In several states, the Governor and Legislature have denounced “critical race theory” and even (in Idaho and some other states) banned it from their schools. The controversy over teaching about race gained ground when former President Trump condemned CRT as divisive and launched his own quickie commission to teach “patriotic” education. The object seems to be to minimize or eliminate teaching about racism, past or present.
Retired teacher Nancy Flanagan dissected the controversy here, in one of the best-informed analyses.
It seems that the white adults want children to think of their country as one without faults, flaws, blemishes, or systematic oppression. To see our history whole, the good and the bad, they think, will undermine love of country.
The National Education Policy Center published a useful overview of the controversy and concluded that teaching history must be based on evidence, not ideology.
It begins:
Here’s how NEPC Fellow Shaun Harper, of the University of Southern California, defines racism:
[I]ndividual actions (both intentional and unconscious) that engender marginalization and inflict varying degrees of harm on minoritized persons; structures that determine and cyclically remanufacture racial inequity; and institutional norms that sustain White privilege and permit the ongoing subordination of minoritized persons.
These individual, structural, and institutional factors exist. They cannot be factually denied or treated as opinion. Here are just a few of the hundreds of examples that could be mentioned:
- Experimental evidence demonstrates that, even when given vignettes about fictional Black and White students engaged in the exact same misbehaviors, teachers are more likely to label Black students as troublemakers and to view their actions as part of an ongoing pattern.
- A meta-analysis of hiring discrimination examined every available field experiment in which resumes that are identical in every way except for the race of the applicant are submitted for job openings. This study, which incorporated a total of 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions, found that not only do White applicants receive 36 percent more callbacks than Black applicants, but that these differences have not changed over time.
- Quasi-experimental research has found that racial discrimination explains two-thirds of the racial disparities in bail decisions in New York City.
Yet, in at least eight states across the country, legislators are trying to make it illegal for educators to teach students about the myriad ways that racial discrimination manifests itself in our nation in individual actions and prejudice as well as in the very institutions and systems that comprise the fabric of our society. Other targets of this silencing effort include sexism, equity, inclusion, and social justice.
Critical race theory—or at least a false caricature of CRT—is a particular concern of these efforts, many of which borrow language from the Trump administration’s (since-rescinded) September 2020 executive order banning federal trainings on “divisive” diversity issues.
Rhode Island Republican Patricia Morgan told Education Week that critical race theory is “a divisive, destructive, poisonous ideology” that encourages people to judge each other by the color of their skin.
But NEPC Fellow Adrienne Dixson of the University of Illinois, who has edited books on critical race theory and education, explained in that same Education Week article that lawmakers had misunderstood the subject.
“Critical race theorists would say, absolutely, that people shouldn’t be discriminated against by virtue of their race or sex,” she said. “We don’t locate individuals as responsible for structural racism.” Instead, “scholars acknowledge that racism informed the country’s founding principles, and that some groups have to ‘agitate and organize and demand and protest’ to secure rights.”
The New York Times’s 1619 Project is another target of ire for many of these same state lawmakers. The ongoing effort of the Project, launched on the 400th anniversary of the start of American slavery, describes the history of the country by centering slavery, and tracing contemporary issues to its consequences.
A report by the Heritage Foundation recommended banning it from classrooms, a call that multiple state legislatures have echoed. But an NEPC review of the publication by Brown University historian Seth Rockman found it to be grounded in the same sorts of misunderstandings flagged by Professor Dixson. “Disconnected from the current scholarly literature on both American slavery and history pedagogy, the report commits the exact sin with which it besmirches the 1619 Project: substituting ideology and political motives for an accurate engagement with the past,” according to Professor Rockman.
Some efforts to scrub the stain of racial discrimination from the curriculum have already fallen by the wayside. In Arkansas, for instance, the bill to ban the 1619 Project was rejected by lawmakers.
Other efforts, however, have been more successful: In Idaho, for example, Governor Brad Little recently signed into law a bill banning critical race theory and related issues from public schools after Republican lawmakers refused to pass education budgets out of concerns that educators were teaching students about that subject.
As a result, generations of students in that state and others that follow suit will receive an inaccurate and incomplete education concerning some of the most important and consequential issues of our nation’s present and its past.
Historically speaking, Uncritical Race Theories (URTs) have been a far bigger problem.
LOVE this comment.
Just amazing that people who spend their entire career bashing public schools, didn’t attend public schools and don’t send their children to them are ALSO more than willing to police and direct every aspect of what happens in public schools.
Are they policing the private schools they’re funding with public dollars like this? Why not?
It’s bad enough there’s a whole group of lawmakers and lobbyists who work AGAINST public schools- now not only do we have them working against our schools, they’re also running them.
Not many people avoided public schools, especially K-12 and state colleges. We all have a pretty good understanding of why the U.S. is so far down in the international rankings of scolastics.
It’s despicable when know-nothings spew falsehoods. Control of variables is at the essence of truth for comparisons.
Treated myself to the first six volumes (12 years) of the collected Pogo strips. While most educated people, whether they have heard of Pogo or not, are familiar with his immortal line, “We have met the enemy and he is us,” there’s another one that should be at its side and fits here: “It’s interesting to know that the confidence of ignorance has not died out!”
Thanks for reminding me about Pogo.
We should start a private school affiliated with a mosque, advertise CRT as a key part of the social studies curriculum, and the apply for whatever state’s voucher program.
That’ll put the privatization crowd in a HUGE bind.
Good idea. The success of the effort you propose depends on whether keeping women as 2nd class citizens trumps proselytizing the Koch version of economic Christianity.
Assuming a court case results from your proposed school and its public funding, turn to First Liberty Institute or Napa Institute. They can be reached through the Charles Koch switchboard.
The proposed school’s Muslim management can become contributing writers for the website of the Fordham Institute. The writers can describe Muslim schools as equal to or better than Catholic schools and both better than public schools.
The Gates’ Bellwether can advise ed reformers in web-posted reports that they should reach out, not just to churches, but to mosques to achieve their objectives.
The states’ Catholic Conferences and the Koch’s AFP who co-host rallies for school choice, can post arguments from associates of Pat Buchanan stating that all religious schools, including Muslim, Wiccan and Jewish, are better than public schools.
CRT is an excuse to whip the defensive right into a frenzy. CRT is another boogeyman that the right can fear and hate. it is a way the right wing distraction that can more sow seeds of distrust in public education.
cx: sow more seeds
Exactly, Retired Teacher. A bogeyman, like Antifa.
Here’s the way to fight the troglodytes: teach their children. Teach them the truth about slavery and genocide and Jim Crow and systematic racism generally in the United States. Teach them how the federal government’s housing policies helped to ensure generational poverty in this country. And so much more.
Don’t let up.
The TRUTH, once known, can’t be unknown, and it’s more powerful than all the crap that the troglodytes can throw at it.
News for you, troglodytes, that you aren’t going to like: The TRUTH, like water, will find its way.
This is just a hint of how the people promoting privatized school systems will treat public schools inequitably.
They aren’t going to police the publicly funded private schools they promote and prefer. No, only public schools will be subject to ed reform policing and scolding and sanctions.
You get the worst of both with ed reform governance- you get people who don’t support your schools but will expect to RUN your schools.
No upside for public school students- only downside. They get all these wacky ed reform anti-public school crusades along with mandates but no support or investment.
Ed reform as a “movement” needs to decide. They can’t run our schools if they’re working to eradicate them. That’s not fair to public school students.
Once again, ed reformers are completely incoherent.
They’re pushing laws silencing teachers under the banner of the 1st Amendment.
Do these folks even hear themselves?
More absolute gibberish.
“As of last month, the Step Up for Students voucher marketplace shows 16 Polk County voucher schools have enrollments of at least 76 percent Black children. Twelve of the 16 schools are at least 95 percent Black. Six are 100 percent Black.
Not one of those schools has any accreditation. None of them have any state or local oversight. There is no elected board member or unelected bureaucrat to call when these schools defraud you. More than 800 Black children in Polk County attend these segregated, low-capital so-called schools at any given time.”
The entire ed reform echo chamber cheerleads these vouchers and works to expand them to every state.
Odd how there’s no concern at all about what’s being taught in the voucher schools. One would think people who are concerned about what children in public schools are taught would extend that concern to the publicly funded voucher schools they all backed, but they mysteriously exempt the schools they promote and market from their efforts to police and dictate policy and practice in public schools.
Completely incoherent, which is what happens when your “movement” is less about “education” and more about an ideological opposition to public schools.
I’ll have to add “bashing public schools for the (imaginary) teaching of ‘critical race theory'” to the list of what ed reformers have contributed to public education in the pandemic.
mandating testing
barring public schools from addressing racism
Good work, everyone. Nice job. Go collect your Gates and Walton paychecks.
“Several colleagues and I at the Stanford-based Hoover Education Success Initiative suggest answers to those key questions in a brand-new book, How to Improve Our Schools in the Post-Covid Era, edited by Margaret (Macke) Raymond and hot off the (virtual) presses.”
All members in good standing of the ed reform echo chamber.
The next step is the whole echo chamber now promote the book.The 74 will do a fawning review, because that’s required.
This stuff is all lawmakers and policymakers hear. It’s the single source of their information. If someone doesn’t bust up this club public school students will be subject to it forever.
Bush, Obama and Trump. Lockstep marching. On into eternity. No dissenters, no debate, just ed reform echo chamber members directing the public schools they don’t use and don’t support.
This is simply Fox News and its allies whipping up the base for the next election cycle. Keep the umbrage boiling, folks, and distract the voters.
and they are happy to bring the ‘boiling point’ to its peak by saying anything at all: the banter can feel like listening to 10-year-old kids imagining monsters
“The Biden administration announced Monday that roughly 39 million American families will begin receiving direct cash payments in July under a new child benefit created by Democrats’ coronavirus relief bill.”
The truth is this will do more for poor and working class children than all the RttT’s in the world.
What if we had been doing this for the last 20 years instead of dumping the entire responsibility on public schools?
Biden will be the best public education President of the last 30 years and it’s not going to be close. That’s how weak the competition was.
This is exactly why the culture-warriors are stirring the pot to overboil on every front just now—election ‘reform,’ voucher expansion, CRT et al: they’re hoping to induce enough anger-fueled indigestion that folks won’t appreciate bellies being filled/ roofs over heads/ enough $ for new shoes for kids.
For those interested in the Missouri version of this legislation it is H.B. 952.
Missouri’s bills to prohibit the teaching of CRT, 1619 project and other related content DID NOT PASS. Ha, neither did rush limbaugh day (but it had traction but Walter Cronkite Day did not).
Not only were they pushing the CRT and 1619 issues, they wanted to prohibit DIVERSITY TRAINING … AND actually named three organizations who facilitate them (which may be familiar to a reader or two).
Related – When a parent complains about a book and want it off the shelves, generally the Board policy is a form that includes: HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? And then, to cite why they want it out.
How many of these legislators across the country do we think listened to the original NYT 1619 Project and read the curriculum
Typical ed reform “analysis”:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/13/charter-schools-targeted-left-despite-enrollment-s/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
An article that replies completely on full time, paid charter school lobbyists and charter school managers to claim charter schools are superior to public schools. All self reported.
The charter school lobbyists believe charter schools are better than public schools and they want more funding for them! Now that’s a shocking scientific conclusion. Let’s run all public policy based on this marketing effort.
I noticed when you search on line for charter scandals, you have to go through a number of propaganda pieces about how great charter schools are before finding what you asked.
I am sorry, but I summarily reject any definition of “racism” that conveys any manner of legitimacy to behaviors and structures based in or coming from the purely social construct called “race.” Not until “racism” is defined based in truth apart from “race” will we begin to learn better and hence do better. In contrast, for example, “sexism” can be rationally defined based on “sex,” since sex is truth.
Sex and race are both social constructs that nonetheless have real meaning in people’s existence. Race is based on the color of one’s skin and allegedly related physical features, sex is based on what’s between one’s legs at birth. None of those factors by themselves create the meaning we have imbued them with, but nonetheless people are treated differently based on the presence or absence of those features.
There is nothing about dark skin that makes one “lazy” or “thuggish”, but nonetheless people with dark skin have for hundreds of years been associated with those traits and treated accordingly by the more powerful light-skinned people. That is racism. There is nothing about female genitalia that makes one “weak” or “nurturing” or “incompetent”, yet those characteristics have been ascribed to females by the more powerful males, which is what sexism is.
You cannot address either race or sexism without dealing with the underlying social constructs.
Yes, but what is the deepest-level structure generating “racism,” “sexism,” and you-name-it-ism? Until and unless that structure is identified and named and dealt with, we will keep on giving legitimacy to the isms with surface-level arguments such as “…but nonetheless people are treated differently based on the presence or absence of those [-ism] features.”
I don’t get it Ed. Do you mean a sort of warping of human socializing instinct– grouping among ‘like’ becomes fear of ‘different’? Or Darwinist theory that says genetics favors drumming out the weakest? Or what?
bethree5, thanks for asking but I said what I meant to say. To offer a bit more… Until we become fearless enough to go down to the deepest depth of that preverbal iceberg, with eyes wide open looking to discover the fundamental structure that generates the behavior that shows up atop the iceberg in various contexts, where we conveniently and variously name the behavior “racism” and “sexism” and what have you depending on context, we will remain comfortably blind to the underlying reality generating the behavior. We will keep on futilely defining and talking about the -isms restricted to behavioral tip-of-the-iceberg points of view.
Atop the iceberg we see the behavior in a “race” context and so name it “racism” and then define it in terms of nothing more fundamental than “race.” And so we remain comfortably blind to the fundamental structure generating “racism.”
Atop the iceberg we see the behavior in a sex context and so name it “sexism” and then define it in terms of nothing more fundamental than sex. And so we remain comfortably blind to the fundamental structure generating “sexism.”
Atop the iceberg we see the behavior in a “survival of the fittest” context and so name it “Darwinism” and then define it in terms of nothing more fundamental than “survival of the fittest.” And so we remain comfortably blind to the fundamental structure generating “Darwinism.”
-ism connotes behavior, not structure that generates behavior. Thus our getting rid of or even beyond “racism” and “sexism” is a structural problem of the deepest kind. Unfortunately, too many people are too vested in staying comfortably blind to the problem rather than risk “dissolving” (R. Ackoff) it.
Ed Johnson: Wow, R Ackoff, thanks very much for adding him to my hopper. I had decided already from your comment you were a philosopher & assumed he’d be one too. I see he in fact taught many philosophy courses but that barely gets at it. So far only had time to check out a brief list of quotations, and some of his [hilariously on-point] “f-laws.”
I think you meant gender, not sex, in your first line, Dienne, but absolutely. GREAT post.
The Catholic Church could “do better” by not discriminating against women. If Ed’s response to the comment is, “more than 50% of the Church members are women” (who willingly tolerate, if not embrace the discrimination), the answer back to Ed would be interesting.
I see the Church’s various stances in this dept as injurious to the family—I think it’s a better lens than misogyny. That goes not just for the Church, but for govt. Family is the system that suffers [the base system—obviously affecting community & govt]. Men and women, boys and girls get wrong lessons & carry them forward. Modeling a religious ‘family’ where only ‘fathers’ count hurts everybody. The failure to provide robust spiritual support for whatever form the family takes is cruel and short-sighted– no wonder they lose members at 5x the rate of other Christian denominations.
Apparently heading for Ohio too:
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/05/12/bill-barring-divisive-concepts-targets-race-discussions-in-ohio-schools/
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
The Traitorous-Trumpian Right attempts to “whitewash” history.
Utah’s governor just stopped the banning of CRT from being brought up in a special session this week, but I’m sure it’s coming.
This will scare teachers from teaching anything about race, which will destroy history and geography education. It’s a terrifying thought.
This runs long, but too few people are aware that teachers do not have freedom of action to teach as they please. I am not a lawyer but I have been following major cases, many of linked to the New York Times’ 1619 Project— an initiative intended to reframe U.S. history by giving attention to the legacy of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans.
At last check, Republican lawmakers in five states want to ban these materials. The Arkansas and Mississippi bills call the 1619 Project “a racially divisive and revisionist account;” the Iowa bill claims that it “attempts to deny or obfuscate the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded.”
These bills propose that school districts choosing to use the curriculum have cuts in part of their state funding, in proportion to the time and resources devoted to teaching the material.” Source https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/lawmakers-push-to-ban-1619-project-from-schools/2021/02
There are many reasons to be critical of the actual curriculum developed for the 1619 project. Those materials and activities are all tied to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) which assume, for example, that students in grades K-grade 3 are skilled readers and logical thinkers. Another irony: The CCSS were never “State” standards. They were paid for and marketed to states by billionaire Bill Gates, and are now pushed by the Pulitzer Center. https://pulitzercenter.org/builder/lesson/activities-extend-student-engagement relevant to K-3 education.
I have no idea why leaders of at the Pulitzer Center other than their collective arrogance associated with extreme wealth…his, hers, theirs. In any case, it was stupid to privilege the Common Core standards. They are not now widely accepted without state-level modifications.
Now consider recent Court rulings.. This report is from MARK WALSH, OCTOBER 21, 2010 EDWEEK. “Teachers have no First Amendment free-speech protection for curricular decisions they make in the classroom, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.”
“Only the school board has ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the classroom, legitimately giving it a say over what teachers may (or may not) teach in the classroom,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, said in its opinion.”
“The decision came in the case of an Ohio teacher whose contract was not renewed in 2002 after community controversy over reading selections she assigned to her high school English classes. These included Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, and a unit on book censorship in which the teacher allowed students to pick books from a list of frequently challenged works, and some students chose Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman.”
A group of 500 parents petitioned the school board against the teacher, Shelley Evans-Marshall, calling for “decency and excellence” in the classroom. … The school board in March 2002 decided not to renew her contract, citing “problems with communications and teamwork.”
Evans-Marshall sued the Tipp City, Ohio, school district and various officials in 2003, alleging that her termination violated her First Amendment free-speech rights….
“But the Evans-Marshall’s case … could not survive the court’s most recent decision in this area: Garcetti v. Ceballos.
In Garcetti, decided in 2006, the high court held that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech “pursuant to” their official duties.”
“In the light cast by Garcetti, it is clear that the First Amendment does not generally insulate Evans-Marshall from employer discipline, even discipline prompted by her curricular and pedagogical choices and even if it otherwise appears (at least on summary judgment) that the school administrators treated her shabbily,” said the 6th Circuit opinion by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton.”
“When a teacher teaches, the school system does not regulate that speech
as much as it hires that speech,” Sutton wrote, borrowing language from a 7th Circuit decision in a similar case. “Expression is a teacher’s stock in trade, the commodity she sells to her employer in exchange for a salary. And if it is the school board that hires that speech, it can surely regulate the content of what is or is not expressed, what is expressed in other words on its behalf.”
“Sutton questioned how a school system could operate if all teachers had First Amendment rights to make their own curricular decisions.”
“Evans-Marshall may wish to teach Siddhartha in the first unit of the school year in a certain way, but the chair of the English department may wish to use the limited time in a school year to teach A Tale of Two Cities at that stage of the year,” Sutton wrote.
“When educators disagree over what should be assigned, as is surely bound to happen if each of them has a First Amendment right to influence the curriculum, whose free-speech rights win? …
Placing the First Amendment’s stamp of approval on these kinds of debates not only would demand permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations, but it also would transform (many) curricular disputes into constitutional stalemates.” https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0334p-06.pdf
See another case where criticism of school policies are front and center. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/648/pickering-v-board-of-education
Laura thank you for hitting so many nails on the head as usual.
“too few people are aware that teachers do not have freedom of action to teach as they please.” In other words, already— and if any, far less than they did 25 yrs ago [pre-deprofessionalization via stds movement, NCLB, etc etc]
Curriculum developed for 1619 Project based on CCSS! Didn’t know, but it figures. CCSS is GIGO in many different ways, but boils down to “aligned” curriculum and assessments. Another thing “too few people are aware of” is that CCSS lives on, zombie-like, as re-branded mini-tweaks in most of the 46 states that adopted it (though those agin it thought they’d stamped it out).
The Court cases are dispiriting, and reminded me instantly of Dr Phil’s oft-repeated warnings to parents squabbling over custody, relatives weaponizing DYFUS, etc. (blush, yes, watched it a lot when kiddies were young). He would counsel: improve your communication skills, try individual counseling, family counseling if you can get buy-in, mediation– anything but court where outcomes are unpredictable and legally enforceable.
Both parenting and teaching are highly-nuanced endeavors not easily gleaned by those with gavels. Court is a blunt instrument staffed by binary thinkers, to wit: “Sutton questioned how a school system could operate if all teachers had First Amendment rights to make their own curricular decisions.” And yet one has to question Evans-Marshall bringing an employee/employer dispute on 1st Amendment grounds, because Sutton is not wrong when he says “Placing the First Amendment’s stamp of approval on these kinds of debates… would demand permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of government operations.”
Contrast Nancy Flanagan’s “I spent many years working in a rural-turned suburban district outside Detroit, the far edge of white flight. I got very used to ‘middle of the road.’ I also learned that once you were trusted by a community, gently easing them toward the right thing to do got easier.”
Right, Laura. Thank you for the information about CCSSs. Curriculum must be determined by teachers, not by the legislatures that billionaires buy. I always say that I do not teach my students what to think; rather, I teach them to think for themselves — by providing factual information and nuanced literature for discussion. It’s a complex job, one that requires flexibility.
Billionaires want standardized rigidity. They want control, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Not in my classroom! No one is going to force me to show Gone With the Wind, but nor will anyone force me to ignore the existence of the film. I personally identify with progressives, and that must mean siding with academic freedom for teachers, especially BIPOC teachers.
Yes, LCT! Here are a couple of quotations from Russell Ackoff, who I was just introduced to by Ed Johnson above: “Educators stand in sharp contrast to gurus. Educators do not try to bring thinking to a halt but to initiate it. They want their students to extend and expand the ideas they present and students are encouraged to question and modify without constraint. Educators want their solutions to be treated as beginnings, not ends. Gurus lead into; educators lead out of. Gurus provide ready-made solutions but educators provide ways of finding individualized solutions.”
“An educator tries to transmit a way of thinking and a way of conducting inquiries. And he does not pretend that these are the only ways. Among other things, he recognizes that differences in personality lead those with different personalities to select different ways of thinking and behaving.”
Good comment.
“The Heritage Foundation” is the Koch’s. IMO, Koch grooms the religious right for political influence. The Koch’s funded Paul Weyrich whose training manual is posted at Theocracy Watch. The Koch’s also fund the drafting of state laws through ALEC, an organization almost exclusively Republican.
As one example of the landscape, Lt. Colonel Lohmeier (recently removed from duty) has been described as devoutly religious. His views expressed in a book and on a conservative podcast appear to align with a Koch view that activities aimed at creating a level playing field are Marxist. A colonialist model appeals to some white men and many of them claim membership in conservative Christian and Catholic churches.
“Colonialist” doesn’t quite do it for me as the opposite end of Marxism; I prefer “untrammeled capitalism,” which is the model for libertarians, theocrats, ‘rugged individualists’ et al anti-democratic culture-warriors propping up the financial vultures funding the Republicans these days. The happy medium would appear to be capitalist economies governed by social democracies.
“Untrammeled capitalism” is connected by what thread to racism and sexism.
No regs, just Darwinism. The law of the jungle.
So, the most notable wealthy libertarians aren’t racist, despite those who report about it? The three strikes law, the stand your ground laws weren’t intended to have disproportionate effect on Black men? Opposition to civil rights legislation isn’t aimed at women and people of color? Anti-abortion laws aren’t aimed at control of women. (Robert P. George wrote about people he is aware of who believe birth control makes people promiscuous.)
Melinda Gates set up the “Empower women and girls” program because the only thing holding them back is their own failure to understand the invisible hand economic system that men easily master?
Redlining is a fraudulent definition?
Gov. Talmadge’s proposed school privatization had economics as its sole basis?
Separate but equal schools had economics as their sole basis?
Koch libertarians, and colonialism, are motivated by economics. Redlining, absolutely motivated by economics, using racism to flip properties. Racism and sexism are at base responses to fear of loss caused by sharing the pie. Tribalism is a survival instinct. There’s no getting around the tribal instinct, but expanding the sense of tribe can improve lives for more people. Labor unions, e.g., can expand the sense of ‘us’ to include all the workers regardless of race or sex. Koch mentality is anti-union precisely out of refusal to share the pie. It’s all about controlling the turf: I tell you how much $ you can make and what you can buy with it. Racism and sexism are fanned by a sense of powerlessness. Read up on Talmadge: his racism was part and parcel of his economic views namely pro old land-owning families, anti-share the wealth, anti-New Deal, preserving the South’s ‘economic advantage’ of rock-bottom wages.
Tapping the most talented workers or the most intelligent out of a total pool, ignoring gender and race, is economic reasoning.
American sports leagues were racist until the barrier was broken. Jackie Robinson provides example. During WWII, Germany didn’t, in general terms, employ women’s skills for the war effort as did the U.S. When American men returned from the war efforts, women were expected to relinquish their jobs for them.
bethree5- I’m curious about your demographics, male or female, GOP or Democrat?
I ask because some misread your name as Beth which leads them to make a false assumption. The name I use and my comments lead to accurate assumptions about my gender and political party.
“Jesse Owens vs. Hitler wasn’t the only story at the 1936 Olympics” (2-10-2020, Undefeated.com). An extrapolation of the story is important because many Americans were shocked at the positive reception that Trump’s racism found in the central states. They shouldn’t have been surprised, German immigrants settled in the central states. George W. Bush recently said, about the Republican Party, “It can’t win anything with appeal to white Anglo-Saxon protestantism.” W, never the sharpest tool in the box, ignored the Catholics of German descent in the central states who won the election for Trump in 2016.
When pundits studiously avoid discussion about the links between religion and the national origins of citizens who vote, the result is the rise of men like Trump. Looking forward, the Catholicism of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations from Mexico/Central America will have impact on politics. The Church exerts political influence with impunity now, which was not true for a period in the recent past. Adding in the influence of Koch through the Catholic churches that have white congregants who are, now, “the haves”, and W’s understanding, as usual, is half-baked.
To understand Trumpism, we should understand why many mid-America communities voted for Obama, then switched to Trump. I have never seen a satisfying explanation.
Linda: You’re running off in a couple of other directions: I’ll stop only to counter reasoning on racism and theocracy in the central states (assuming you mean Rust Belt)– my last chapter on this convo. There’s a long history there, way before 2016 elections. E.g., both racism and theocracy were heated up in Chicago & surrounds 100 yrs ago. The Great Migration of blacks from South was arriving just as many white Euro immigrants (mostly Catholic) were barely getting a toe-hold on lower-middle-class, & not just Germans (who were on the front edge in 1880’s), but Polish, Italian, Irish, & others. Blacks competed with them for a place in the inner cities, and there was hell to pay for the few black professionals who tried to settle in the outer ring. (And there was a whole ‘nother factor playing out in the surrounds in the early ‘20’s: virulent, KKK-inspired anti-Catholicism.) Labeling this “German” is reductionist. The common thread is immigrants from Europe and emigrants from the South, all coming from sever poverty, all fighting over whatever pie could provide. Economics.
As for your demo query– 😀 –all I can say is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbaSh8i5eyE
Diane, I came across this nuanced article which takes a different slant than the usual working-class-whites switch to Trump populism due to mfg implosion. Per this take, though that’s still there in long memories of dying-off elders, it’s not on-point. (And it never did explain why they went for Obama previously, and as you say, the issue is with middle-class voters.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/20/heres-the-real-reason-rust-belt-cities-and-towns-voted-for-trump/
Trump voting in the central states was more visceral than one would conclude from Bethree’s WaPo article.
My apologies to Diane if I am wasting her time with the following i.e. she has considered the arguments and rejected them.
J.D. Vance observed about Ohio (and, IMO, it applies to other central states) that white angst derived from the accumulated number of cultural changes that were unwanted by the voters who then, chose Trump. A few include, gay equality, rejection of male dominance (exemplified by Hillary’s candidacy) and, the view that the traditional preferential opportunities whites expected, would be compromised by more black opportunity.
Adding another point that echoes the WaPo article, those who became Trump voters were desperate to cling to a sense of power they thought could be achieved by nullifying the influence of elites and government bureaucracies.
The “abortion” issue that the WaPo article glances over without explanation is important. What is happening signifies a seismic shift of the U.S. away from other developed nations. Koch and Murdoch empowered the religious right. The political muscle of the conservative religious continuously increased toward and beyond 2016 (Hawley and Cruz as example). Steve Bannon recognized (or engineered) Trump’s opportunity. Much of what happened was behind the scenes. Leonard Leo’s successes provide one example. The little known alliance of the once contentious Catholic and evangelical leaders has been disastrous for progressivism.
The political party divergence between older voters and younger voters may serve to corroborate some of the points made in the preceding paragraphs.
This is not about whether or not to teach the ugly side of American history. CRT is something else. Let me give you a sense of it. I recently attended the Teaching History Conference here in CA sponsored by the University of California History and Social Studies Project. On Saturday, 15 of the 21 workshops dealt with oppressed groups (slaves, Latinx, the disabled, LGBTQ, etc.). The remainder espoused critical reading –by which they seemed to mean seeking out conservative biases. I’d have no problem with such workshops if they were part of a diverse array of topics and perspectives.. The issue is the psychotic monomania! Exposing oppression is the only thing that matters to these people. It’s utterly unbalanced. Schools aren’t just giving kids unbiased facts; their values are being actively molded according to the CRT ideology. You don’t believe me? One of the workshops was put on by three public school history teachers from Southern California who expressly told us the point of their American history classes is to create activists. They began their workshop with a quote from Paolo Freire –“There is no neutral history”. They gave a sample lesson in which they showed 19th Century cartoons of African Americans dancing and they asked us for our reactions. This is fine. But we all knew what they wanted us to say –“they’re showing agency”, “they have community despite the oppression”, etc. In classes like this, there are “party line” responses that everyone knows to say. We know the right answers even before we see the material. It doesn’t feel like real education. My mind felt stifled and bored, not liberated and quickened. So it was throughout this very ideological conference. The subtext of every workshop was, “these poor saintly oppressed groups are wonderful; Western Civ is such a monster, isn’t it?” Yes, expose the dark sides of Western Civ. But that’s all they want people to know!
Another workshop was put on by two teachers who reorganized their America history course to be thematic instead of chronological. The themes? “LGBTQ and black oppression”. This was not an elective course; it was the standard American history class at a public high school. Yes, teach these things, but don’t fixate on these things! This is warped education.
The UC History and Social Studies Project is a cabal of ideologues. On several occasions (including at this conference) I’ve heard their leaders express disdain for the standards you helped create, Diane, and regret that they weren’t able to get the legislature to overturn them. So they have subverted your content-rich standards that lead to real learning. How did they subvert them? By getting a set of “frameworks” adopted that tell teachers you don’t really have to teach the standards; instead teach vague general concepts like “interconnectedness”, keep the teacher off the stage (because he’ll teach the “master narrative” that glorifies the West and cause “colonial reproduction” –this is their bogeyman), put kids in groups for “inquiry” lessons where they are told to suss out textbook writers’ biases (starting in 1st grade). The end result is kids who know little except West/White = bad, Other=good, and that one should have an abiding suspicion of all texts. This is a warped education.
Diane, don’t believe their claims they just want to teach the facts. They are an anti-intellectual crew who wish ignorance of everything except a narrative of oppression. They like to pretend that their opponents simply want to prevent teaching the ugly sides of American history. No, we object to teaching NOTHING BUT the ugly side of history; that’s the true CRT agenda.
I always loved Charlie Chaplin films, ever since I saw City Lights years ago. The Great Dictator speaks to me. I started watching some of his earlier works this summer, however, and found his treatment of Black people insufferable, cringeworthy. My perspective changed.
Maybe after 400 years of slavery and oppression, it’s time to hear the side of the oppressed. A little one-sidedness might be appropriate at this juncture, a bit of a reparation, if you will. The “patriotic” side has had the mic for centuries.
Don’t let people tell you what or how to teach, but listen to opposing ideas and find your open mind. The great thing about education is the debating, not homogeneity, of ideas.
Historically, the progress of almost every civilization was achieved through war, conquest, oppression, savagery, enslavement, and environmental degradation. There are few people alive who could not find a point in their family history where they were not victims of these practices. To harp on the dark side of human nature in exclusion of all else paints a very distorted view of human history – and is far too easily misinterpreted by children and adolescents.
An even more damaging message for young people is,
White: feel the guilt and hang your head in shame
Non – White: you are victims of oppression, blame others and shed personal responsibility
Do we really want go back to the days of, “Your just picking on me because I’m . . . .”
In other words, how dare anyone make white folks feel shame. They aren’t racists and don’t support racism. Just ask any Trump voter and all except a very few will tell you they aren’t racist and they are against racism.
This post demonstrates how damaging it is when white folks believe they are the only true arbiters of what is racist and what is not.
Your definition of what is “more damaging” is definitely something any white supremacist would agree with.
Great comment. I’m not a fan of these “anti-CRT” bills (although I don’t think any of them actually mention “CRT”), but they are an entirely understandable reaction against a toxic ideology and pedagogy. A lot of people are either in complete denial or are just completely out of touch.
Thank you antidogma and FLERP! for acknowledging this.
The problem with these “anti-CRT” bills is that it’s easy to portray the GOP as backwards ignoramuses rather than acknowledge that CRT has flaws. There is nothing wrong with teaching the ugly side of history, but the CRT approach reflects the hostile, paranoid worldview of the Baby Boom Blacks who created it and is not productive. I have grade school children, so I am well aware that white kids are coming home thinking they are “bad”. Would a parent be happy if their gay child came home saying they are “bad” because they are gay? The materials are poor – the Kendi books for kids is weird and the book about being anti-racist is awful. The way in which I’ve heard kids flippantly throw out terms like “racism” or “sexism” in any scenario is troubling. CRT does not present the material in an age-appropriate way and is not having the effect many would desire.
In addition, there is a generational component here, generally speaking. The CRT creators are Baby Boomers. The school administrators pushing this content are Baby Boomers. The teachers are self-righteous Millennials. The parents are Gen Xers and are way too cynical to tolerate either generation’s nonsense. In particular Gen X parents, both on the Left and the Right, are not interested in the schools usurping the role of the family in terms of teaching morality.
I’m with you on this one. Just teach history as fact (no whitewashing!) and make it age appropriate. And for goodness sake….let’s just all be nice and respectful towards one another. I’m tired of the culture wars and I’m tired of most people not really understanding what is really happening in the sick tug of war game.
Beth
More than one-half of Republicans (more than 50%) believe that the election was stolen. That is the proof that Republicans are stupid.
Statements like, “the role of family in teaching morals”, show the mental laziness associated with ignorance or shows mental dullness. The statement is an example where the propaganda’s wording wasn’t even altered to show more than regurgitation. A thinker would inform him or herself about the research on teaching ethics. Then, the discussion of the issue could progress because knowledge and intelligence of thought are indicated.
In summary, the families of the people who raided the Capitol should not be singularly informing their children about American government, about empathy, nor about history, including that of religion. As example, Rudy Giuliani appears to be a poor source for learning. Pat Buchanan’s utterances characterized as Holocaust denial would also make him a poor choice to learn from.
Beth: I applaud your & FLERP’s sentiment, but quibble re: the motivations of state pols promulgating anti-CRT laws. Am I just way too cynical? I can’t imagine any of them having studied up on CRT, or how it’s infiltrating ed thinking/ promoted pedagogy as detailed by Antidogma. Pure anti-liberal dog-whistle, IMHO, and doing it now while anti-Bidenism takes over from ‘Election Steal’ paranoia—quick, before effects realized from 2021 covid relief bill.
The reality is there is overlap among several types of people who don’t like this stuff. Some are Trumpists, some are what used to be called centrist Republicans or moderates, some are classic liberals, some are leftists. (The most compelling pieces of resistance to the 1619 Project were published on the Trotskyite web site World Socialist Web Site.) I’m sure most opponents of what they think is “critical race theory” have not studied up on it. I’m equally sure most people (including most commenters here) have studied up on it, and I think it will be many years before a full reckoning happens. But what’s happening now in state legislatures is a completely predictable backlash against a movement that has been pressing forward out of sight for decades. And the movement is not a movement to “tell both sides of the story” or to “teach the facts.” The real “anti-liberal” movement is CRT, and it’s not a dog-whistle. CRT proponents say loud and clear over and over that liberalism is a frame risk that perpetuates racism and should be replaced.
I am a liberal. I believe in the scientific method, that objective truth is knowable, that people should be treated as individuals and not representatives of racial or sexual identity groups, and that “merit” is a meaningful concept that itself disrupts hierarchies based on wealth and privilege. I believe it is possible to not be racist and that people should be encouraged to strive for that. I don’t believe racism is immanent and present in every interaction.
The World Socialist Website?? Their owner is anti-affirmative action and very critical of Bernie Sanders and AOC and criticizes Democratic Socialists, too. The World Socialist Website repeats right wing talking points to criticize the 1619 project.
FLERP! says: “I believe it is possible to not be racist and that people should be encouraged to strive for that.”
I agree. But it is impossible to “not be racist” and believe that the final arbiter of what is racist should be white people and not the victims of racism, whose opinions are invalid if white folks don’t agree.
I believe it is possible to be racist and not know you are racist. I also believe that there are many white folks who disagree with me and insist they are not racist. And they close their ears to what victims of racism say because apparently the opinions of victims of racism are not nearly as valid as their own. They don’t strive not to be racist because they have created a world where the people who might educate them about the racism they silently condone are silenced by them.
Twenty-five years ago, no one listened to the people who said that Billy Crystal wearing blackface was racist. After all, if Sammy Davis Jr. was okay with it, what did it matter what anyone else said. So white people told themselves there was nothing racist about the fact that they weren’t sickened and offended by Crystal and instead thought he was just really entertaining. Those people said they were non-racists striving to be better, but they ignored or belittled any voices that tried to make them better.
Many Germans didn’t actively dislike Jews or treat them differently. They didn’t mind Hitler, but they said they didn’t agree with Hitler’s hatred of Jews and that’s not why they supported Hitler. But the fact that Hitler was saying ugly and nasty things about Jews didn’t bother them enough to object. Those people looked away when their Jewish neighbors were rounded up and “disappeared” and they did not believe they were anti-Semites and were offended to be called that.
I do not believe there is much difference between being a racist, and someone who insists they are not a racist while they condone racism in society and tell people who want to point it out to shut up.
Apparently there a “knowable” objective truth about whether Billy Crystal’s liberal audience who believed they were not racist were or were not racist when they enjoyed watching him in blackface.
I think that objective truth is that they were racist, even if they would have insisted that there was nothing racist about them and they were striving to be better.
The problem is that striving to be better is a meaningless platitude if those people ignore and try to silence the voices that ask them to change their ways to be better.
NYCPP, are you racist?
FLERP!
Talk about hypocrisy! Wasn’t it you who got offended in the past when I asked a question in my comment? I spent a lot of time rewording my comment above because I didn’t want a distraction from the points I was making by someone complaining about being asked a question.
When I laughed at Billy Crystal’s SNL impersonations, I was racist. When I “didn’t notice” that his routines were offensive to many African Americans, I was racist. Since then, I have come to understand why those performances were offensive and I have come to understand that I could be racist without intending to be racist.
And I would not be surprised if I learn at some point in the future that something I don’t notice now or now condone is actually racist. If and when that happens, I will acknowledge that I had a racist belief and strive to make it better. But I try to listen to other voices – especially people who are victimized by racism – instead of demeaning and marginalizing those voices.
A lot of this is semantics.
There are racists who are fine with being racist and believe in white supremacy.
There are people who believe they are not racists and want to be the final arbiter themselves of whether their actions are racist or not because they believe that it doesn’t matter what victims of racism think about their actions, it matters what they themselves “know” is objectively true.
There are people who believe they are not racists and when they are told that they are, REALLY strive not to continue to be racist instead of immediately dismissing the people telling them they are racist as people whose opinion is worthless. I try to be this kind of person.
I won’t ask you if you are racist since you only ask questions and don’t answer them. But perhaps you might consider that just because you are absolutely certain that you aren’t racist, does not make that that objectively true that you aren’t racist.
So you believe you are not racist but when you are told that you actually are racist, you try really hard to stop being racist.
That’s almost a perfect critical-race-theory answer, but not quite. Critical race theory posits that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in America and that it is constantly present, everywhere. The question isn’t “did racism occur” but “how did racism manifest itself in that particular situation.” It is not possible to be “not racist,” because everyone is racist and all relationships exist within racist structures. The only solution is to be actively anti-racist, i.e. to do things that dismantle white supremacy. This includes discarding the idea that you should treat people equally without regard to their race or ethnicity or gender, because that idea is central to the “myth of meritocracy.” It is also a central tenet of liberalism, and CRT is an openly anti-liberal movement. It holds that you should consciously consider race and ethnicity and gender, not just because it’s inescapable, but also because it enables you to do anti-racist things. As Ibram Kendi puts it, the only remedy for racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.
I’m not joking about any of this. This is what the movement believes. They’re very open about it. Yet old liberals will keep hearing what they want to hear, thinking that this is just an extension of the civil rights movement, that it’s simply about listening to other voices and perspectives, and that anyone who objects to it is a right-winger who hates liberalism.
FLERP @ 100%
Now imagine the average social studies teacher trying to turn this into a meaningful lesson for 7th graders! Not only impossible it would be undesirable. It’s little more than activist ideology taken up by the super woke with little understanding about its anti liberal bias. What a mess this has become. If I were a black parent I would be outraged if this grape pages s being taught in lieu of almost anything else.
FLERP: very interesting that you cite the ‘Trotskyite web site World Socialist Web Site.’ I have been learning a lot about Trotsky reading “The Man Who Loved Dogs” (Leonardo Padura). He saw, and called out, well before most, that Stalin’s methods were killing the socialist revolution. Saw his own early contributions to the problem, and regretted them. That a ‘the-end-justifies-the-means’ mentality gets fundamental change underway, but ultimately reaps precisely what it sows. Hearing an echo of that problem in CRT, nutshelled in “the only remedy for racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.”
FLERP….great way to explain it! Most people really do think it’s an extension of the Civil Rights Movement and it’s not. I believe in the basic principles of CRT, but I don’t agree with how it is to be “practiced” or how it should be “taught” to students. I really believe that if children are taught age appropriate history that has not been whitewashed, and they are kind and respectful to one another, they will make the right choices….most of the time. Notice how CRT just magically popped up at the height of the BLM protests? I think the CRT proponents were alarmed by all the white and asian participation in those marches because it showed that racial progress/acceptance has been made over the years. There is still more work to do, but CRT(theory/ideology) is not the way to get it done.
FLERP!,
Thanks for giving a great explanation of CRT. Seriously.
I agree that everyone who believes that the US is a meritocracy and “merit” is the reason that people in power have power, and “merit” is the reason that people with money have money and “lack of merit” is the reason that explains why other people are not successful should oppose CRT with every fiber of their being.
The reason the younger generation understands CRT is because they see the reality while you see some false dream.
This will shock you all. I believe America is a place where those who are very rich — which is nearly always achieved by being willing to do things that many people would not do to other people — are given a disproportionate amount of resources and power and those with “merit” – who work hard, maybe toil as scientists or as doctors or nurses in ERs – might make a decent or even affluent living but they have almost no power. That is true regardless of their race. But it is also true that there are structural inequities that result in the ability to get there being different depending on your race. Those are documented.
FLERP! says: “So you believe you are not racist but when you are told that you actually are racist, you try really hard to stop being racist.”
So FLERP! believes that the liberals who thought Billy Crystal’s routines were okay were NOT racist?
Just trying to get a handle on where you all are coming from. It’s okay to laugh at comedians in blackface because you weren’t racist then? Is this some constructed definition of racism which amounts to: “when white liberals decide something is racist, it is, but until the white liberals decide it is racist, it’s fine to keep doing it?”
@Bethree5 – Yes, I hear you on this. I think the GOP would have twisted any more inclusive approach for their own benefit.
FYI to those who don’t understand why CRT exists:
Some people in education and some parents believe that an “objective” definition of “merit” means “getting one of the highest scores on the SHSAT” (a single day’s high school admission exam.)
Those who challenge this definition – which in NYC has led to specialized high schools that have almost no African American students – are attacked as wanting to let subpar students — those who lack the objective “merit” that the SHSAT supposedly identifies — into schools where they will all fail due to the fact that those students who do not get a certain score “objectively” lack merit. It is supposed to be an inarguable fact that we must all accept as the absolute truth.
This definition of what is “merit” was constructed by people in power who decided the only definition of “merit” was their own and attacked everyone else because their own definition of “merit” was “objectively correct” and therefore anyone who challenged it must be silenced.
The US is a meritocracy in which the definition of merit is constructed by those in power, who demand that we all recognize that their definition is the objective truth. It is almost Orwellian and yet we have people here who attack CRT instead of attacking that falsehood that CRT is trying to correct.
Some people also believe that the objective definition of whether or not someone is racist is their own belief as to whether they are racist.
I wish I heard from more teachers on this topic.
Here is one of the Golden Rules of teaching: If a lesson or topic can be misconstrued by students, it will be.
The content of CRT and the 1619 project are extremely complex and nuanced, difficult even for a veteran teacher to present without being misinterpreted by kids. The job of a teacher is to distill confusing amounts or types of information into the understandable. So we ask ourselves, what do we want a novice learner to glean from all of this complex and nuanced information about history, oppression, enslavement, and racism? This is a very tall order given the emotional nature of the topic and the external influences. So FLERP, as a parent, what would you want your kid to take away? Ask one thousand parents and guess what! Therein lies the problem. Knowing the three branches of government and our system of checks and balances for 7th graders may be enough. I’m sure of one thing, inundating kids with topics that require higher brain development and more sophisticated emotional development probably won’t have the outcome most parents would want.
This teacher intends to responsibly report on history. To the extent that CRT suggests something informative about a topic like European imperialism and colonialism, I will use those ideas whether some law or curriculum makes it legal or illegal. No one will ever ents know because all history is a review of what historians have written about it. I will probably not mention CRT or 1619 by name. But you can bet I will discuss evidence of European justification of events like the Meji Meji rebellion. Unless someone convinces me I should not, genocide is something I should discuss.
The discussion above about first amendment rights was not about responsibility. A teacher has a responsibility to the truth. No curriculum can delineate specific examples of what the teacher will present.
You’re probably a good teacher who thinks for himself,
teaches content, and encourages students to think critically and rationally. One sign of that is that you don’t repeat canned social justice edu-jargon like a robot.
The Kochs have sanitized history materials they want to foist on public schools. Beware of narrow minded billionaires with lots of influence. They were working on their curriculum before BLM.
But CRT was around long before BLM. CRT has been around longer than the Koch’s assault on Democracy. CRT has just picked up momentum again “because” of BLM and the recent police violence and protesting.
Haven’t “sanitized” history textbooks been around since long before Kochs got involved
Antidogma says:
“This is not about whether or not to teach the ugly side of American history. CRT is something else.”
CRT addresses the idea that what white people who fashion themselves as “liberals” decide is the ugly side of America is what must be accepted and what non-white people think is irrelevant because white folks know what was ugly and what was not.
Some of the replies here by teachers are not open-minded. They are people who are positive they are not racist and therefore being accused of racism makes them defensive.
I could take any history book written by the most celebrated teacher-approved author and tell you something that is wrong. And that’s what critics do when they discuss CRT — focus only on some way that it might (arguably) be misapplied and use it to dismiss the ideas in CRT. They just know they are not teaching racist material and those CRT people should shut up and accept what we know is best.
Times change. Not so long ago white liberal comedians could fashion themselves as non-racist and perform in blackface as Billy Crystal did while liberal audience members fashioned themselves as non-racists and laughed approvingly.
For DECADES there have been voices who pointed out how offensive it was, but since white folks just knew they weren’t racists (“Sammy Davis Jr likes it so shut up it’s funny”) those voices were ignored, demeaned, and belittled. Just like people are doing here with CRT.
One day when our grandchildren read the replies here, many people will sound like all the white people who insisted that Billy Crystal’s performance of Sammy Davis jr. was the most non-racist thing ever and their approval of it was the most non-racist thing ever. And that is a very racist view to have.
Try listening to the other side and seeing their perspective before completely dismissing their POV. Even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
NYCPSP.,
I certainly agree that there is great value in listing to hetorodox opinions. I hope that your statement in support will persuade others to take those opinions seriously even if they make them feel uncomfortable or if they take days before they are posted.
Amen
The anti-CRT backlash is beneath contempt. Until somewhat recently, ’90s (?), whitewashed US history in high schools has been the norm, critical race histories (Zinn, Takaki, etc) the exception. Or that was my experience teaching for over twenty years in the Seattle public schools (SPS), anyway. Still, I must say, the three or four CRT-like cultural awareness professional development trainings I went through in SPS were okay (they got us talking about topics we’ve learned to avoid) to unfortunately racist, explaining to teachers, for example, how cultural race differences line up with Gardner’s multiple intelligences. And, in the latter instance, thereby relegating the learning capacity of Asian students to math and science and Black students to music and athletics.
Why do some of these “lawmakers” think that they can legislate their way around historical fact? Revisionists such as these are on a par with Holocaust deniers.
I am just aghast at legislators butting into the classroom and directing curriculum—period.
It will get worse.
Once upon a time, a child was born. In a nation. OF COURSE, it was the greatest nation.
If we must teach lies to our children, I have a suggestion: the one about Santa Claus is a lot less dangerous.
The children know that America isn’t a meritocracy. If (some of) the older generation listened more than it “educated”, they might learn something!
Watched Trial of the Chicago 7. What was interesting is that the 7 had different political beliefs but they all understood that America wasn’t the “myth” that they had been taught. Their elders were very angry at them for not believing that myth.
Was it that generation that grew up to be so knee-jerk reactive when they hear about CRT? While there may be some criticisms to make, there are just as many — if not more — criticisms to be made about the falsehoods about America that are frequently taught in schools.
Oh my Lord. Don’t get me started on the falsehoods taught in schools. I have a long, long unwritten book on that topic that I’ve outlined over and over again for many years. I can’t look at high-school or junior-high American history books any more. These should be shelved in the mythology section.
About American myths and the expectations we put on them. Tim Scott, a Black republican, in his response to Biden’s (unofficial) SOTU, assures us America is NOT a racist country, and somehow this is a conservative flanking movement that requires Biden in a subsequent TV interview to emphatically agree. But of course in historical facts America is a racist country. American history is sick with racism. If the Trump era has taught us anything it’s that we still really haven’t even got past the a Civil War we fought about race slavery over 150 years ago! That is the entrenched power of white supremacist American myth in this country. I think the indignant, bristling, about CRT/Cancel Culture comes from a similar place: denial. America isn’t a racist country! You can’t say that. When of course it’s a racist country. The question is how can we make it less so? CRT says by exposing racist social inequalities, tracing their history, taking direct action to reduce racial injustice. Although, I think tearing down statues of Lincoln or Jefferson is going too far. Tear down Rebel statues, sure. It’s a sad racist caricature of American history that commemorative statues to the Confederacy outnumber Union statues 2 or 3 to 1.
Many don’t remember a time when, for white men, America had glimmers of hope as a meritocracy.
The GI Bill, the taxation structure of the Eisenhower years, well-paid government jobs with qualification based on civil service exams…
American history is sick with racism.
That is perfectly said. And completely accurate.
Folks might be interested in this paper looking at the long lasting impact of “Birth of a Nation” on the counties where it was shown. Lynchings increased in those counties relative to counties where it was not shown, a decade later those counties had higher Klan activity than in counties where it was not shown, a century later those counties have more hate crimes and hate group activities than in counties where it was not shown. See https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ang_birthofanation.pdf?m=1601413939
Fascinating, TE!!!
Thanks for the link. Looked it up. Griffith was the son of a Confederate Army Col. Thomas Dixon was a “white supremacist, professional racist, baptist minister…”
The Hollywood movies created to demonize public schools and exalt charter schools haven’t had the success that Birth of a Nation did.
I should be a zealous CRT person. I believe in teaching the Tulsa race massacre, the odious pogroms against Chinese Americans in CA, redlining, etc. So why am I so queasy about CRT? It’s because I sense that its proponents are really anti-knowledge and especially anti-history. They want a narrow sliver of history facts to be taught and that’s it. Because if you taught history more broadly, many of their claims would be undermined. Teaching that Africans and Native Americans engaged in slavery long before Whites came along complicates their narrative that Whites are uniquely awful. Teaching about anti-Jewish pogroms, India’s caste system, Mongol atrocities complicates their narrative that anti-black discrimination is somehow a cosmic injustice that stands above all others. They are as afraid of the real facts as the racists who don’t want to face that Whites committed genocide against Native Americans. This is why, as Antidognma points out above, the CRT establishment hosts a conference on hsitory teaching that does not acknowledge any aspect of history that does not feed their narrative. Nothing on the art of the Renaissance, or Inca bridge building, or the evolution of banking, or any of the myriad other topics that history deals with. Ignore all that, they seem to say. Have them do textual analysis exercises that are terrible at transmitting knowledge, but do lecture them on oppression and Harvey Milk. Those select facts they must learn. As FLERP points out, this is anti-liberal, in the freedom sense of “liberal”. We are not freeing minds. We’re corralling them into the narrow world view of these ideologues. Why are so many adults trying to do this to kids? It’s because they themselves received a deficient , illiberal education in the increasingly ideological “liberal arts” colleges and universities. They themselves know little except Foucault and the other thinkers behind this CRT dogma. It’s all they know how to teach.
I’m not upset that you lied to me,
I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you…
Nietzsche
That’s Bill Gates’ problem now that the adage, “you can fool some of the people…”, became his reality.
For me, the issue is not whether students of history will dispute the facts and lessons of history but (1) whether those disputes will be ironed out among scholars and a synthesis shared with teachers or (2) whether those disputes will be quelled by politicians and the resulting dogmas dictated to teachers and their pupils.
As a prominent scholar wrote years ago, “Teach the conflict.” Don’t wait for scholars to agree. In interesting episodes and controversies, their debates never end.
Teach the conflict. But don’t imagine and definitely don’t always convey that the “sides” of the conflict make equal sense.
Exactly right. Teach the conflict but don’t teach that defenders of slavery and abolitionists both made good points. Slavery was and is evil.
OK, in reply to FLERP!, above:
“Critical race theory posits that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in America and that it is constantly present, everywhere.”
Of course not. But it sure is widespread.
“The question isn’t ‘did racism occur’ but ‘how did racism manifest itself in that particular situation.’”
The latter is a good question, that needs asking a lot, but sometimes, I agree, asking it would make no sense or be counterproductive.
“It is not possible to be ‘not racist,’ because everyone is racist and all relationships exist within racist structures.”
Well, that’s just utter bull—-t. I understand why justifiably angry folks might say it, but it’s bull—-t anyway.
“The only solution is to be actively anti-racist, i.e. to do things that dismantle white supremacy.”
I try to do this all the freaking time.
“This includes discarding the idea that you should treat people equally without regard to their race or ethnicity or gender, because that idea is central to the ‘myth of meritocracy.’”
Well, that’s bull—t, too. Actually, several distinct pieces of bull—t.
But let’s not forget this: By dragging CRT out of the university and into the public debate, the Repugnicans are playing their old bait and switch with the straw man game–substituting the stuff FLERP! mentions, above, for the rational critique of the very real systemic racism in this country, built upon a long, sordid history of such racism, with horrific consequences for the present.
Can’t let the Repugs get away with that. No, siree.
Teach their children to loathe the current Repugnicans’ views. That’s the way out of this mess.
I agree with Bob. I grew up in Houston, which was completely segregated in the 1950s. We will never eradicate racism without confronting it.
Bob,
Thank you for this excellent summation.
It is quite discouraging to read some of the responses here “liberal-splaining” their misunderstanding of what it means to be anti-racist.
I agree entirely, Bob. But it is the central tenet of “anti-racism,” from Angela Davis through Ibram Kendi. I suspect most people who agree with what they would assume to be the non-controversial statement “I am an anti-racist” don’t know that. I do, which is why I am not an anti-racist and I do not support “anti-racism,” even though I’m against racism.
I had this argument with a girlfriend, many years ago, who was of the opinion that we are all unknowingly imbued with racism as a result of growing up in our tainted culture. And because this stuff is in the news, I’ve had the same argument with a number of friends recently. I do not accept this label. I have spent a good deal of my professional life fighting racism and educating people about it. I hate racism and racists. And I am not a self hater. No shame in my game, as a friend of mine says.
FLERP!,
Are you racist? (I challenge you not to be a hypocrite and answer, since you asked me the same question above.)
If your answer is “nope, not one bit” that is revealing. So is not answering.
For the record, Donald Trump is “against racism”. What does it mean for someone to be “against racism” if that person does not acknowledge the racism in institutions and in daily interactions?
One would be hard pressed to find a Republican who won’t say they are “against racism”. If you can find one, please let me know. They are all “against racism”. They just rarely witness any racism in this perfect America where no one is racist and there is no racism anymore except perhaps within a few Ku Klux Klan members. Instead we live in a perfect meritocracy where white people have disproportionate power because they are better than everyone else. After all, the electoral college isn’t about racism at all, is it?
The people who are the most upset about CRT are the ones who also believe they are never racist, ever.
My good friend, NYCPP, thanks for asking — no, I am not a racist. I don’t think that, and there’s no scientific basis to show, any race is superior to any other. I believe people can be not racist. If someone tells me that something I’ve done is racist, I consider the comment. Sometimes I’ll agree, and sometimes I will disagree.
These are the reasons why I am against racism, and not an anti-racist. Insane, radical stuff, I know.
And I don’t care Donald Trump says or does. I’m not a Republican, a progressive, a libertarian, a socialist, a democratic socialist, a fascist, a Communist, or a Democrat (despite my registration in NY). I’m a liberal. Sorry!
You referred to your professional life. If you don’t mind my asking, what do you do (or did you do) in your professional life?
Bob,
Did you always know that Billy Crystal’s impersonations of African American celebrities were racist? How offended were you? Enough to condemn him and not see any of his movies?
Self-hating? I’m not self-hating at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t see when I might have not recognized that something I condoned was racist. To me, it is admirable when someone recognizes and admits that they were wrong — it is the opposite of self-hating. It shows they are secure enough in their self-image to understand that admitting to a mistake does not make them bad. Isn’t that what we teach our kids? That everyone makes mistakes, and the important thing is recognizing them, apologizing and doing better and trying hard (not just a little) not to repeat the same mistake over and over.
I think your old girlfriend was right. We’re also unknowingly imbued with sexism. That’s why it took so long for people who swore they were feminists to stop ignoring or minimizing the me, too movement and start recognizing that the “me too” movement was revealing a lot of sexism in our society.
There’s also a matter of simple discernment involved here. It’s important to be able to tell one’s enemies from one’s friends.
This goes to some core principles of mine. I fervently believe in our ability, within the limits imposed by our physical and cognitive capacities, to make ourselves. to be the artists of who were are, and that almost of all of what we are is, or can be, construction–that we have, in this regard, both agency and responsibility. That nonsense–that determinism about something so fundamental–flies in the face of what it is, as I understand it, to be human. Here’s how I put it in my brief introduction to Existentialism (https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/existentialism-in-five-minutes-bob-shepherd/):
One question you might have: if you are Self-creating, as Sartre argues, what, then, is authenticity? Traditionally, it was defined as being true to one’s Self. In the 1960s, hippies used to speak of “finding yourself,” as though you were a lost sock. But you are not a lost sock. So, if there is no pre-existing Self to find or be true to, what could authenticity possibly mean? Aren’t we stuck back with Sartre’s nausea and bad faith? Well, no. What authenticity really means is a) taking responsibility for one’s Self and b) remaining true to that creation. You are the artist of yourself, and authenticity is artistic integrity. No, you say, I cannot do that. It would compromise the Self I have, am, and will be creating, as a cliché compromises a poem, as a stylistically inconsistent motif compromises a dance or a piece of music. The fact that the Self is not predefined for you and that you are free to decide how you are going to feel, think, and act emphatically does NOT condemn you to a meaningless life. Quite the contrary. You create your own meaning and purpose, and the process of doing so, like any process of artistic creation, is engaging, purposeful, and meaningful. (For more on this topic, see the following: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/three-meanings-of-meaning/).
Really, really well said. These are the moments when I remember how damn smart Bob Shepherd is.
cx: Katherine Dunham.
No one here said that there was no such thing as implicit bias.
Great film. And some people really need to see it.
But to others this will be old, all-too-well-known news.
In other words, we have the necessary agency not to be racists, and we have the responsibility to do so., I emphatically will not accept any determinism that would make of this an impossibility. Dangerous, counterproductive bull—t,
FLERP! I spent most of my professional life as a writer and editor of textbooks,, and I have also taught high-school English, theatre, film, speech, and debate. I was the lead editor on two big programs on African-American literature, music, art, and history–labors of love that I championed and undertook because I was meeting too many young African-Americans who had no idea who Kathryn Dunham and Aaron Douglas and Ida Wells and Arthur Schomburg and John Coltrane were. And I have devoted a lot of my life to expanding the canon to be more diverse–to include not only selections from the Odyssey but also from the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, for example. And I’ve written extensively on race related issues on social media over the years–for example, about the scientific idiocy of the very concept of race.
cx: of race as a biological rather than cultural phenomenon
PLEASE watch this and tell me there is no such thing as implicit bias. It is human nature to have bias! It is up to us to make sure our laws, systems, etc. do NOT institutionalize these biases. We, as a nation, have failed miserably at this. It is up to teachers to teach TRUTH. It is up to policy makers to fix this problem that statistics can highlight. Denying teachers the ability to showcase FACTS is a huge disservice to our nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76BboyrEl48
Bob,
Maybe our different POVs is mainly semantics.
If I understand you, you are saying you absolutely do recognize implicit bias in our society. But the people who have implicit bias are not racists? They just have or condone or ignore an unrecognized implicit bias that just happens to affect other people and not them?
Or as FLERP! says: He is absolutely not racist. And FLERP! explains: “If someone tells me that something I’ve done is racist, I consider the comment. Sometimes I’ll agree, and sometimes I will disagree.”
So if I understand FLERP!, it is possible he might agree that something he has done is racist, but that does not make him a racist. It is possible that he might not agree that something he has done is racist, and that also does not make him a racist.
That is exactly the definition of “racist” that all Republicans can get behind.
By that definition, everyone can say they are not racist!
I don’t know if this advances the discussion or sends it backwards, but the off-Broadway show Avenue Q had a song about racism that is pertinent:
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=th4FMmNQpAk&list=RDAMVMth4FMmNQpAk
Bob,
The anti-racist movement isn’t about a pre-determination that you will always be racist. The point is that people claim the mantle of “non-racists” who are not bothered by the status quo and they believe that as long as they say “I’m not racist myself”, that’s enough. And then they might or might not acknowledge implicit bias in themselves when it is pointed out, but they believe that they are the final arbiters of that and even if they do acknowledge that something they do is racist, it is wrong for anyone to call them a racist.
The same thing holds true for sexism. Watch a movie from the 1990s and you will see so much casual sexism throughout. My kid can’t believe that they were popular and I could not have noticed how sexist they were. That’s because I was (unwittingly) sexist. To deny this seems like denying reality. It isn’t self-hating to recognize that truth. And it seems dangerous to give sexism or racism a pass just because people didn’t listen to the voices that told them they were being sexist back then.
Bob Shepherd says:
“we have the necessary agency not to be racists, and we have the responsibility to do so”
Exactly!
I think you just nailed what the anti-racist movement is all about. I can see from your post what you think it is about, but I think the quote of yours I just reposted above is what it is really about.
It is about having the responsibility not to be racists. And that includes recognizing our own implicit biases and actively fighting to change institutional racism.
Perhaps Critical PREJUDICE Theory would add some silver backing to
the glass you think you’re looking through…
There is a rule or at least a pattern to all the in-person cultural awareness discussions I’ve attended over the years. The higher the proportion of POC in attendance the better and more constructive. The whiter the attendance the more they tend to bog down into defensive battles over the definition of “racist” or “racism” or “anti-racist.”
I can believe that. I see that in the comments here. A white person announcing that even if he agrees he has done something racist, he is not a racist. Can’t imagine a constructive conversation there.
And it seems that in our supposedly merit-based, non-racist society, the real victims are white people who know for a fact that they aren’t racist who are offended by being called racist just because they happen to do something racist or demonstrate implicit bias. The feelings of those white liberals who feel oppressed by the anti-racism movement are paramount — the feelings of those oppressed by racism are secondary.
Diane posted that Avenue Q song “Everyone’s a little bit racist”. Except some white liberals, apparently, who are not even a little bit racist at all. Even when they agree they have done something racist!
This is somewhat unrelated, but not entirely unrelated: you may have heard that the Mayor of Chicago will no longer do interviews with white reporters. You may have thought it was a joke, or that the position would be walked back immediately, like I did. No, she’s doubled down on it.
This is anti-racism.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/racism-at-chicagos-city-hall-11621550316
Here’s the story, which is paywalled.
“Ol’ Jim Eastland must be smiling. The white segregationist Senator from Mississippi until 1978 has a surprising imitator in Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who said this week she will no longer do interviews with reporters who are white.
This was no rhetorical slip. Ms. Lightfoot, who is black, said in a two-page written statement that from now on “I will be exclusively providing one-on-one interviews with journalists of color.” She justified her decision as a response to “the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of Chicago media outlets, editorial boards, the political press corps, and yes, the City Hall press corps specifically.”
She suggested that whatever negative coverage she receives stems from racial bias. “For the past two years, more often than not, we have debated internally, then chosen to say nothing, to let it go, lest we be accused of whining about negative coverage or of ‘playing the race card,’” Ms. Lightfoot wrote.
“And the truth is, it is too heavy a burden to bear, on top of all the other massive challenges our city faces in this moment, to also have to take on the labor of educating white, mostly male members of the news media about the perils and complexities of implicit bias.” So like the racists of the Jim Crow South, the mayor will now judge journalists solely by the color of their skin.
This should be shocking, but the surprise is how little criticism her statement has received. Perhaps it’s simply taboo these days to criticize a black politician who invokes race as a sword and shield.
So credit to Gregory Pratt, a self-described Latino reporter at the Chicago Tribune, for publicly opposing Ms. Lightfoot’s policy. He protested by cancelling a scheduled interview with the mayor and explained on Twitter that “politicians don’t get to choose who covers them.”
Politicians do often use access as a weapon to favor, or punish, reporters based on their coverage. Yet Ms. Lightfoot’s explicit use of race as a reason for her discriminatory policy may violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. She used government resources to issue her announcement, and she does the same when conducting interviews in an official capacity. Similar lawsuits are pending over the growing number of government grant programs that exclude on the basis of race.
It’s tempting to dismiss Mayor Lightfoot’s overt racism as the act of a foolish local politician. But it’s also a sign of the times. Led by the political left, including the current U.S. President’s elevation of “equity” over equal opportunity, America is again dividing itself by race. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous trend for social comity and democratic consent, and if Ms. Lightfoot’s racist media policy is a guide, it promises to get worse.”
Lori Lightfoot is married to a white woman.
I don’t think that’s relevant to whether elected officials should be denying interviews to reporters on the basis of the reporter’s race.
FLERP!,
I don’t understand. It seems as if you would not have objected if Mayor Lightfoot had simply announced she would give interviews to reporters on this 2 year anniversary based entirely on “merit” and then chose no white reporters for one on one interviews and explained that it just happened that they were not among the most worthy, based entirely on merit.
I suspect if that had happened, the white folks in power would demand to know what Mayor Lightfoot’s definition of “merit” was so they could discredit that definition and point out that there were so-called “objective” standards that should be used to determine merit.
Since almost all reporters covering City Hall are white, some people would argue that means that white reporters are, in general, more worthy and therefore many of them should have been granted one on one interviews over supposedly less meritorious non-white reporters. It’s a circular logic that benefits those who already have power.
Mayor Lightfoot actually did something that white folks who launder white privilege don’t do. Lightfoot could have claimed that those white reporters were just far inferior reporters and did not deserve the one on one interviews and that’s why they didn’t get them. I suspect there would be an outcry, but maybe those white reporters would feel just as upset as African American reporters do when they are told that their lack of career opportunities is entirely due to them not being as good as white reporters.
Instead, Lightfoot didn’t try to make white reporters feel inferior for the privilege that got them their City Hall jobs over other reporters who weren’t white. She just pointed out that it was time to change the wrongheaded thinking that white privilege is based on “merit”. She was not recognizing “merit” as the reason that the City Hall press corps was mostly white.
But I certainly realize that those who believe that white folks always earn their positions and other folks get unfair advantages think that the city hall press corp in Chicago is mostly white simply because white journalists are just better. And since that fact is always the starting assumption of all discussion, it’s hard to reason with them.
FLERP!, thank you for the interesting, albeit unrelated, story about Mayor Lori Lightfoot announcing the decision to only give one on one interviews to non-white reporters on the occasion of the 2 year anniversary of her term. (The WSJ overlooks that little fact to imply that no white reporter will ever get a one on one interview in the future and implies they are banned from even covering City Hall.)
This week another unrelated story is that Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied tenure at the University of North Carolina after being recommended by the tenure committee and faculty. The decision was made by the mostly white board of trustees in response to the powerful white conservatives on the right who did not like the 1619 project and made their anger known.
UNC trustees said it was her “non-academic background” that led to the decision.
Now Lori Lightfoot knew very well that she could have just done what white politicians do all the time and simply choosen only non-white journalists to give one-on-one interviews to and claim that her decision to do so was entirely based on “merit” and had nothing to do with their race. Would that have been acceptable?
Most likely, had Lightfoot claimed “merit” was the only reason that no white reporters were chosen for one on one interviews on the occasion of her 2 year anniversary, she would have been criticized by those who were certain that white reporters were more “meritorious” than the non-white reporters or at least as meritorious and leaving them out was biased and racist.
And because people in power have the power to define what “merit” means, the complaints that Lori Lightfoot was favoring non-white reporters would be taken very, very seriously and be amplified throughout the media until she was forced to publicly acknowledge that the only reason that city hall press corps was comprised of mostly white reporters is because those white reporters were far more meritorious than others and therefore not choosing them for one on one interviews on her 2 year anniversary was clearly racist.
But hey, there’s no need for CRT because America is a perfect meritocracy in which the notion of merit just happens to be one that ends up having lots of white people in power due to their merit. And people like Nikole Hannah-Jones and all the unknown journalists who aren’t white and aren’t covering Chicago City Hall are just not as deserving.
I may not agree with Lightfoot’s tactics, but she is shining a light on something that happens all the time which our racist society does not notice.
Maybe you think white people have disproportionate power in this country because they work harder and are smarter and deserve it?
Maybe you think it has absolutely nothing to do with racism?
Maybe you haven’t even noticed that in many states across this nation, there are laws right now being passed that are specifically designed to make it as hard as possible for people of color to vote. But not because of racism, of course. Because of “voter fraud”. It’s all about justifying racist decisions and claiming they are based on merit.
What Lightfoot did was turn that on its head. She didn’t play the merit game. Which is hard to play when white people have decided what constitutes merit.
As I was reading about the underqualified Andrew Giuliani who has announced he is running for Governor of New York, it underscored just how “merit” works in our society.
Giuliani is obviously a “very smart man” – he graduated from Duke University, a top ranked university that admits students based on merit. We all must accept as a fact that Giuliani is smarter than all the students rejected from Duke, and there can be no question about his superior intellect since Duke admitted him. (Those questions might be allowed if he were a basketball or football player, but that isn’t racism, right?)
Giuliani is obviously a very hard working guy – he earned a job as associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison in 2017. Andrew was so outstanding that he was chosen to be that office’s representative at White House meetings about the opioid crisis. Then he got a promotion to be a special assistant to the president. Before earning that White House jobs via his hard work and merit, Giuliani was a professional golfer so even though I never recall hearing about him at pro golf tournaments, I’m sure he was a meritorious professional and far superior golfer than all the other good college golfers who didn’t have the means to spend their life golfing since they needed the income of a paid job to live. The fact that Andrew was a professional golfer demonstrates his superior golfing skills and not his connections, access to wealth, and famous last name. Andrew also interned at a financial firm at some point, so he clearly knows his finance.
And finally, Giuliani is well-versed in Jewish issues as he currently is serving a 5 year term on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, appointed by President Trump because of his great merit. Giuliani is very concerned with religious freedom and anti-Semitism.
Of course, Giuliani and the people who helped him get where he is claim that he earned his way to his positions based on his superior merit. They also oppose affirmative action because that would mean that places were filled with absolutely unqualified non-whites who could never do the job. They all believe in the meritocracy that is America!
And here is how the mainstream so-called “liberal” media reports on the story. Anyone reading this would simply be impressed at Andrew Giuliani’s resume and believe that there is nothing “racist” that this white man with so many accomplishments has chosen to run for Governor.
ABC News May 18, 2021
Headline: “Rudy Giuliani’s son, Andrew Giuliani, running for governor of New York
He previously told ABC News he was strongly considering a run.”
Text of article:
Andrew Giuliani, the son of close Trump ally and embattled former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has jumped into the race for governor of New York.
He held a press conference Tuesday afternoon after launching a campaign video hours earlier.
“It’s time for change. Like my parents before me, New York is in my blood. I’ve been raised from New York. I know who we are, what we can be and where we need to go,” he said in a video launching his campaign. “It’s time to stand and honor the great heroes of New York. The greatest chapters of New York are yet to be written. And as your governor, let’s write the greatest comeback story ever. It’s time to bring back New York.”
ABC News previously reported that Giuliani was “strongly considering” a bid to run against three-time incumbent Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and that he was meeting with Republican leaders across the state.
“We can make New York, truly, the beacon of hope in the world,” he said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon. “I look forward to going across the state, and showing New Yorkers exactly why and how I am qualified for this. But the truth is, I have a vision, and I know that I can get this done.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin and Rob Astorino, who was the GOP’s nominee for the office in 2014, are the other Republicans in the race to replace Cuomo, although Cuomo hasn’t officially announced his intent to seek a fourth term.
“I’m a politician out of the womb. It’s in my DNA,” Giuliani told the New York Post. “Giuliani vs. Cuomo. Holy smokes. It’s Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier. We can sell tickets at Madison Square Garden.”
Rudy Giuliani served as former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney. Andrew Giuliani, who served as Trump’s special assistant in the White House, said Tuesday at a press conference that he’d spoken to Trump about running.
“I’m not gonna run away from my past, I worked for years in the White House for President Trump. I’ll say that right now I’m not running from and I’m not hiding from it. I’m very proud of many of the policies that we were able to accomplish,” Andrew Giuliani said during Tuesday’s press conference, adding that he and Trump “just had a great conversation last night and this morning. He has been very, very important in terms of the strategy of all this.”
Wow, just wow. Outstanding reporting and so informative! Very fair and balanced by that “liberal” media ABC News, so it must all be true. Andrew Giuliani, just another very qualified and experienced white guy running for Governor. He may not win, but he is certainly full of the merit necessary to run.
Some people believe it is not racist that white people so often get a pass when non-white people are held up to an impossible standard and portrayed as if they are totally unqualified and getting ahead based on their race and not on “merit” like white people do. They tell people who see the hypocrisy to shut up and just judge people on their merit, not on race.
Andrew Guiliani is full of something but it’s not merit.
What is sad is that someone who reads the mainstream so-called liberal media coverage would not know how supremely unqualified Andrew is.
When rich white people benefit from privilege, it is laundered until the assumption is that they “earned” their place. For African Americans, the assumption is that they got an unfair advantage no matter how many real accomplishments they have.
For example, Brett Kavanaugh. As a prep school student, he got into Yale undergrad over many students with more stellar academic records. At Yale, despite only graduating cum laude (which half the class got) and not magna or summa cum laude, Kavanaugh was admitted to Yale Law School. Then he got job after job based on these supposedly superior credentials and those previous “jobs” he got because of his connections! Meanwhile, no matter what Obama accomplished despite starting out with significantly worse connections and advantages, he was followed by an assumption that he got an “unfair advantage” because of his race. Kavanaugh supposedly “earned” his positions on merit, but Obama was supposedly given unfair advantages because of his race.
Jared Kushner was admitted to Harvard thanks to a timely (and very generous) donation by his father. But he managed to graduate, so we all must accept that he deserved to be there. Does that hold true when URM are admitted to Harvard? People opposed to affirmative action won’t accept “but that student graduated” as evidence that he was deserving. Instead they want to parse how well they did compared to other students and compare their high school record with all the students who were turned down. No one does that with Jared Kushner or Brett Kavanaugh because they “proved” they earned their seats by meeting the much lower bar that privileged white admits have to meet to deem their admissions to be perfectly fine and acceptable.
Now that Andrew Giuliani has held a few jobs with impressive-sounding titles, and armed with his Duke University degree, who is to say that he is not qualified for any job he wants? It’s not as if Andrew Giuliani got any advantage because of his race, like Obama supposedly did, right? As in the case of Kavanaugh, once a white person gets a position based on his privilege, they have a very low bar to meet to be deemed to be qualified and not the beneficiary of privilege. Meanwhile, someone who is African American can have significant accomplishments while the taint that they only got where they were because of “affirmative action” follows them forever. They are compared to the very highest achievers and must surpass them while white folks just have to be deemed “qualified” by those who believe they are the true arbiters of “merit”.
That is the institutional racism that is part of our society that CRT – while perhaps having some flaws as all theories do – tries to point out.