voting changes are looked at, some racism appears to be highly probable. Even if it isn't, the changes in voting procedures are quite concerning. When polls open later or close earlier, common sense says this will make it more difficult for many people to vote. Who gets hurt the most is debatable, but the fact that any groups are hurt in this process, common sense says that this is wrong and unfair.
So are you saying that you view the two as the same? Do students know your views on these topics? Are the students presented with a variety of resources that both support your view and go against your view so that get can use critical thinking to develop their own opinions? Being an activist to a group of students who are legally required to be in your classroom where you are seen as the authority figure and encouraging critical thinking aren't the same thing. If you can't see the difference then my guess is you would need to revise the statement I quoted in my first post about your lessons not being biased towards CRT.
I disagree that "common sense" says it is wrong and unfair. Data may show that the number of people that come during those hours are so low that it is actually unfair to have people manning the polls at times when many times no one shows. Based on what facts? I think we cannot personally make a determination whether it is racism until the justification and facts are known.
I would agree that in the example of a state legislature attempting to limit Sunday voting might be due to reasons other than overtly trying to suppress Christian Black voters. However, in Texas, for example. That's exactly what the intent of the law was. If a law or policy is made to harm a certain race, then it is racist and should be called out. Would you disagree? A teacher should not interrupt an unrelated curriculum to address this racism. Nor should a teacher avoid addressing it if the racist event is indeed part of the curriculum. But the teacher can and should be an activist when out of the classroom.
Just a gentle warning about that line between pedagogy and politics. Right now, we are on the safe side, but it's close. The main thing is that we remain polite.
I have some limited time right now, but I will look at additional information to what you supplied. I have found that the Washington Post can be very slanted (just as other media can be) and inaccurate as to how and what they report. I will say, if the motive was truly racist, then it is racist. However, until I look at the law and other sources, I won't make up my mind.
I would be happy to quote another source. Can you give me an example of an un biased source that you would feel more confident about?
I didn't say there is a source that is unbiased. In fact, I said "just as other media can be". That is why many sources have to be read, in addition to the original proposed law and any updates that follow. By looking at all of the information, you can see the bias on each side and then have a better idea of what is closer to the truth. I am perfectly capable of looking at other sources on my own, but thank you for offering to quote a source after I tell you what source to quote.
Forty years ago I was an uncertified teacher. Fairly recently, I got certified in California. But it ain't happening. I'm done working. I am retired for the foreseeable future. When I was teaching, and if I were to teach today, it would be math, with not much opportunity for appropriate political discussion. In addition, when I was teaching I was a guest in another country. Expressing political opinions was inappropriate AND dangerous. When I say "One person's activist views are another's critical thinking", I am saying that my critical thinking, which inevitably steers to conclusions on the left, are just as invariably seen as activist views by those on the right. Looking at what I just said, I am claiming that right wing views are generally not supported by critical thinking. I must admit that seems pretty inflammatory. And if I were to attempt to teach history or social studies, I'd be in big trouble.
I'm old and like the world the way it used to be: CRT in my previous occupation was a Cathode Ray Tube monitor. ISIS was an Egyptian supergirl that helped Shazam on Saturday morning cartoons. PARTNERS was Reed and Malloy on "Adam-12" or Gage and DeSoto on "Emergency!" Guys like Dick Butkus, Ray Nitchke, and Larry Csonka COLLIDED. Nobody ever COLLUDED. Keeping up on new acronyms and the urban dictionary gets tiresome and depressingWake me up when this bizarre "Outer Limits" episode we are living is over.
Sounds like you've had an interesting career. While we don't agree on the critical thinking thing, I will give you credit in seeing how that can come across in a classroom and staying clear of history and social studies. As someone who teaches both math and social studies in the middle school, I will agree that the one positive about math is that you don't have to deal with those potentially hot topic things.
You said The Washington Post is very slanted. I've not found that to be true and wondered if you have any evidence to support that claim. I'm guessing you don't. I asked you for an unbiased source in order to understand your point of view. Can you give me either an example of a very slanted news article from TWP or the name of a source you feel is more trustworthy.
