This article by Marisa Iati in the Washington Post is a good layperson’s guide to the furor over “critical race theory” and teaching about race and racism in the schools. As I read the article, I was gratified to see the reference to the late legal scholar Derrick Bell. For just a moment, I felt like a Forrest Gump of American history because Derrick and I became friends in the mid-1980s and in personal meetings, we debated whether racism was more or less vitriolic than it had been in the past. I believed the Brown decision changed everything and that racism would eventually be reduced to an insignificant ember. He argued that the Brown decision was gratifying but changed very little, and that racism was as virulent as ever even though it was less respectable. In retrospect, I feel that I was a naive optimist and that he was prescient. After the Trump presidency, it is clear that racism remains a potent force in American life.
I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that very few, if any, elected officials ever read anything that Derrick Bell wrote. Why are they so exercised about “critical race theory?” They (especially the Trumpian Republicans) want American youth to be indoctrinated in a sanitized version of American history, where they learn about slavery and Jim Crow as bad and aberrant things that happened long ago. For them, the only way to teach American history is through its stated ideals, of a nation where everyone is equal and has the same opportunity to succeed, if they work hard.
Derrick Bell was right but the Republicans prefer not to acknowledge that the debate about racism ever occurred.
The article in The Washington Post begins:
The latest front in the culture wars over how U.S. students should learn history and civics is the concept of critical race theory, an intellectual tool set for examining systemic racism. With roots in academia, the framework has become a flash point as Republican officials across the country seek to prevent it from being taught in schools.
In reality, there is no consensus on whether or how much critical race theory informs schools’ heightened focus on race. Most teachers do not use the term “critical race theory” with students, and they generally do not ask them to read the work of legal scholars who use that framework.
Some lessons and anti-racism efforts, however, reflect foundational themes of critical race theory, particularly that racism in the United States is systemic. The New York Times’s landmark 1619 Project, which addresses slavery’s role in shaping the nation, also has an associated school curriculum.
What is critical race theory?
At least five Republican-led state legislatures have passed bans on critical race theory or related topics in recent months, and conservatives in roughly nine other states are pressing for similar measures. Some teachers have said they worry that the legislation will have a chilling effect on robust conversations, or could even put their jobs at risk, at a time when the nation is embroiled in a reckoning on race relations.
Critical race theory is an academic framework centered on the idea that racism is systemic, and not just demonstrated by individual people with prejudices. The theory holds that racial inequality is woven into legal systems and negatively affects people of color in their schools, doctors’ offices, the criminal justice system and countless other parts of life.
The writings that coalesced into critical race theory date from the 1970s, when the late Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell expressed frustration with what he saw as the limitations of the civil rights movement. He and other legal scholars — including Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado and Mari Matsuda, among others — contended that civil rights laws and court victories had not actually managed to eradicate racial injustice.
Khiara Bridges, author of “Critical Race Theory: A Primer,” said traditional civil rights discourse maintained that racism would end when people stopped thinking about race. The dissenting scholars, she said, rejected that conclusion and believed race consciousness was necessary to overcoming racial stratification. Critical race theory emerged as an organized field in 1989, when academics gathered for the first Workshop on Critical Race Theory.
This way of thinking “compels us to confront critically the most explosive issue in American civilization: the historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding white supremacy,” some of the founding scholars wrote in 1995 in “Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement.”
While critical race theory does not have a set of doctrines, its scholars say they aim to overturn what they characterize as a bond between law and racial power. Critical race theory holds that race is a social construction upheld by legal systems and that racism is banal and common. Under this framework, George Floyd’s killing and Black Americans’ higher mortality rate from covid-19 are not aberrations, Bridges said.
“Critical race theory is an effort really to move beyond the focus on finding fault by impugning racist motives, racist bias, racist prejudice, racist animus and hatred to individuals, and looking at the ways in which racial inequality is embedded in structures in ways of which we are very often unaware,” said Kendall Thomas, co-editor of “Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.”
What are the criticisms of critical race theory?
Critics of this intellectual framework often contend that it is divisive and even racist to examine the role of race in U.S. systems and structures. Opponents also argue that critical race theory is a Marxist framework that suggests the nation is inherently evil and that White people should feel guilty for their skin color.
On May 14, several Republican members of Congress introduced a bill banning the teaching of critical race theory in federal institutions and a resolution highlighting “the dangers” of teaching the theory in schools. In statements accompanying the announcement, the representatives said critical race theory promotes discrimination and stokes division.
“I grew up attending segregated schools in the Jim Crow South during a time when people were treated differently based on the color of their skin,” wrote Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah). “Critical Race Theory preserves this way of thinking and undermines civil rights, constitutionally guaranteed equal protection before the law, and U.S. institutions at large.”
The 1776 Project PAC, a new political action committee established to back school board candidates who oppose critical race theory, alleges that adherents to this framework are trying to remake the United States to reject capitalism and the nation’s founding principles. The PAC contends that critical race theory is “hostile to white people.”
While critical race theory is not characteristically Marxist, there is a loose connection. Scholars of “critical legal studies,” a precursor to critical race theory, included neo-Marxists “and other varieties of oppositionists in law schools,” according to “Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.” Critical race theorists diverged from critical legal studies scholars to focus on studying race, Bridges said.
Some critical race theorists also believe that racism endures because it is profitable and that fighting racism therefore must mean opposing capitalism, Bridges said — but that opinion is far from universal within the field.
Critical race theorists disagree about whether the United States can overcome racism. While some believe racial discrimination will always exist, Bridges said others are more optimistic. Thomas said in his understanding, critical race theory maintains that racism “does not have to define our future if we have the will and the courage to reckon with it.”
Rather than encouraging White people to feel guilty, Thomas said critical race theorists aim to shift focus away from individual people’s bad actions and toward how systems uphold racial disparities.
What do conservatives mean when they use the term ‘critical race theory’?
Although the phrase “critical race theory” refers to an area of academic study, its common usage has diverged from its exact meaning. Conservative activists and politicians now use the term as a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism in the present. Critical race theory is often portrayed as the basis of race-conscious policies, diversity trainings and education about racism, regardless of how much the academic concept actually affects those efforts.
In a public presentation this month, a member of Utah’s state school board offered a long list of words that she said were euphemisms for critical race theory, including “social justice,” “culturally responsive” and “critical self-reflection.”
The Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, recently attributed a range of events to critical race theory: property destruction and violence during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, efforts to fire a Yale University professor amid a Halloween costume controversy, two White actresses stating that they would not play mixed-race characters, and the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17. They reasoned that critical race theory makes race the primary lens through which people see the world and reimagines the United States as divided by factions that are pitted against each other.
Christopher Rufo, a prominent opponent of critical race theory, in March acknowledged intentionally using the term to describe a range of race-related topics and conjure a negative association.
“We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’”
What does critical race theory have to do with schools?
Since the murder of George Floyd by a police officer last year, schools across the country have been overhauling their curriculums to address systemic racism and seek to make classrooms more equitable. Among other efforts, districts are instituting anti-bias training for teachers and requiring that history lessons include the experiences of marginalized groups.
Conservative politicians have pushed back on these attempts to talk about race more often. Critics say teachers are trying to “rewrite history” and should not consider race when interacting with students. Proponents counter that discussing race creates more inclusive schools and helps students overcome systemic barriers restricting their achievement.
Academic critical race theorists do not necessarily agree on whether schools are promoting critical race theory. Bridges said she would not characterize the increased focus on diversity and multiculturalism as critical race theory, while Thomas said critical race theory “is defined by this more expansive view of history now taught in classrooms.”
What is the status of efforts to ban critical race theory?
In September, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to cease any trainings related to critical race theory, White privilege or other forms of what he called “propaganda.” A federal judge later blocked the directive on First Amendment grounds, and President Biden rescinded the ban after he took office.
The anti-critical race theory movement is now focused on classrooms, with Senate Republicans criticizing the Biden administration in April for pushing for federal funding for U.S. history programs that “reflect the diversity” of all students. Most efforts to stop the teaching of systemic racism have played out in state legislatures, at least a dozen of which have taken up the issue in recent months.
Republican-led legislatures in Arkansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma have passed bans, with some restricting the teaching of critical race theory in public colleges, in addition to lower-level classrooms. A teacher at Oklahoma City Community College said this week that the race theory class she has taught for six years was canceled because of her state’s new law. A spokesman for the college confirmed that the class has been paused while administrators evaluate the legislation’s ramifications.
Republican lawmakers, governors, prosecutors and political candidates are also pressing the issue in a range of other states, from Utah to New Hampshire. While some bills name critical race theory, others reference “divisive concepts” or race-related guilt.
“Let me be clear, there’s no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said in March at a news conference. “Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money.”
In Utah, Democratic members of the state’s House walked off the floor to protest a resolution recommending the state review school curriculums that address how racism influences American politics, culture and law.
“What this is about is an attempt or first step in assuring that my history and the history of many people of color are not taught in our school system in the state of Utah,” Rep. Sandra Hollins, the only Black member of Utah’s legislature, told the Associated Press at the time.
The American Civil Liberties Union characterized the bans as an attempt to silence teachers and students and impose a version of American history “that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people.”
“Our country needs to acknowledge its history of systemic racism and reckon with present day impacts of racial discrimination — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools,” the ACLU wrote.
These attempts to restrict the teaching of critical race theory and broader lessons about racism are likely to face legal challenges focused on the constitutional right to free speech, and it is unclear how courts will rule.
Laura Meckler and Hannah Natanson contributed to this report.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Sorry Leon…
Your’e up on the tight wire
One side’s ice and one is fire
It’s a circus game
For all to see
Your’e up on the tight rope
One side’s hate and one is hope
But the top hat title of your head
Is all you see
And the wire seems to be
The only place for thee
A comedy of errors
And your’e falling
Like a rubber-neck giraffe
You look into your past
Well, maybe you’re just too blind to see
Your’e up in the spotlight
Oh, does it feel right?
Oh, altitude seems to get to thee
Your’e up on the tight wire
Flanked by life and the funeral pyre
Putting on a show
For all to see
So carry on with the semantic gymnastics.
Pretend the ultimate fealty is equality,
while demanding the less titled
capitulate to the titled.
I remember that Leon Russell song. Nice parody.
“Our country needs to acknowledge its history of systemic racism and reckon with present day impacts of racial discrimination.”
Acknowledging that racism exists and is a systemic problem is in no way a repudiation of capitalism. The right has a way of conflating issues. Wearing a mask in a pandemic has nothing to do with “freedom” and everything to do with public health and consideration for others.
Many legitimate studies have indicated that racism is a problem in social and economic institutions. Denial of a problem never addresses the problem. The latest example of this comes from sports and the agreed payouts to brain injured players from the NFL. In the original agreement the NFL used a system of “race norming” to determine payouts. The NFL’s logic was the assumption that Black players have a lower IQ than white players so black players would receive a lesser payout. Two black players challenged this unfair policy in court last week, and they won the case in federal court. As a result, the NFL will make the same payouts to all players regardless of race.https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002627309/nfl-says-it-will-halt-race-norming-and-review-brain-injury-claims
When you don’t have anything real or productive or positive to offer public schools or students who attend public schools you gin up huge controversies over “critical race theory” and use that to attack public schools.
It’s just very tiresome and ultimately none of this will matter to any student in any public school because it’s a hysterical, politically motivated panic.
Public school leaders and supporters need to drop ed reformers and the ed reform echo chamber and go their own way.
None of their “work” benefits our students. Our students are poorly served when we elect or hire these folks. What’s a positive, productive mission for public schools and who would we hire to start following one?
Ed reform aside – and it will be easy to put them aside since they offer nothing to public schools or public school families other than politically motivated anti-public school campaigns like “stopping critical race theory”, what would a positive and productive approach to our schools and students look like?
We really can do better than this, but we’ll have to break free from the ed reform echo chamber and chart our own course. These folks don’t even support our schools or students- why are they dictating what we teach in our schools? They should all go harass the private schools they promote and market about “critical race theory”. I don’t want them conducting yet another anti-public school campaign in public schools.
Given the WP article, I still struggle to know what “Critical Race Theory” means in any intuitive sense. Whatever it might eventually come to mean for me, it is perfectly clear right now that CRT must not mean in any way the giving of legitimacy to the social construct called “race.” For if it did, and it does, then the KKK and every other such group would have a template for doing likewise. They’d have a template for legitimating, let’s say, “Critical Klan Theory,” or “Critical Nazi Theory,” or “Critical Proud Boy Theory.”
I do, however, find helpful the comment UCallTHISPraxis posted in response to the article, asserting that “Critical Race Theory is not an academic ‘theory’.” UCallTHISPraxis cited:
“Max Horkheimer defined a ‘Critical Theory’ in direct opposition to a ‘Traditional Theory’ in a 1937 piece called Traditional and Critical Theory. Whereas a Traditional Theory is meant to be descriptive of some phenomenon, usually social, and aims to understand how it works and why it works that way, a Critical Theory should proceed from a prescriptive normative moral vision for society, describe how the item being critiqued fails that vision (usually in a systemic sense), and prescribe activism to dismantle, subvert, overthrow, or change it— that is, generally, to break and then remake society in accordance with the particular critical theory’s prescribed vision.
“This use of the word ‘critical’ is drawn from Marx’s insistence that everything be ‘ruthlessly’ criticized and from his admonition that the point of studying society is to change it. Of note, then, a Critical Theory is only tangentially concerned with understanding or truth and has, as Hume might have it, abandoned descriptions of what is in favor of pushing for what the particular critical theory holds ought to be. The critical methodology, then, is the central object of concern, and it is the tool by which Social Justice scholarship and activism proceed.”
I get this, quite intuitively, as it actually describes an aspect of the professional work I used to do, which was to help clients study, define, and model their AS-IS organizational structure and behavior, “in a systemic sense,” and then critique the AS-IS in the process of transforming it into TO-BE models of organizational structure and behavior. Then plans would be devised to implement the TO-BE. Very often, unfortunately, plans amounted to leadership wanting to “change” to TO-BE much in an instant, as opposed to laying in a path of “continual improvement” to go from AS-IS to TO-BE, over time.
So, in the sense “There is nothing new under sun,” CRT seems an application of “Critical Theory” just like school reform seems an application of “Critical Theory.” And we here know where we stand on school reform.
Yesterday I started reading Dorothy Roberts’ book, Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century (2012).
In her Preface, Roberts warns: “We are witnessing the emergence of a new form of racial politics in America, in which the state’s power to control the life and death of populations relies on classifying them by race.”
Later in the Preface, she writes: “Race applied to human beings is a political division: it is a system of governing people that classifies them into a social hierarchy based on invented biological demarcations.”
And near the Preface’s end, Roberts acknowledges: “My parents, to whom this book is dedicated, taught me that there is only one human race. This has meant more than words to me since childhood. As a scholar and activist, I have studied and seen firsthand the injustices made possible by separating people into different beings. […] After five years of intense research and soul-searching, I found not one shred of evidence to counter my belief in the political nature of race. In fact, my journey only strengthened my understanding of our common humanity and the dehumanizing consequences of believing in innate racial differences.”
Right now it seems CRT’s aim is to press the country to “proceed from a prescriptive normative moral vision for society”—in other words, to get to the TO-BE “antiracist” society, but still a “racist” society. That’s simply because “antiracist” makes no sense in the absence of “racist.”
Just now I’d say Dorothy Roberts’ Fatal Invention gets at the AS-IS fundamental root of “race” and provides a basis for continually dissolving that structure that generates the behavior we call “racism.”
In contrast, I suggest Ibram X. Kendi, “Prophet of Anti-racism,” actually works to preserve and strengthen “racism.” The danger Kendi poses is palpable, as we’re seeing. And it should not come as a surprise.
Race is a social construct, and so is resulting discrimination from accepting the concept of race as a fact. People in need of organ transplants must demonstrate a biological match that has nothing to do with skin color or any other superficial features. The only race is the human race.
We can pass anti-discrimination laws, but we can’t very easily change hearts and minds. It is interesting that many of the former Jim Crow states seem to be the most defensive and have the hardest time accepting that racism is a real issue.
As Deborah Meier said, as I recall: “People don’t fear change. They fear being changed.”
Why should we about trying to change hearts and minds? In an instant, no less. Wouldn’t it be better if those hearts and minds changed themselves sans fear?
(By the way, I am edjohnsonsr71, as in SR-71 Blackbird, not as in my age. Sometimes I forget to “Change” it before hitting “Post.”)
Passing legislation to right a wrong doesn’t change anything if those laws are not enforced and/or end up ignored or watered down over time.
But not passing the legislation does not even leave an option to enforce.
I’ve seen this movie before. In 1988.
I grew up when being “liberal” was something admirable or at worst, just a word with no negative or positive connotations.
Suddenly, in 1988, I watched “liberal” turn into a word that meant “wants rapist and murderers to be let out of jail to murder mothers and their children” and every other bad thing. There was nothing positive about being “liberal” anymore, it just meant that you wanted more criminals to rampage innocent families, or that you were too stupid to know that’s what you were supporting. That was it.
The Democrats tried and utterly failed to change the media’s amplification of the false narrative that “liberal” was a very bad thing to be. Begin associated with the ACLU was practically anti-American, something only “card carrying members” who hated America and loved criminals and communists would support.
Decades later, some smart people on the left came up with a new word — “progressive”. The word “liberal” still had those awful, horrible connotations that the right wing – with help from the so-called liberal media – helped them amplify. But “progressive” did not. The right has not yet figured out a good way to get people to hate “progressives” as something scary and anti-American and they haven’t been successful in associating the word “progressive” with the words “wants the terrorists/ Commies/ scary non-white people to take over and destroy your white family, relatives and friends”.
So instead the right wing latched onto critical race theory. And just like they did in 1988, the media has helped them amplify the completely dishonest mischaracterization of CRT the way the media helped them amplify the completely dishonest mischaracterization of what it meant to be “liberal”.
It may be too late. Instead of waiting decades, it might be time to simply say “okay. no more CRT” and instead offer up new word – like “pro-democracy theory” that means the same thing without all the false negatives that Americans have been conditioned to believe must be true because “even the liberal media” reports the story in a way that accepts that there is something very suspect and problematic about CRT.
What’s a good new name? “pro-Constitution theory”? The only requirement is that the name signals something that the right can’t demonize because the one thing that the right wing is extremely good at doing is pushing, amplifying, and getting a large number of useful idiots — like Wilentz — to help them convince Americans that their lies are true to destroy democracy.
There is something about the word “progressive” that all the right wing propaganda in the world hasn’t been able to touch. Claiming the mantle of being “anti-progressive” isn’t a catchphrase Republicans can campaign on. CRT needs to be replaced with a name that is as hard to besmirch as “progressive”.
Come now 1988 seriously. Sadly the left demonized the word liberal in the 1960s. They were not wrong, however the goal was not to empower the right to demonize those that they felt were not interested in real change or were hypocritical.
But seriously “The right has not yet figured out a good way to get people to hate “progressives” as something scary and anti-American”
Nah they skipped that step and just call them Socialists.
While a 1/2 dozen or more Democrats refuse to eliminate a relic of nullification and Jim Crow , the filibusterer. In order to preserve Democracy , pass the Pro act, raise the minimum wage or simply deliver the progress that would relegate the fascist Republicans to the dust bin of history. The left demonizing Democrats will not be the problem when there is little progress to bring potential Democratic voters to the polls in 22 and 24 .
“The left demonizing Democrats will not be the problem when there is little progress to bring potential Democratic voters to the polls in 22 and 24.”
Not sure what this means. You just stated the guiding principle of right wing propaganda: Suppress all votes for Democrats.
They suppress votes two ways: The first is to make voting as cumbersome as possible for people who live in Democratic areas (but not Republican). This includes making voter registration extremely difficult, but also then making sure the voters who do register and would vote Democrat have long lines or long travel times or shortened voting hours, but Republican areas do not.
But the second way to suppress voting is to push false narrative to get people to believe that there is something so inherently corrupt about the Democrat that there is no point in voting because the Democrat is no better than the Republican. That kind of propaganda works on both moderate Dems who decide to vote Republican in fear of “wokeness” and “socialism” and it works on Dems on the left who won’t vote for the Democrat because the Democrat isn’t socialist enough!
It didn’t work in 2020 because the progressive Democrats didn’t let it. Sometimes I think AOC single-handedly quashed false narratives that the media tried over and over again to help her push that “Biden plans to screw over you progressives and you kow he’s corrupt, so why are you voting for him”. I watched her do it in awe. Had AOC even once given those media tools of Republicans (i.e. the NYT and the rest of the mainstream media) any kind of ammunition, Trump would have won. The media was dying to get AOC to say something, anything, so that they could run the headlines that their Republican propaganda pushers wanted them to run every day for the 2 months before the election: “Progressives know Biden is corrupt” “Progressives fear Corrupt Biden win more than Trump”.
Biden doesn’t get credit for AOC not falling into the trap that Republicans were desperate for her to fall into. But Biden also should not be blamed if she had. But that’s what happened in 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016. Instead of realizing that narrative undermine and seriously harms the progressive agenda, it it pushed by progressives!
If you start already pushing the Republican narrative that “little progress” is all the fault of the Democrats, we are going to get Trump 2 with an empowered neofascist Congress and Supreme Court. Democracy will end.
There is little progress because of the Republicans and two Democratic Senators who are normalizing the Republicans filibustering to prevent any legislation.
It is the Republicans’ fault. That may sound like an excuse, but it’s true. And as much as I’d like to dump Manchin, all he has to do is say he is a Republican to place the entire Senate in Mitch McConnell’s hands. There is nothing to hold over Manchin until Democrats secure a huge victory in the Senate and House, at which point he loses all power.
We have to blame the Republicans. Biden has been more progressive than most people could have hoped for. If he can’t get it done, it is entirely the fault of the Republicans. Manchin would be nothing without the Republicans.
Excellent analysis. As Obama said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” All my life I’ve seen ultra-liberals, some progressives, socialists, greens, (I’m one of them) hurt Democratic chances for a few (or more) steps forward. Case in point, the great American–and he really is–Ralph Nader, put his name on the Florida ballot (and elsewhere) and helped defeat Gore. (Gore was not progressive enough, not “green” enough–though endorsed by the Sierra Club). So we got W Bush, the thousands of unnecessary deaths of the Iraq war, the destabilization of the Middle East and Europe, etc. (The money spent on war in Iraq & Afghan could have paid for every American youth to go to a four year college!). Gore opposed that war. It matters. Gore wanted to improve Soc. Security. W tried to privatize it. W. gave us Prescription Drug benefits, but the prices couldn’t be negotiated! Etc. Does anyone today doubt that Gore would have been MUCH better than W? We need to follow the logic of Sanders and Warren, run (or support your real favorite) in the spring, unite in the fall. It’s a simple formula, but sometimes heated rhetoric, pettiness, illogic, ego, or stupidity gets in the way. I say this as one who has studied and participated in the process since 1948. Sigh…
^^^Joel said:
“Nah they skipped that step and just call them Socialists.”
The Republican propaganda TRIED to call them socialists. It didn’t work. “Liberals” worked because Democrats were calling themselves “liberal”. Maybe that word was demonized during the Vietnam War, but it was already back in fashion by 1980. Carter’s unpopularity wasn’t being liberal, it was being too much of a corporate sell-out (from the left) and just plain incompetent and ruining the economy (from Reagan). Dukakis was demonized as a “Massachusetts liberal” right after the convention, when he was polling at something like 53% of the vote with a huge margin over Bush.
NYC public school parent
I guess you forgot about 2010. Was that massive loss voter suppression. Somehow Democratic voters were not suppressed in 2018. Nor were they suppressed in 2020 . That is not to say that Republicans do not try to suppress votes where ever and when ever they can. When voters are motivated they overcome those efforts . You can argue that making it easier to vote brought out the Democratic vote in 2020 . Trump brought out Democrats in 2018 .
Trump will not be as big a factor in 2022 as he was in 2018 or 2020 . The Democrats go big or they can go home now. Because failure to deliver substantial change will be reflected in lower turn out at the polls. We are witnessing a replay of 2009 when McConnell vowed to make Obama a one term President and blocked everything he could.
You say labeling Democrats as socialists didn’t work . Ask the 13 Democratic House members who lost seats in 2020 . You can say they were in gerrymandered districts . Did those districts change between 2018 and 2020 . The funny part very few of them were even progressives .
A few weeks ago Diane and the blog were all excited about the Pro act . Yes there is no Republican support . But Biden pushed it . Schumer said he would bring it to the floor if he had 50 votes . We have Warner ,Kelly and Sinema refusing to sign on, we can talk about Manchin in a minute. Kelly formally holding very lucrative seats on Corporate boards who opposed Unions and raising the minimum wage. Warner in Bed with the vehemently anti Union Tech sector in Virginia . And Manchin signs on after pressure knowing it will never get the 60 votes when he refuses to end the filibuster . So let me know what if anything passes.
How do you think that will play in the Mid West where Senate seats could be won by Democrats in Pennsylvania,Ohio ,Wisconsin and even Missouri. Will the voters in those states say it was Republican obstructionists who blocked Biden’s pro worker agenda.
Or will they say Democrats had control of congress and the Presidency and failed again to deliver the reforms they promised,
” BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME ” . I am hearing it already.
Compare that to Republicans who have three items on their agenda. Cut taxes on the wealthy,CHECK . Appoint right wing Judges to legislate for them on social issues, corporate dominance and labor,CHECK. And gut Government regulatory agencies CHECK. There is not a chance in hell McCain would have voted to save ACA had their not been a blood feud with Trump but no fear lets see what the court legislates from the bench.
Joel,
Your account is correct. But your conclusions make no sense to me.
Republicans are blocking everything and the Democrats do not have enough votes to stop them. The Republicans want Americans on the left to blame the Democrats and not vote and they want Americans who are moderate to blame the Democrats and vote for Republicans because not only will that enable them to stop the Democrats’ agenda (which they have done already), but it will enable them to do what they did in 2016 and enact their own agenda, and appoint so many right wing justices and judges that the ability of the Democrats to ever win a large enough victory to do anything progressive will be lost forever.
Hindsight is 20/20. In 2008, the Democrats should have ended the filibuster altogether. At least, that is what it seems like now. Of course, had the Democrats done that and Trump won and not just appointed federal justices and judges but repealed every voting law and basically made new laws that said “all people who do not support Trump will be locked up forever and only white folks vote now” and we now have a flat tax where all people pay $10,000/year whether you are poor or a billionaire and the US descended into Hitleresque fascism, everyone would be blaming those Democrats and saying “see, we told them they shouldn’t repeal the filibuster”.
In fact, did you know that the Democrats are to blame for the right wing Supreme Court and judiciary? They repealed the filibuster for federal judges. It’s their fault that the federal judiciary has been taken over by the far right.
Dems – and progressives – can’t win if their own supporters repeat right wing propaganda that blames them if they do or if they don’t.
They can only win if their supporters on the left and their moderate and conservative supporters understand that they need to vote and give them a massive victory that empowers them to act regardless of whether right wing Republicans get one or two Democrats to help their right wing agenda.
What could Obama have accomplished if the filibuster was gone in 2008? Maybe a lot. But given the right wing propaganda machine, it might not have mattered when Trump came to office and simply repealed what they did and ended democracy altogether.
Jack D. Burgess
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
As he promised to ram another trade agreement down the throats of those voters in the Mid West with the help Republicans in the Lame Duck . Voters who had been thoroughly devastated by recent trade agreements. Losing 2-3 million manufacturing jobs and perhaps as much as 12-15 million total due to the multiplier effect. Stagnating wages nation wide. So thrilled were they with the good that they voted for Trump in Wisconsin , Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and almost Minnesota.
Then the limousine liberals make up a fairy tale about automation to dismiss it and defend Obama .
Obama who after expanding drilling in the Gulf only weeks before the BP disaster finally withdrew the permit for the Keystone pipeline when the price of oil went so low it didn’t pay to pump it. Obama with debt commissions and plans to cut the earned benefits of Americans he called entitlements. Do we really want to talk about Obama on an education blog . Obama who celebrated National Charter School teachers day . If you think Luther had a list you should see mine.
But he did make pretty speeches and I voted for him twice and would a third time if that option existed ; over any Republican that is . But I am not the one you have to convince .
No. I don’t endorse all that Obama did or stood for. His education policies were a disaster, but Clinton and others started us down the road (Reagan, really, with “Nation at Risk”–a reaction to Carter’s creation of the Ed Dept., etc.). You’re right about automation not being the main reason for job loss in the Midwest (I grew up in Flint). But I quoted his phrase which is a good maxim. And let’s not forget the value of the man. A black President. ACA provided insurance to 20 million. Etc. I know it’s a pain to do “nuance,” but we have to. (It was Bush II who said “I don’t do nuance”). Anyway, it was Bush I who pushed NAFTA, symbolic of our trade/jobs policies. And it was Bill Clinton who signed it. As to jobs and wages, the Dems could have pushed through “card check” labor law when they had control in ’09. Nevertheless, when we vote each November we make choices. Jesus is never on the ballot–nor is Nader or even Sanders.
So, we have to “do nuance.” And I say that “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” is a good idea. If all the critics of everything Obama did or Biden is doing were actively involved in nominating and electing Bernie Sanders, we might have different choices. But right now our choices are mostly between bad and worse. Or not so bad and not so good. We have to do nuance in our policies and in our disputations.
Peace
Joel,
You used to agree with me and recognize that the white folks in the midwest who were voting for right wing Republican anti union Senators and right wing Republican anti-union Presidents were NOT the ones most affected by NAFTA if they were affected at all. It was simply propaganda in which the bad Obama policies that the Republicans also supported was presented as only an Obama policy and the good Obama policies that those voters like that the Republicans rabidly opposed were ignored as if they never happened. (or the Republicans simply lied and said they supported them).
It’s propaganda. The people who vote for Republicans are racist white folks who never were much affected by Obama’s “bad” policies (which is why those same voters constantly re-elect the Republican Senators and Congressmen who voted for those Obama policies and not their Democrat opponents who did not!) Other voters either were propagandized into believing that the anti-worker Republicans were somehow “on their side” (because they scapegoated the “others” who weren’t white like them) or they were deluded into thinking that the Democrats were ONLY their worst policies and the Republicans being completely empowered would no worse for them. Boy were they wrong.
I actually have utmost respect for voters who want to turn this nation into a Christian country and want women to be in their place and not have access to birth control or abortions and vote Republican. They are voting in their self-interest and they SHOULD vote for Republicans because the Democrats are against everything they want this country to be.
But what is frightening is when people help push the false narratives to get voters who actually don’t like most of the policies Republicans are offering to either vote for Republicans, or not to vote because the Democrats are to blame for not being more progressive and anything good the Democrats does is ignored as “nothing” and the focus is only on their bad policies as if Democrats alone were responsible for NAFTA. And the obstruction of the Republicans that presented Democrats from achieving more good policies is presented as the fault of the Democrats, too. For not getting rid of the filibuster when they could. Or not forcing Manchin to be a Republican because both of those would have supposedly guaranteed that the progressive nirvana happened. And had Trump been empowered to turn us into Nazi Germany with the Dems having no power to stop him, they’d blame the Democrats, too, for getting rid of the filibuster.
It’s like the rush to blame Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not having the supposed perfect 20/20 hindsight in which she should have retired in 2009 because her successor would not have been filibustered. Because, ya know, it was no problem to replace Scalia, right? Or the Democrats would have gotten rid of the filibuster in 2009 for Ginsburg’s replacement only to have the blowback when Trump started only appointing neofascists to every judgeship and the people with 20/20 hindsight blamed the Dems for abolishing the filibuster to get a replacement for Ginsburg when everyone knew Ginsburg could have held out for another 8 years and done some good.
I really do admire AOC because she is so smart and I have seen her be incredibly critical of Democrats while making it clear that the real enemy to the progressive agenda are the Republicans. It is Republicans who need to be demonized because – honestly – they have been acting like demons the last few years. The Democrats have been acting like politicians, and AOC gets it. Because progressives can achieve a lot more with the Democrats having a huge majority in Congress, but they will lose everything with the neofascist Republicans having total power.
NYC public school parent
I still agree with you that White workers in the Mid West were less financially impacted than other workers and voted mainly on race in 2016 and 2020. What percentage of eligible White and Brown adults did not vote 35%?
I never said that voters were smart. If they were Republican propaganda would not work.
Are Democrats better, Eric Adams is running on a law and order platform as well as several others. . The City is in a manufactured panic about crime that is no worse than it was in Bloomberg’s last term in spite of pandemic unemployment of of 12% last month far higher in communities of color. . I don’t ever remember feeling or hearing the City was unsafe from 2002 -13 when crime was far higher. Racial justice is taking a back burner in a well organized assault by the PBA, NYPD. and the tabloids and only Maya Wiley calls it out.
Lets stop pretending that the Democrats have attempted to deliver . Did you think it was only Arne Duncan. Tom Perez former DNC chair and Obama Labor secretary just joined the Club. and he is not alone.
Now few voters even know who Perez was . What they know is when their lives are or are not made appreciably better . But you can be sure when the election comes there will be a 60 second add to inform them. I already get it thrown at me.
As for the filibuster read “Kill Switch ” Moscow Mitch wanted Bush to kill it . There is zero chance he wont if he wins the WH, Senate and House again.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/05/obama-labor-secretary-tom-perez-anti-union-law-firm-venable
Joel,
If you were correct about what happens when ONLY the Republicans shout “blame the Democrats” but the smart progressive leaders like AOC work overtime to quash that false narrative, then why are the Republicans so focused on making it hard for Democrats to vote?
If AOC was more of a dienne77 type, and AOC devoted herself to helping the far right by pushing the utterly false narrative that defeating Democrats and empowering Republicans is the best way to achieve the progressive nirvana and not a quick route to fascism, then the Republicans wouldn’t have to work so hard to pass laws that prevent people from voting. Why would they bother? They’d easily win elections.
One reason AOC is so dangerous to Republicans is that she won’t help them push their “demonize the Democrats” false narratives. She pushes the complicated truth, not false narratives where the real demons are the evil Democrats whose defeat is the only way that progressive legislation will happen. Doesn’t that sound so ridiculous? And yet we have people who claim to be progressive who believe it. Maybe they are just liars, the way those right wing white boogaloo guys recently arrested for killing police and violence during the BLM protests were liars who wanted to push the false narrative that they were BLM protesters and BLM protesters were violent and very dangerous.
Tom Perez is not Ted Cruz. Tom Perez may be to the right of Jimmy Carter (but I bet he’s not) but he supports democracy and without democracy, progressives can’t win. But they can be “disappeared”.
I don’t care what law firm Perez works for or whether his entire life is devoting to keeping the minimum wage as low as possible and making unions illegal. Because the chance of those things happening will increase 10000x if the Republicans win. There won’t be more progressive legislation, there will be more neofascist legislation.
Joel, you also posted a link to Jacobin Magazine, which specializes in pushing right wing narratives. Look at the link you posted to push the narrative about how corrupt democrats are because Tom Perez is working against unions.
Here is the absolute true story that Jacobin did NOT write:
“Democrats remove Tom Perez, anti-union leader of DNC, and replace him with Jaime Harrison, proving that the Democrats will no longer tolerate DNC leaders who oppose workers.”
Only the most negative characterizations about Democrats are allowed to be mentioned, and all positive achievements did not exist — don’t you know that Obama did nothing for 4 years except push the right wing Republican agenda? I have read articles by progressives that would never be printed in Jacobin that include both the good and bad that Obama did. In Jacobin I can read nasty articles smearing Elizabeth Warren as a liar who has done nothing but prove her untrustworthiness. That rabid mischaracterization which smeared Warren’s character and intentionally left out every good thing Warren had done was designed for one purpose — to further their false narrative that only by defeating Democrats can progressives have any success. AOC knows that is a huge lie, which is why you rarely find mention of her or her POV in the “Democrats must be defeated even if the Republicans win” media that claims to be progressive.
Joel,
Sorry, I know I’m posting a lot, but with regards to the Mayoral race in NYC:
Maya Wiley is the one getting endorsements from the most prominent Democrats who are POLITICIANS from AOC to Hakeem Jeffries! Those are arguably two of the more recognizably politician Democrats in NYC! Who endorsed Wiley!
Eric Adams has a ton of union endorsements! Not mainstream Democratic politician endorsements.
Ray McGuire seems to have many celebrity endorsements like Patrick Ewing and Spike Lee!
So if Maya Wiley doesn’t win, why blame Democratic politicians when she got the endorsements of two of the (arguably) most powerful ones?
If she loses, isn’t it the fault of those many unions and celebrities who endorsed other people? Isn’t it the fault of the media like the NYT that endorsed the most anti-public school pro-candidate, Garcia?
NYC public school parent .
You should have been a Republican . They have the uncanny ability to turn corporatist Democrats into Socialists . . Last time I checked Jacobin was a Socialist publication. That they push some unpleasant truths does not make them Right Wingers or tools of the Right. The actual self proclaimed Socialists union activists I know took the same position as AOC. “The Revolution can wait fascism is too dangerous ” .As they were getting their heads smashed by NYPD peacefully protesting with BLM in the Bronx .
As for Perez unless you have other documentation Perez had announced that he would only serve one term long before the election.
As I stated he is not the only former Obama aid to take a position that spun heads .
I would expect Scalia, Trumps Labor Secretary or Elaine Chao Bushes Labor Secretary to go to work for union busters . But for a former Obama Labor Secretary and the most recent Chair of the DNC to betray the Unions that have almost unanimously supported Democrats since Mondale (even Carter ) . Who have badgered their members for decades that elections matter. That both Parties are not the same who have funneled countless PAC dollars into Democratic coffers. This can only be seen as an ultimate betrayal .
Now before I saw your absurd response. I was going to post this for you. Because it sums up what progressive union activists are up against when Democrats fail. From the conclusion first.
“These reports suggest that the Trump phenomena should not be heaped solely on the backs of the white working-class. Trump’s base also includes a large percentage of well-to-do professionals and entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, there are far more Trump supporters in the ranks of labor than working class leaders (and labor educators) ever wanted to see, especially among the better paid, blue-collar workers.
For those of us doing educational work in the labor movement, the message is crystal clear: Stay on it …and then some! ”
https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/trump-base/
Joel,
Please don’t mischaracterize what I wrote about Jacobin. They trashed Elizabeth Warren with unwarranted character attacks which is something that AOC would never do. AOC criticizes Dems all the time – she just called out VP Harris. It is possible to do that without making false claims to demonize them. There is a difference.
“The actual self proclaimed Socialists union activists I know took the same position as AOC. “The Revolution can wait fascism is too dangerous ” That’s right! I know they did and I salute them. I have no idea what that has to do with Jacobin publishing so many character-attacking articles instead of criticizing Dems the way AOC does. Basically, the ongoing narrative I see in Jacobin is “Democrats can’t be trusted, Democrats just like Republicans”. That is the favorite right wing narrative, too, because they have always won big when that was the dominant narrative. It is not AOC’s narrative. Her narrative is “Republicans will destroy us, they are bad and a danger to democracy itself, and Democrats won’t do anything for progressives unless we pressure them and run primary candidates who are more progressive.” I have never heard AOC say that the Dems are just like the Republicans. I assume it is because she believes in facts, not false rhetoric that supports the right wing narrative.
Didn’t hear your take on Maya Wiley getting the endorsement of the 2 most prominent Democratic politicians in NYC — AOC and Jeffries? I know some local pols endorsed some of the others, but their names aren’t household names. I guess the most influential Democratics in Washington didn’t get their marching orders from Nancy Pelosi and their corporate overlords, as some on the far left would have you believe.
Joel,
Shame on me for writing that long reply above and forgetting to thank you for posting that fascinating alternet article about the breakdown of the Pennsylvania electorate. Fascinating reading. I like these kinds of articles a lot!
Reminds me that I really like John Fetterman — do you think he has a chance in the Senate race? I have no doubt that if he wins the primary, we will see a smear attempt by the right that will paint him as the most (dangerous/socialist/corporatist/neocon) Senate candidate in history. Will those neighborhoods vote for him? Will those neighborhoods vote for any Democrat when appeals to racism and xenophobia have been so successful?
Thanks again for the link.
NYC public school parent
“and Democrats won’t do anything for progressives unless we pressure them and run primary candidates who are more progressive.”
I would not call that a ringing endorsement .
I think that says it all and explains why she is attacked by many in the party. Democrats are not the same as Republicans and that may be the metric we have to base our decisions on . That does not mean we have to accept it. As AOC stated.
But we have drifted quite far from teaching our unpleasant history and reality vs fantasy. Or perhaps we have not.
“I wouldn’t call that a ringing endorsement”
Correct. Ringing endorsements were never mentioned – not sure why you even brought them up. AOC’s response was absolutely perfect. AOC’s response was truthful. A ringing endorsement would have been just as dishonest as the demonizations that I read so frequently in Jacobin.
I admire AOC not because of her policies, which I happen to agree with. I admire her because she tells the truth. “Ringing endorsements” aren’t necessary. The truth is.
NYC public school parent.
It certainly was not a ringing endorsement . It was a way of saying you guys suck (is that a bit clearer although not PC ) while calling to oust them from the inside .
By the way I like her as well .
And they do suck . But the choice is binary. Expend some energy on Dienne . I haven’t voted for a republican since Javits. If I say what I think about Republicans I will lose my Global Entry .
For a perfectly good definition and personal analysis of “critical race theory” please see the brief and very recent op-ed by Susan Estrich. She mentions Derrick Bell as possibly the father of critical race theory.
https://www.wctrib.com/opinion/7061103-Susan-Estrich-About-the-critical-race-theory-issue
I have despised Susan Estrich for a long time, and been totally disgusted with her complicity in pushing the right wing narratives on Fox News as their resident “Democrat who legitimizes our right wing narrative”.
So I almost didn’t click on this link, but I’m very glad I did.
Wow, Estrich surprised me. You are absolutely correct — this is a very succinct and easy to understand analysis of it.
“Students need to study racism if we are ever to move past it. And that means confronting bias — both the old-fashioned discrimination that is easy to condemn and the more modern unconscious bias that Pence and his party would like to pretend away.”
Yep.
I read a few other of her op eds at that paper — they were good!
CRT comes with a few educational guarantees:
1) It will be presented in a variety of confusing ways to children and adolescents.
2) It will be misconstrued by children and adolescents.
3) Many white students will be left feeling guilty, shamed, and anxious.
4) Many black students will be left feeling like hopeless and helpless victims of systemic racism, exacerbating their situations.
5) Like all edu-fads this one might not even make that infamous 15 minutes of fame,
6) Teachers will reject it in droves (see 1 – 4)
I actually listened to what Cindy Green said in this 1:41 clip. It was quite interesting. She’s not a right wing propagandist like Mythinformed MKE, but simply a regular person in education who does not agree with Mythinformed MKE and those who agree with Mythinformed MKE that all public education must be white centered and anyone who does not accept that it must be white centered must be cancelled and replaced with a white person who does.
Here is what Mythinformed MKE opposes: reviewing curriculum and making sure it is not completely centered on white people, white people’s accomplishments, and what white people think matters.
Mythinformed MKE opposes any teaching that includes the accomplishments of people of color. I am shocked that anyone here would re-post this nasty attempt by a racist man who hopes no one will actually listen to what Cindy Green says in the attempt to demonize her, cancel her, get her fired, and replace her with a true “patriot” who knows that including any material that does not focus on the brilliant accomplishments of the perect white men who made this country great is not allowed.
I challenge anyone to listen to this to see if they agree with false narrative that this link and the people who re-post it believe — that this woman is horribly racist against all white people and this woman demands that no mention of white people can be made in schools unless it is to talk about how evil and racist they are.
This is a good example of how racist propaganda is normalized — by having people repost the white supremacist interpretation of what anyone who doesn’t support racism is saying, believing that they won’t bother to actually listen to the clip.
Other times, these people use carefully edited clips to “prove” that everyone who cares about racism hates white people and is conspiring to hurt all white people.
Nasty stuff, here. But the nastiness is not what Cindy Green says. The nastiness is the rabid “everyone who opposes racism must be fired and silenced” attitude that Mythinformed MKE and those who repost this wish for our country.
There are lots of propagandists who hate everyone who criticizes racism and white supremacy. Sad to see them on this blog where most of us would prefer to have a real discussion instead one by people who approve of Trump, but insist that Cindy Green is a grave danger.
SMH
It says a lot about a person when their source of information is right wingers who think Dr. Fauci is an evil person guilty of a huge cover up, and Donald Trump tells the truth.
Another piece of propaganda posted by those who say there is no racism and people who are black and who are white are always treated exactly the same in this country and every African American teenager killed or brutalized by police deserved it because they know who is dangerous — unarmed teens — and who is not — teens shooting assault weapons directly at cops — and the fact that the armed teen is African American and the armed teen is white has nothing to do with it because there is no racism in America.’
Are you also going to post right wing propaganda to get people to hate Asian-Americans who secretly helped the Wuhan Laboratory in their nefarious plot to release a virus to kill Americans?
^^^typo correction:
“…and the fact that the UNarmed teen is African American and the armed teen is white has nothing to do with it because there is no racism in America.”
This re-tweet is pushing the false narrative that there is no racism in America. Now since even white people know there is racism in America, the racists who want more people to join them in hating African Americans post this kind of propaganda to get white folks who actually are racist but don’t want to admit it to tell themselves that now they are justified in their racism, because look how awful “those people” are.
It’s ugly and nasty.
Rage,
“Students need to study racism if we are ever to move past it. And that means confronting bias — both the old-fashioned discrimination that is easy to condemn and the more modern unconscious bias that Pence and his party would like to pretend away.” (Susan Estrich link someone posted below).
Those who deny the existence of unconscious bias are denying reality.
Someone posted two tweets by dishonest right wingers who believe that unconscious bias does not exist or if it does, it has nothing to do with race and therefore mentioning racism proves that you are the racist one who must be silenced and cancelled.
This is the view of those who believe that it is not at all racist that police think that unarmed African Americans are a lot more dangerous than white criminals who shoot assault weapons at them. They claim that It is not racist that police just happen to treat armed and attacking criminals of one race with much more restraint than unarmed non-criminals of another race — it is merely their judgement and race played no part in it and we know this because we asked them and they told us it had nothing to do with race.
Is it racist when white people who claim not to be racist mischaracterize those who recognize unconscious bias as the racist ones? I think so. Apparently there are some here who agree with the right wing Republicans that the real victims of racism are white people. Because being called out for your unconscious bias is so much worse than walking along minding your own business and being victimized by police who claim their treatment if you had nothing to do with your race.
Teaching/studying about overt and subconscious racism to children and adolescents in a crowded classroom setting is beyond idealistic, as it is borderline irresponsible. This is a highly nuanced and emotionally charged topic that the underdeveloped brain is jus not ready for. Not to mention the very difficult challenges it poses to teachers. Students are bound to misconstrue any lesson tied to CRT or the 1619 project, doing far more harm than good. I hear what you’re saying, but trying to put the study of racism in America into a social studies curriculum would never achieve your stated goal of helping us to move past it.
I am shocked at your words. Are you a teacher?
You are saying that it is impossible to teach any social studies curriculum to the “underdeveloped brain” that is not the current curriculum where white people are front and center and the racist history of our country is hidden. Really, what you are saying is that white people need to decide what is important for young students to learn, but your excuse for requiring all Americans students to learn what white people believe is important (the white view of history) is that you profess to have concern for their “adolescent brain”.
In other countries they teach other histories! Imagine if Germany decided in 1950 that young adolescents could not handle the teaching of anything too anti-Semitic in German history and they would return to the Nazi narrative of how great a country Germany is thanks to its Aryan leaders of the past.
Your response is exactly why the woman in the video is “mandating” that other material that includes people who aren’t white be included, even if the teachers insist that their students’ “underdeveloped brains” could not handle anything but history that teaches how wonderful our white founders are.
Rage,
Do you agree with the anti-CRT folks that students must NOT study racism because not studying racism is the only way our country can move past it?
Wow! What a hot topic. As a retired (white) social studies teacher, who attended integrated schools and taught in them–and who served as Exec. Dir. of Cols. E.A. in the ’70’s, when CPS lost a lawsuit (which we supported) which forced integration on the schools, I have mixed feelings when reading all this. Ultimately, I believe we’re generating more heat than light–on both sides. Conservatives and many Republicans are using the issue to organize their white, rearguard, neo-fascist action. However, I don’t believe we should have a national policy on such matters, but support our teachers who are trying mightily to cope. At the risk of offending my black and progressive friends, I have to say that as a teacher it might be hard to convince a poor white kid, that he has it better than his black friends, when he saw a black President and so many blacks on TV making millions. So, I support programs–educational & political–that provide vastly more funding for PUBLIC, integrated education, housing, health care, etc. We were, in fact, making great strides toward “the great society,” when we turned right for the Vietnam War and Reaganomics, etc. Also, we need more programs such as we had in Chillicothe, Ohio (where I last taught), that brought our kids together, off campus, to discuss issues that underlie these issues. We had a black teacher describe how he was ambushed by police when on his way to a party, etc. In our “diversity” program, we also talked about gender issues–which I would argue are just as real and important as racial issues. Finally, where are we as a society if we work on our own problems in America–claiming to believe in equality–while we kill with impunity in foreign lands. As a veteran myself, I can’t support our invasions and dronings in the MIddle East or Central America, etc., whether they are done by my black brothers (and sisters) or white. As educators, we need to recognize these problems are international. Bigotry knows no bounds. So I say, let’s support strong, well-funded public schools–K through college. Let’s pay for them. Let’s hire excellent teachers by paying well and setting high standards. Let’s raise wages of all workers, black and white, Asian, etc. Humanity is the test. Color is a critical barrier, but not the only one. We war abroad for capitalism and profit, for our religion and our own values. Let’s teach about humanity! Let’s work for a brotherhood and sisterhood of human kind.
Well said. “Bigotry knows no bounds.” Prejudice is a global issue which includes color, gender, nationality or ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation among others, I am sure.
“At the risk of offending my black and progressive friends, I have to say that as a teacher it might be hard to convince a poor white kid, that he has it better than his black friends, when he saw a black President and so many blacks on TV making millions.”
This statement reveals a lot of the implicit bias that CRT addresses!
Imagine a white teacher in the 1950s saying “I have to say that as a teacher it might be hard to convince a poor white kid, that he has it better than his black friends, when he sees Duke Ellington and Harry Belafonte and Ella Fitzgerald and Chuck Berry and Amos ‘n Andy and Paul Robeson and so many blacks in entertainment and elsewhere making (the equivalent of “millions” in 1950 dollars).”
The implicit racism in your statement is that as long as some black people are successful, that means that teaching about racism is going to be too hard to do. You don’t really believe there is any good way to teach that it does, so it is ironic that you don’t seem to believe that maybe a curriculum for young students that addresses this might be useful.
^^^To continue:
When you wrote that statement: “I have to say that as a teacher it might be hard to convince a poor white kid, that he has it better than his black friends…” you bought into a false (and frankly racist) narrative that has been the crux of the anti-CRT propaganda.
It’s not about whether any individual white kid can find a different individual black person and say “I have it worse”.
If teachers are legitimizing white students’ belief that they should ask themselves “is there someone of another race doing better than me, a white person, if so there is no racism”, then there is a problem.
It tells me that the CRT folks are right.
“What is CRT and why do Republicans” and Sean Wilentz, a neoliberal at legacy- admission Princeton, “want to ban it?”
Authors at the website, Clio and the Contemporary, do a masterful takedown of Wilentz’ “vapid criticisms”. The article’s title, “There’s a legitimate criticism of the 1619 project, and then there’s Sean Wilentz.” An excerpt follows, “Wilentz claimed Trump and the 1619 project share equal blame for historical “essentialism”. Given the fact that Trump is a bottom of the barrel know-nothing and Hannah Jones has won numerous awards for journalism, there can’t be anything that qualifies as equal between them. Trump is to Hannah Jones what tin foil hat muddling is to astrophysics.
Amen to that, Linda
Reblogged this on dean ramser.
The average Repugnican politician wouldn’t know critical race theory from the tushes with which they do their “thinking.”
n retrospect, I feel that I was a naive optimist and that he was prescient. After the Trump presidency, it is clear that racism remains a potent force in American life.
Wow. Yes. Amen to that.
A major error in this article. It says,
Some lessons and anti-racism efforts, however, reflect foundational themes of critical race theory, particularly that racism in the United States is systemic.
That racism in the United States is systemic is NOT a notion derived from or confined to critical race theory, though critical race theorists would definitely agree that it is. Rather, that racism in the United States is systemic is simply a factual observation. It is. It has been for a very long, long time.
If you are black in the US, you get less pay for the same work. If you are black in the US and you are arrested, you are much more likely to go to trial and to be convicted. If you are black in the US and are convicted of a crime, you are typically going to get a much harsher sentence. If you are black in the US and apply for an auto or house loan, you are much more likely to be turned down than is a white person with similar credit. If you are black in the US, you will typically get a higher interest rate on that house. And you will pay more for it. If you are black in the US, it will take you longer to get that promotion. If you are black in the US, you are less likely to reach the C level in that corporation.
And on and on and on and on.
In other words, the racism is baked into the system. It is systemic.
This is simply the case. To deny this is to live in some sort of alternate reality dreamland, not in the US today.
This. Thank you.
What does it mean for the racism to be “systemic”?
Well, it means that you don’t have to DO anything to be treated, in the US, with this, uh, special regard. All you have to do is show up\for the party.
With a little more melanin in your skin.
This way of thinking “compels us to confront critically the most explosive issue in American civilization: the historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding white supremacy.”
Watch the following brief history of federal housing policy and then reread that statement. It is spot on.
See also:
As long as the right-wingers are involved in this attach on instruction, teachers have A MORAL DUTY to subvert those morons’ intentions and teach their students exactly what the right-wingers fear that they might learn.
cx: attack, not attach, ofc
“Under this framework, George Floyd’s killing and Black Americans’ higher mortality rate from covid-19 are not aberrations, Bridges said.”
Have they done any statistical comparison of how many white and non-white owned small businesses closed during the past year? How about statistics about lost homes?
Here’s a well-researched look at the disproportionate covid deaths among African-Americans. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/13/race-a13.html. It turns out that this statistic, like those on police murders, reflects CLASS. Poor blacks and poor whites and poor Indians suffer all these ills at disproportionate rates. But big business and their spokespeople want to camouflage that incendiary issue with race. Yes, of course, racism exists and is being whipped up but it cannot be answered with more racism. The advocates of CRT, 1619 and racialism have handed the right-wing a gift by legitimizing the claims that racism is ahistorical, “baked into” society, rather than putting the blame where it lies, the outlived capitalist system of exploitation. It should noted that the growth of social inequality over the last year is unprecedented. Millions of all races have been plunged into poverty, lost homes, businesses and healthcare–while billionaires have cashed in. Highly recommended: https://www.amazon.com/Times-Project-Racialist-Falsification-History/dp/1893638936/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=The+New+York+Times+1619+project&qid=1623190909&sr=8-8
Are you saying, Nancy, that covid deaths, loss of homes, loss of businesses are the function of poverty rather than race? So if we look at poor white and black people, they suffered at the same rate during the covid year?
This is entirely possible. On the other hand, the poverty rates of white and non-whites are definitely disproportionate, and hence can be attributed to systemic racism, can’t it?
Mate, Take a read of the article regarding the rates. Certainly blacks are a disproportionate percentage of the working class, hence the terrible effects of poverty. But the distinction between “systematic racism” and the growth of poverty among workers is critical to determine what is to be done. Have you ever read “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” a brilliant study of the vicissitudes and political considerations in the rise of legal segregation? It was eye-opening for me.
There was no straight line from slavery to Jim Crow of “systematic racism.” Instead, it was a response to the development of growing black-white alliances within the Populist movement in the South, the fear of the Northern industrialists of the growing movement of the working class and the decline of the planter class. In other words, the ideological struggle was a reflection of the class struggle. Millions of workers across the world find themselves in the same boat, Tamil and Sinhalese; British and Irish; immigrants and natives (you name it) and the ruling elites are increasing fearful that they identify as a class and utilize their power. The injection of racialist thinking from both the “left” [another form of “right”] and the “right” poisons the well.
Race and racism has been used by ruling classes across the planet for centuries. And of course is a horrific condition deeply entrenched throughout societies today. But CRT fails to accurately explain the critical question: “why.” At its root CRT argues that racism has its foundations in upholding white supremacy. History cannot be explained purely through the prism of race. Such ideology completely obscures the fundamental driving force of social relations in society: economic conditions and class.
The American Revolution and Civil wars were fundamentally bourgeois revolutions. Of monumental significance yet Hannah-Jones and other writers of the 1619 project, simply look at them from an anachronistic and moralist viewpoint.
As a secondary history teacher, I’m not calling for the legal banning of CRT or 1619 project in schools, but I do not and will not teach the essays presented by Nicole Hannah Jones and others in the 1619 project, nor the ideology of CRT.
When teaching 17th-18th century in 8th/11th grade US history for instance, do I include the first hand narratives of enslaved people, black abolitionists, free African Americans the lives and contributions of Tubman, Douglass, Turner, L’oveture, etc? Absolutely. As well as the voices of Native Americans, and indentured servants, poor whites, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Paine etc. The historical context is full of a multitude of voices and complex material conditions. And at the end of the day, my curriculum is rooted in explaining the various economic interests that have given rise to social relations throughout history. My curriculum is NOT rooted in white supremacy or the ideology of “settler colonialism” as the basis of understanding American society and history.
The 1619 project and CRT are expressions of identity politics, specifically promoted and utilized by the Democratic Party. Time and time again identity politics has been utilized by the ruling class in the face of mounting social opposition from below (finding particularly increased expression among the American ruling class since the aftermath of the civil rights movement to today). Those who falsify history on the basis of race actually lend a helping hand to the defense of the system of class privilege, namely capitalism.
The working class of all races and ethnicities across the globe have much more in common with one another in the struggle for equality than they do with those like Nicole Hannah Jones’ or major CRT academics in the upper echelons of society.
Renae,
Good for you for using different sources. You ban the reading of the 1619 project for making racism too important. But I wonder if you also ban readings that don’t address racism at all. Are your students also prevented from reading in your classroom anything written by Marx or Engel? Or do you only single out authors you believe have “too much concern with racism” for censorship because you don’t want your students to read those, but don’t object to them reading authors who don’t talk about racism or have some racist views?
Are your students banned from reading any accounts of the colonial era that don’t mention racism? Or do you condone historical accounts that don’t give any importance to racism but condemn and censor accounts that give “too much” importance to racism?
Here is why your criticisms don’t ring true to me:
No one except a very few academics had ever heard of CRT until this year when the Republicans presented it as a grave danger to us all.
And yet in all those years the working class of all races and ethnicities did not come together in the US. On the contrary, the Republicans very successfully pitted white Americans against “others”.
Time and time again, people who are actually racist but profess not to have a racist bone in their body attack anyone who notices the racism in America and scapegoats them as responsible for all the racism in America! Because – the trope goes – those people who didn’t shut up about the racism in America are the ones causing it by using “identity politics” to divide because by mentioning the racism, they are causing white people to be racist! If only they shut up and let themselves be victimized, all the racism would go away!
Some white folks who claim not to be racist still refuse to blame the people responsible for racism — white people in power — for racism! They blame the victims of racism for not shutting up about it. It’s their fault that white people won’t stop being racist!
Thankfully, many of the younger generation seems to have been able to see through that. That’s why they came out for BLM protests last summer instead of buying into their elders narrative that by protesting against racist policing, they were the cause of racist policing.
When students read and hear lessons that are unrelated to what they live, it creates a chasm of disbelief. There is no way to return to the bottle, the notion that white, Christian Europeans individually and collectively virtuously created and advanced a great America. One in 5 kids live in poverty, unlike other western democracies.
When the southern, midwestern, mountain west and D.C. conservative religious use their faith as a bludgeon against the vulnerable, students see it. History lessons prettily packaged and Christian and Catholic shibboleth no longer work to hide a rigged system that favors specific demographic groups.
I repeat, this blog is generating “more heat than light.” Are we trying to further our understandings here, or just score points? Many of the folks writing about what schools should do or teach have not been teachers or been in a public school classroom for awhile, or ever. (That’s one of the big problems with education policy coming from Washington–not developed by public school teachers). As teachers, we can’t tell kids what to believe. (Maybe in a religious school we can, in matters of religion). We expose them to a lot of different ideas and let them/help them choose. If you haven’t been in a classroom for awhile, or you’re not a kid, you might have forgotten what’s that’s like. Whatever a teacher tells or shows a student will be tested by that student against his or her own personal knowledge and experience. Real education is complex. Not always easy. Doesn’t respond well to dictates from Washington or from the government–or the teacher–whether in NY or Ohio. C’mon, friends, let’s try to practice what most of us preach—caring about each other, listening, an open mind. And let’s admit that all have rights–blacks, Asians, poor whites, women, gays, everybody–in Ohio, NY, Syria, Iraq, Mexico, etc. My own experience includes attending and teaching in classes of mixed races (and all-black). Just telling kids what to think, won’t do it. Even if it comes from government. A former student (black) told me, “You taught us to think.” Greatest compliment I ever got. We can all learn and grow, too. Let’s remember the provider of this forum, Diane Ravitch, who worked in a Republican Department of Education, but now works for real education change toward the things most of us want. Again, can we try to understand and learn from each other in this forum, or are we just flailing at each other, not “listening,” and not learning?
Thank you, Jack.
Jack D. Burgess,
That is a good point. I was surprised myself that with so many educators on here, there were quite a few posts that completely dismissed the ideas behind Critical Race Theory (and the 1619 project) and used the right wing Republican mischaracterization of what it was in order to discredit and dismiss it.
Diane Ravitch’s posts are so enlightening because she actually reads and makes her own judgements and often those judgements – based on the real facts – are different than how the right wing is portraying what something is.
I assume that is the reason that she no longer supports charter schools. She followed the facts instead of believing that the right wing mischaracterization of what charter schools were was true.
Thank you, Diane Ravitch.
Lot of interesting discussion here.
For a bit of flavor of how critical theory, anti-racism, and “whiteness studies” are are being used these days as a “lens” in the field of psychology, check this abstract of an article titled “On Having Whiteness” in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00030651211008507
FLERP!,
What is your point? Surely all heterosexual men should have lived in fear in 2006 when this very same author, Donald Sage wrote “Masculinity as Masquerade” in the very same Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association about being “bombarded with well-warranted correctives – from heterosexual feminists, from gays, from lesbians – to what, in retrospect, now seems out outmoded ways of interpreting femininity and masculinity and the bedrock on which they seemed to stand”?
Surely all people who ever used the first person plural voices were in grave danger in 2001, when they were being victimized when the same author, Donald Sage, wrote “On Hating in the First Person Plural: Thinking Psychoanalytically About Racism, Homophobia, and Misogyny” in the very same Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Earlier you posted a link that demonized an educator, Cindy Green. She was similarly portrayed as if her (quite acceptable) views were an extreme danger to all white people and their white culture. Now you post links to an article read by members of the “American Psychoanalytical Association” written by Donald Sage, who has spent the last 2 decades writing his ideas that seem to have influenced no one.
Your posts to links trying to demonize people with no power as if they were an extreme danger to all white people and their white culture reveals a lot about your definition of having an “interesting discussion”.
It seems that having an “interesting discussion” means to ignore the elephant in the room — the fact that at the entire Republican party keeps pushing the racist narrative of “voter fraud” to excuse their using their excessive power to making it as hard as possible for those who are not white to vote under the guise of preventing the extreme “voter fraud” perpetrated on the good white folks who properly elected Trump. And we all know who those very powerful Republicans want white folks to believe perpetrated that fraud. (Hint: not other white folks).
Instead, you keep posting links to demonize Cindy Green and demonize Donald Sage — who no one has heard of. I guess we are supposed to consider your “helpful” links to be strong evidence that the white supremacist narratives pushed by Mitch McConnell and Trump and people with REAL POWER are not the problem — Cindy Green and Donald Sage are. They are the real dangers to white folks.
Sage and Green must be cancelled – punished, fired, threatened – because powerful white folks tell us they are a serious danger! But when those powerful white folks say some stuff that isn’t so nice, their narratives must never be challenged or criticized because that would be “canceling” them.
Okay, you win, we can talk about Sage and Green.
I take you at your word that you post links to what you believe are very important events to discuss and not just to provoke. You win. Let’s have that discussion. Or if your intention was not to have a real discussion by posting those links, but simply to provoke and perhaps to get people to hate Cindy Green, then congrats to you. Bravo. There is no need to reply as you did what you came to do.
Just thought it would be useful for people to see some examples of how critical theory, anti-racism, and social justice are playing out in the world. If you don’t find it interesting, that’s fine.
Here’s an example of anti-racism put into practice in elementary education, where teachers say teaching is a political act:
FLERP!,
I do so want to participate in your idea of an “interesting discussion” – please let me know if I’m doing it correctly.
Just thought it would be useful for people to see some examples of how the anti-CRT and pro-racism and anti-social justice are playing out in the world. If you don’t find it interesting, that’s fine.
Here’s an example of pro-racism put into practice by an anti-CRT person who just happened to be not just a US Congressman, but one who was invited to Trump’s White House to share ideas:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” (2019, anti-CRT Republican Steve King)
If you want to continue this “interesting discussion”, maybe you can find another educator like Cindy Green and post the far right demonization of her, and I will find another anti-CRT politician with extraordinary power and post one of their quotes.
I can’t say I agree with your idea of what an “interesting discussion” is, but I hope this discussion is just as “interesting” and “useful” as you wanted!
(I would pull my kid from any school where a teacher’s idea of “interesting discussion” was this, but to each his own.)
Steve King is horrible. Some things are very easy to condemn.
I won’t condemn Cindy Green. It is NOT easy (in my mind) to condemn her, although perhaps easier for you. You posted the clip that demonized Green, an educator trying to make the curriculum more diverse , with the stated intention of having an “interesting discussion” — I guess that means stating whether or not one condemns her.
I won’t condemn Cindy Green. I can’t wait to hear what you will do now that we are having the kind of “interesting discussion” you like.
I wouldn’t expect you to condemn her. I expect you to think she is a shining example of an anti-racist educator.
FLERP!,
I took you at your word that you posted a link to a provocative twitter post condemning an educator working to make her schools’ curriculum anti-racist because you wanted to discuss the content of the link you posted.
If you don’t want to discuss the content, and the link was simply to provoke, that’s your own business.
But let’s not waste people’s time with the discussion you seem to want to have in which you analyze whether my replies to the links you posted met your expectations. If I’m not interested, I can’t imagine anyone else would be.
I should have been clearer that I’m not interested in a discussion with you. I don’t have hours and days to burn, and I can always flagellate myself on my own schedule. You were not the intended audience for these links.
FLERP!,
You are the one who posted the link to a twitter account of someone named “Mythinformed MKE” that demonized an educator, Cindy Green, portraying her as if she was dangerous because she was trying to be anti-racist. Not me.
I do understand now that your “intended audience” wasn’t me. I am not a person who would read a “Mythinformed MKE” twitter feed and assume the “Mythinformed MKE” characterization was accurate just because someone on this blog endorsed it. I’m someone who took the time to see if the ugly smear of Cindy Green that the “Mythinformed MKE” twitter feed contained was accurate.
I can see why I’m not your intended audience. Maybe other readers will simply read the twitter feed you so helpfully linked to and take it at face value. Then you can have an interesting discussion with them.
^^^Correction:
FLERP! posted a link to an article written by Donald MOSS, not Donald Sage. (Sage was the publishing company).
As FLERP! makes very clear, Donald Moss is a very important and powerful voice and the fact that I would not get his last name correct is very embarrassing. It is especially awful given Donald Moss’ great influence not just on the CRT movement, but also on society in general and especially on education (which hopefully FLERP! will elaborate on during the follow-up “interesting discussion” of Donald Moss’s comment that we are supposed to believe FLERP! wants to have.)
I deeply regret I did not get the name of the very influential and important Donald Moss correct. I apologize.
Republicans have their psycho Cult of Trump; we have our psycho Cult of Social Justice.
I find the clips of Cindy Green and this other zealot (the “nun”) repellent. There is something wrong with these people.
The University of California History and Social Studies Project, an outfit designed to provide professional development for K-12 teachers, is offering seven summer programs. Here are four of the titles:
“Thinking Historically About Race and Whiteness: Possiblities for Anti-Racist Pedagogies”
“Youth as Changemakers”
“Asians in America: Racism and Resistance”
“Human Rights Studies for 21st Century California” (“Human Rights Studies” is code for “Social Justice Studies”).
Why are so many people so besotten with this crap? I do think it may be surrogate religion for atheistic liberals (I am an atheist). I also think it’s the logical consequence of the disastrous state of the humanities in colleges and universities. Humanities majors know nothing but critical theory, race and gender these days. If they become teachers, that’s all they know how to teach. E.D. Hirsch’s alarm about a national “knowledge deficit” seems more justified than ever.
Ponderosa, when you said you found “the nun” repellent, are you talking about the clip FLERP! posted right above or something else?
Because those sweet 10 year olds didn’t seem too damaged by their earnest young teachers. Given how many truly repellent people in power there are spewing hateful things, it’s hard to believe those earnest young teachers would repel anyone even if you did not agree with their aspirations or politics.
and ditto for Cindy Green. Repellent? She uses a bit too much education jargon like many other educators (regardless of their view of education and unions). But that is true of people in all fields. To call her “repellent” says more about you than her.
But you seem likely to be one of FLERP!’s intended audience so perhaps you two can have an interesting discussion about how repellent Cindy Green is.
The “national knowledge deficit” seems evident in all the middle aged and senior Trump supporters who don’t believe in facts anymore. And you are worried about the young Americans whose widespread rejection of Trump saved the idea of “knowledge” itself?
NYCPSP,
The “nun” video is from the Mike Nayna Twitter post above. One of the women in it says, “I view teaching as a political act”. I’m encountering more and more of these young, wild-eyed true believers. They’ve been conditioned to believe that objective teaching of the facts is really just “colonial reproduction” in disguise. That if you’re not actively making activists, you’re only helping the oppressors. I think one reason you and other members of the older generation don’t get the danger is that you went to college before postmodernism took over. Foucault and co. trained people to see all culture as just a power play. Literature is merely a vehicle for perpetuating the oppressors values (patriarchy, white supremacy, etc.). Same with history. So these people see no value in, say, reading Robert Frost poems to discover their meaning and beauty, or learning about the Protestant Reformation to become a better-informed adult. To them, reading should be nothing but a paranoid, “critical” activity wherein one susses out the oppressor’s nasty biases. And history should just be a narrative of the oppressions that have been perpetrated. The so-called “neutral” narratives are replete with hidden biases, so don’t even try to give a neutral narrative. Hence we get history teaching conferences here in CA that allow workshops in only two areas: teaching about oppression and teaching “critical reading” –i.e. that the allegedly neutral textbooks are not to be trusted. Paranoia for first graders. Ditch chronology. Ditch coherence. Hand out primary sources and give kids a list of chores to perform on them. If little coherent history knowledge gets conveyed, so much the better: the “reproduction” of “colonialism” has been disrupted!
Hannah Arendt and Matthew Arnold say education is about teaching the world. That’s what I care about. I want to teach about oppression AND EVERYTHING ELSE. These firebrand social justice activist teachers only care about teaching the narrow sliver of the world that they morbidly, fanatically fixate on. The Anabaptist zealots who took over Munster in the 16th Century burned every book except the Bible; these social justice zealots would burn the whole humanities canon except for their social justice gospel.
Here’s another snippet from the much-dreaded account:
It’s not like this stuff is hard to find. It’s everywhere.
Ponderosa says:
“One of the women in it says, “I view teaching as a political act”
That’s what repelled you? Do you see the irony in your reply about the vital importance of teaching certain white-approved writers as necessary in this country while at the same time denouncing as “repellent” a dedicated teacher who says “teaching is a political act.”
But you plainly reveal your over the top biases when you wrote disparaging about the idea that:
“the allegedly neutral textbooks are not to be trusted”
Do you mean the “neutral” textbooks that taught me that there were no important women or non-white men except a few like George Washington Carver and Betsy Ross and MLK Jr? The “neutral” textbooks that taught me that the slaves owe their freedom to the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln, whose beliefs about African Americans are the most non-racist in history?
You have to be kidding. I was so brainwashed as a kid reading allegedly “neutral” textbooks that I never even considered that there was anything off about learning only that our country’s greatness was due to the idealized white founding fathers and the idealized white men who came after them who made our country the perfect democracy it is today where institutional racism has simply ceased to exist.
If anything, the fact that you believe the textbooks that focus on the great accomplishments of the near perfect white men who made America great are “neutral” does go a long way to explain why you would watch Cindy Green speaking and find her so repellent. She “repels” you for talking about putting more inclusive material in the curriculum and helping teachers become aware that maybe those “neutral” textbooks you adore that teach of the great accomplishments of the near perfect, non-racist white men who made America great are not as perfect as you think.
And the evidence of how wrong you are is in the fact that young people understood what facts are, while far too many of their elders taught with those “neutral” textbooks have no idea what a fact is and believe that whatever a “great white man” tells them is true. Which makes sense since they learned from “neutral” textbooks telling them that is was great white men like that who made America great.
Unfortunately, those “neutral” textbooks didn’t help those older folks distinguish a lie from a fact, something the younger generation seems far more equipped to do.
It amazes me that some teachers are so extremely fearful of change. Not all change is good change, but when teachers start spewing the false narratives of the far right mischaracterization of how dangerous CRT would if it was allowed any influence in education, or they are “repelled” by Cindy Green or a teacher saying “teaching is a political act”, there is something really wrong. Lots of teachers supported Trump over Biden, surprisingly to me, but maybe their definition of what it means to teach “facts” is different than mine. One can teach many different facts, and help students understand that the importance that a person gives to one fact over another to make a judgement is always political and not simply a “truth”.
Was Abraham Lincoln racist? If you teach the approved “neutral” textbooks, children learn that there is no question that Lincoln was a model of non-racism — he freed the slaves! If you teach in the way that “repels” you that Cindy Green talks about, you might be taught how to review those “neutral” textbooks to see if perhaps they aren’t neutral at all. You would present a more accurate presentation of Lincoln and children would learn that in some ways, Lincoln was racist, and yet he did free the slaves, for reasons that include a belief that all persons should be free regardless of their race, but also for political reasons. Children would learn about how African Americans influenced America’s change from a slave-holding country to one that emancipated slaves. But hey, if you think that it’s more “neutral” for students to learn that “Lincoln freed the slaves and was not at all racist”, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
FLERP! once again quotes the same anti-CRT guy and concludes because the same anti-CRT guy FLERP! reads has come up with another example that:
“It’s not like this stuff is hard to find. It’s everywhere.”
If it was “everywhere”, perhaps FLERP! would not have to keep re-posting the tweets of the same anti-CRT guy who quotes obscure educators with no power as they were the real danger.
‘It’s everywhere” so FLERP! will keep quoting some random tweeter who finds obscure teachers who scare FLERP! so much more than racist Republican anti-CRT folks like Ron DeSantis.
Derrick Bell’s ideas scare FLERP! so much more than anti-CRT Republicans who are very, very concerned with voting integrity and the laws they pass have absolutely nothing at all to do with race.
Focusing on skin color is wrong say FLERP! and the Republicans who never even think about skin color because there isn’t a racist bone in any Republicans’ body. They just know when someone is dangerous, or when someone is committing voter fraud and their race has nothing to do with it, say the anti-CRT Republicans who don’t have a racist bone in their body.
FLERP!, do you know what is “everywhere”? racism. While I know you present yourself as being perfectly free of any racist bias, most people who aren’t racist can actually understand where some of the assumptions we make or things we don’t notice are racist. No doubt you were condemning Billy Crystal back in the 1980s, right?
Racism is not everywhere, NYCPP. Don’t believe people who say that. You’re better than that.