Do you sincerely believe that any Black student opposes teaching about the history of racism? Isn’t it amazing to see this photograph of Black students attending the for-profit Mater Academy in Florida , holding up signs opposing critical race theory? CRT means an analysis of the roots of racism in our history, our laws, and our politics.
Governor Ron DeSantis signed the anti-CRT bill at the same charter school. He believes that teaching the truth is hateful.
Do you think these children actually oppose CRT?
Or were they indoctrinated?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Far more likely that they were coerced than indoctrinated.
Example:
“Hold a sign or I’ll hold the door for you”
I bet what they’d really like to do is hold a sign with DeSantis’ face with a red slash through it.
Exactly my thought. Or they were just told to hold the sign, and they did what they were told.
That sounds right to me. Coercion. Plus they don’t know what CRT is.
CRT is one of those dinosaur computer monitors that you sometimes see at the dump, right?
And old TVs that weigh a ton cuz they contain so much lead.
So, I can see why the kids would oppose those. They are toxic waste and a pain to move around.
Hell, I’d hold one of their signs. I nearly broke my back every time I had to carry one of those CRTs
It’s far more likely that they have no clue what CRT is and were simply told, hold up this sign, which might as well have been written in Mongolian or Sumerian or Linear B.
SDP, here’s an interesting articulation of some of the points you’ve made about stripping SCOTUS of judicial review.
https://prospect.org/justice/the-case-against-judicial-review/
“”We believe an important component of freedom in the state of Florida is the freedom from having oppressive ideologies opposed upon you without your consent.”
I am assuming either DeSantis or the reporter intended to say ‘imposed.’ Republicans and charter proponents often use black students as pawns in their political agenda. It has been reported that black folks were recruited and paid to standing behind DJT during his tirades at his rallies. Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy bused black students to her demonstrations to support her appeals for more charter schools in NYC. Black people are often props for conservatives that support discriminatory practices like DeSantis.
DeSantis continues to spread lies about public education whose goal he claims is to “indoctrinate” students. He goes on to say he does not want to categorize students according to their race. He makes these statements at a charter school that according to ‘US News and World Report” is 99.5% black and brown. It seems to me these students have already been categorized according to their race since charter schools often tend to target minority students, but, of course, DeSantis sees no hypocrisy in his comments.https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/florida/mater-academy-245169
Mater Academy?
Would that be run by Tow Mater, by chance?
Very funny. Mater is one of the many charter chains operated by the hugely powerful for-profit chain called Academica.
“freedom from having oppressive ideologies opposed upon you without your consent.”
If DeSantis wrote that, it’s probably safe to assume he actually meant “opposed” cuz, you know, he gadurated from Hawwwvid Law.
And before that, like Brett “I like Beer” K. gadurated from Yale.
cx: to stand behind DJT
Black people are often props for conservatives
Every Trump rally has a couple token blacks and a couple Hispanics standing behind him. Very often, the blacks are wearing Blacks for Trump T-shirts and the women are wearing Women for Trump T-shirts.
Just to be clear, critical race theory is not simply “teaching about the history of racism.”
The best short explanation of what CRT is comes from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Delgado knows what he’s talking about, as he is commonly referenced as one of the founders of CRT. (Stefancic is Delgado’s wife.)
CRT is not simply “history” (if it were, it would just be called “history”) or even an academic theory. It is also an activist movement. And it is not a mainstream, uncontroversial activist movement. It is a movement that “questions the very foundations of the liberal order.” In other words, it’s a radical movement that is interested in radical change over incremental reform.
There can be a legitimate debate about (a) whether what is being taught in specific K-12 schools actually is “critical race theory” and (b) whether “critical race theory” should be taught in K-12. But critical race theory is not merely “teaching about the history of racism.” One could teach about the history of racism without “questioning the very foundation of the liberal order,” including questioning the legitimacy of the concepts of “equality” or “reason” or the foundational principles of constitutional law.
In the real world, FLERP, “critical race theory” is any discussion of racism, past or present. How does Chris Rufo define it? The general public never heard of Delgado and his wife. The general public that opposes CRT does not want any teaching about race. Period. It might make white kids feel uncomfortable. The attack on CRT has evolved into demands by legislators to teach “both sides” of slavery and “both sides” of the Holocaust. This is idiotic. Surely there are some moral and ethical guidelines to which teaching should be moored.
The general public may not have heard of critical race theory, but a lot of people with Education degrees have. But I take your point.
The initial reaction against anti-CRT legislation was “CRT isn’t taught in K-12, it’s taught in law school.” Then it became “CRT is just honest history, and honest history should be taught.” I preferred the initial reaction, as it was closer to accurate.
People with education degrees never heard of your definition of CRT.
The legislators say they want a colorblind society where no one sees race. Therefore do not teach about race.
Your comments are exactly how DeSantis and many others want to interpret CRT. They prefer to ignore racism and pretend it does not exist. It is impossible to give an accurate account of our history without discussing legitimate facts that may make some white people uncomfortable. Sometimes reality and growth are uncomfortable. From time to time studying algebra made me uncomfortable, but I still had to take the course.
Retired, you hit the nail squarely. This whole debate is a concerted effort to create enough of a Duke Effect by scaring white folks to say one thing in public, ask innocent questions, and then vote for, but never admit to, the most extreme racists who pledge to return to the good old days. This discussion is Exhibit A in the legal argument that they are winning.
retiredteacher, my comment describes what CRT actually is. It is not just “discussing facts.”
Also, not everything that makes people uncomfortable is good.
So if I get the logic of this correctly, discussing race makes people uncomfortable is not good. Logically speaking then, of course, it should not be discussed yet the definitions we debate to to describe it are existential. Got it. And again, why does this scare you so much?
I don’t understand your comment.
I set forth a definition of critical race theory by a leading scholar in that field. I don’t mean to get personal — I’ve been trying to avoid that so that my exchanges with you don’t devolve into two-sided nastiness and clutter up the comments section — but why did that bother you so much?
It doesn’t bother me. I just want people to understand that views and statements like the ones you make are usually designed to undermine and cast doubt, but really with no substance behind them whatsoever. You constantly demand explanations of everyone but refuse to do so yourself. Just why do you think institutional racism is a myth? Not once has that been addressed. Why are you so scared of CRT and the misrepresentations of what it is or isn’t? But please do make the argument that institutional racism is a myth and that you and your family have not benefitted from it. Please, we’d all love to see it in writing. At least we’ll have reasons to agree or disagree.
I would posit that the reason why is that you are perfect representation of the Duke Effect. Any tendril that might support your views is elevated to gospel, especially if it distracts from the main point, and all else is ignored. It’s people like this who will vote in droves, albeit with no fanfare and in the privacy of the voting booth–where it will stay forever, for any reactionary principle because that will ensure the maintenance of the status quo. What they fear is competition, which they see as a zero-sum game. If others do better, that will make my life worse. At the very least, they reason, “those” people can’t get ahead of me.
You’re writing a lot of words to me for someone who says he wasn’t bothered by what I wrote, but ok, I’ll take you at your word if you take me at mine.
What do you mean by “institutional racism”?
What do you mean by denying the existence of institutional racism? Why does defining a manufactured myth like CRT take precedence over actually recognizing the history, legacy, and present reality of racism and how people just like you have benefitted from this situation over centuries and continue to do so? Try using a few words to explain rather than act as the aggrieved party of an argument you initiated. Are you afraid you might expose something?
Greg, you asked me a pretty personal question about how “[me] and [my] family” have or have not benefit from “institutional racism.” I asked you what you meant by “institutional racism,” and this is your response. So I guess that’s that.
I don’t know what you mean by saying CRT is a “manufactured myth.” CRT is a thing that exists.
I would ask that personal question of anyone who claims to be middle class white and denies that race had anything at all to do with how they got to where they are, usually unknowingly until it has been brought to their attention with irrefutable proof. That’s not personal. That’s just a fact. Where you went to grade school. Where you lived. The competition you never had to face to be accepted in college and beyond. And I would be you’ve never been pulled over by the police for “suspicious” reasons. Nor, would I bet, do you think about how you dress for certain occasion, you probably never saw it as a potential life and death situation. But it does take time to learn.
So, what is CRT? Why and how does it threaten you?
So I guess we’re not going to get a sense of what you mean by the term “institutional racism.”
To answer yet more of your questions, I defer to Delgado’s definition of CRT. I don’t know that I’m actually “threatened” by CRT, but I am a fan of traditional civil rights discourse, the liberal order, equality theory, the Enlightenment and rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. So as a general matter I am not a fan of the “movement” of CRT, although that’s not to say that all work that may fall under that category is worthless.
Already on this thread you’ve called me a liar and a racist. Let me know if there are any other personal insults you’d like to levy.
There are many definitions of CRT.
At heart, it’s a ploy by the racists to prevent anyone from teaching the history of racism.
Nothing more or less.
Flerp
You asked a question in a prior thread- has the story about the 10-year old in Ohio been investigated. After reading the question, I thought, that’s out of left field. Then, yesterday, the local news station provided context. Ohio’s AG Yost, had gone on Fox News and implied the story was fake. Yesterday, after the Columbus Police Dept. provided him with details, the AG was all “thoughts and prayers.”
In the future, maybe an attribution to Fox for your ideas when they are taken directly from Fox would be appropriate?
Ah, sweet, good to see the Friends of Flerp! gang all showing up.
Linda, I don’t read or watch Fox News. I’m glad to hear that this absolutely disgusting crime is being prosecuted, though. However, I note that your comment had nothing to do with Catholicism. 😉
Read on down for the conservative Catholic and evangelical blame. While Yost is all thoughts and prayers, the Ohio governor who had 8 kids and took his oath on 7+ Bibles had no comment about the atrocity built on an atrocity.
If you and Yost had the same source, who might it have been? If you both had the same idea independently, what makes two white men, primed to think a victim story is a hoax? Republicans lie so Yost expected others would, too?
Our mutual source was Pope Francis.
Flerp-
Francis, the liar who used the term, hired assassin, for the compassionate doctor who freed a 10-year-old rape victim from a forced birth?
If that’s the company you keep or the people who advise your political positions, you’re slumming.
Just to be clear, have you actually read this book? Or did you, as I just did, do the lazy thing by going to Amazon, hiting the “look inside” feature and found your reference, the first sentence after a consideration of some of the effects of racism? I for, one, do not claim to be an expert on CRT, but I do know mischaracterizations of what it is and means gives racists and scared white folks a target for their mostly deeply held bilious thoughts. The idea that the one could teach racism without examining the influences, forces and actions the ruling orders, both legally and otherwise, engaged in, obviously or not, is…nuts. Do us all a favor and read Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law and then try the arguments posed above.
Why are you so scared of having children learn about the empirical, proven history of racism and its impact on this nation?
I’ve read parts of it, Greg, not all of it, about 20 years ago. I wouldn’t call Delgado’s description a mischaracterization. I think it’s accurate.
I’m not afraid of children learning anything that’s empirically proven.
I’m just telling people what critical race theory is, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Nobody should be scared of having people understand what critical race theory is.
FLERP,
You are not “telling people what critical race theory is, straight from the horse’s mouth,” because there is no horse. The definitive figures in CRT are Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw.
There is no definitive definition because CRT is a study of the legal, cultural, and political origins in American history. It is currently defined by red state legislatures as any teaching about racism that is divisive or makes anyone uncomfortable.
Richard Delgado is considered among the core group of academics involved in the formation of what became known as critical race theory. He certainly knows what it is and how to describe it.
If your position is that Richard Delgado doesn’t know what critical race theory is — and that you do — then I think we’re at loggerheads here.
73 contributors listed in original edition (also found easily on Amazon). I find this “straight from the horse’s mouth” gospel akin to me writing that Herodotus’s views govern today’s historiography. I can go way before the 13th century to find precedents.
LOL, ok, fine, Richard Delgado can’t be relied on to describe what CRT is. But at the same time, we know that CRT is just “honest history.” True, we don’t know how we know that, because nobody can be relied on to describe CRT. But such is the mystery of CRT.
Everyone knows what CRT IS, FLERP. It is teaching about racism, past and present, and looking especially at the extent to which it is embedded in law and institutions. That’s widely understood and that’s what is built into state laws. CRT=Don’t Say Racism.
This is LOL too. I guess. And further evidence that racism is not at all institutional. Because it’s a kid after all, and what does she know?
20 years? Please. 20 minutes.
Flerp-
“Can’t be relied on” – another context
A 10-year -old and her family can’t be relied on to know that an abortion for her is the best solution. But, Ohio’s old, white, male AG can be relied on to imply the story’s a hoax and his old, white, conservative Catholic and evangelical GOP cronies can be relied on to deny her the abortion. How many of the good ole boys have girlfriends, wives and daughters skipping the state of Ohio to get legal abortions elsewhere.
It’s rhetorical.
Linda, I’m not sure what you’re saying. You’re saying that I watched Fox News and saw the Ohio AG question whether the rape had actually occurred, and then I went to this blog and wrote a comment that could be read to question whether the rape had occurred? Is that right?
If so, like I said, I don’t watch Fox News. Did you compare the timestamp of my comment with whenever the Ohio AG went on Fox News? It’s possible that could clear up this mystery for you. If it doesn’t clear it up, get back to me and we’ll work on this some more.
Flerp-
Responded above at 3:34. I might not have drawn the connection to Fox except you’ve also towed the party line before – the critical part of the SCOTUS ROE decision leak was tracking down the leaker not the decision’s content. Outside a narrow sphere of influencers, that leaker’s identity was definitely subordinate in interest.
This CRT discussion popped up in terms of my attention not because of a “gang”. I was looking for a comment by you where I could let you know Yost was slime. Yost is the state’s AG and he’d rather plant seeds of doubt about an atrocity than get info. from law enforcement located in the Capitol where he holds his position? If the information had a seal on it, what kind of sick propagandist would go on Fox to make the story appear fake?
I don’t know anything about Yost or whether any information was sealed or otherwise known confidentially by the AG’s office. It’s possible he’s slime — it wouldn’t strain credulity.
I was joking about the “gang” comment. I’m not in a bad mood today at all.
My reaction to the leaking of the Roe v. Wade opinion is probably due mainly to the fact that I am a former federal Circuit Court law clerk, and I was and remain appalled at the leak. I did not get that position from Fox News. I also was and remain very discouraged by the actual decision reversing Roe.
Flerp-
I’m genuinely glad if you’re having a good day. Other people finding happiness makes me happy. (I probably don’t need to mention the caveat?) if the cause for the uptick in mood is the victimization of or unhappiness of others, my sentiment must be rescinded.
Flerp-
If you’re not busy, a minutiae story about yesterday that would hold no interest to anyone but, a very slim possibility, marginal interest to you. I saw a lawyer about my will. I got a bit testy about the advice he gave and wanted to end on a more pleasant note. He had talked about cooking the family meals and I quipped that when he was young that must have made him popular with womenfolk. He replied, “No, it was my law degree that proved to be the aphrodisiac.” I’m sure I looked a bit surprised and he said, “However, the newly interested womenfolk didn’t know the degree came with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.” We ended the meeting with his promise to e-mail me a noodle kugel recipe with apricot nectar as an ingredient which he claimed made all of the difference.
I think I’ll try to plan my demise before I need a new will.
Linda, I always advise people against going to law school unless they’re rich enough to not have to take out loans. The debt is absolutely crushing, and then the work that’s required to pay off that debt is just as crushing. To make things worse, only a small percentage of new graduates can find the work that’s required to pay off the debt.
Flerp-
I understand what you are saying. I’m in favor of debt relief for higher ed. (However, Mueller’s team should be fined, drawn and quartered, and prohibited from future government work!)
I’m hoping today will be a good day for you and every one else at the blog. Why not, everybody, everywhere? Another minutiae story- a friend who taught at a school was asked by the school newspaper reporter, in a feature about the holidays, what she wanted for Christmas. She answered without knowing what her fellow teachers had said. The list of answers appeared in print. The other teachers wished for world peace, an end to hunger, shelter for all who need it, love to warm the hearts of all families,… My friend’s name appeared next to a wish for a, “a gold bracelet.”
If today is the day you want a gold bracelet, I’m cheering you on.
So I guess we’re not going to get a sense of what you mean by the term “institutional racism.”
To answer yet more of your questions, I defer to Delgado’s definition of CRT. I don’t know that I’m actually “threatened” by CRT, but I am a fan of traditional civil rights discourse, the liberal order, equality theory, the Enlightenment and rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. So as a general matter I am not a fan of the “movement” of CRT, although that’s not to say that all work that may fall under that category is worthless.
Already on this thread you’ve called me a liar and a racist. Let me know if there are any other personal insults you’d like to levy.
Put this comment in the wrong spot.
I’ve read through my comments three times and can’t find any reference of calling you any names, much less the two I am accused of using. Making use of this ruse of an accusation, this has, in your words, become “personal” and about “insults.” That tactic is old and tired. Answer a question, explain. Don’t curl into a ball saying, “They’re all mean to me, so I can ignore the substance of their criticisms of me when I don’t explain.”
A couple of gross errors in this comment alone, beyond the egregioius one mentioned above. CRT is not a “movement” and is only characterized as such, falsely, by those who want to create a political straw man. And since we are always asked to explain or describe, what exactly is “traditional civil rights discourse, the liberal order, equality theory, the Enlightenment and rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law”? There are a lot of assumptions in there. Does race play any role in the interpretation of any of those concepts?
Just read through my comments a fourth time before hitting post and still can’t find any characterization of you as a liar or racist. Does that fit any legal definition of slander?
You accused me of lying about having read the Delgado collection 20 years ago, suggesting instead that I had only read it “20 minutes” ago.
You wrote that I am “a perfect representation of the Duke Effect,” that I and “people like” me “vote in droves . . . for any reactionary principle because that will ensure the maintenance of the status quo,” that I and people like me “fear . . . competition” because “[i]f others do better, that will make my life worse,” and “[a]t the very least, [I] reason, ‘those’ people can’t get ahead of me.” And you describe the “Duke Effect” as a scheme to “scare white folks to say one thing in public, ask innocent questions, and then vote for, but never admit to, the most extreme racists who pledge to return to the good old days.” So you’re either saying that I’m a racist who is trying to scare white people into voting for extreme racists, or you’re saying that I’m one of the people who is scared into voting for extreme racists because I don’t want “those” people (i.e. black people) to get ahead of me.
Sometimes habits get so ingrained and automatic that we don’t even notice we’re doing them.
But don’t worry, I’m not wounded. I just think things would go more smoothly without the personal attacks.
If I gather this correctly, you knew about about Critical Race Theory 20 years ago? Really? You were reading obscure tracts like that in 2002? If I were a teacher grading your paper, I would be real suspicious.
Certainly did not call you the “r” word. I inferred that you are a walking, talking representative of the Duke Effect. The primary trait of such a person is not necessarily racism, but cowardice; one borne of an unspoken fear of losing whatever social status they think they have to the “other.” While I did not call you either thing (I even left you an opportunity to correct me on my incorrect use of the world slander, surprised a lawyer didn’t swat away that lay-up) you accuse me of calling you, you have written a lot and not answered a single question. Yet you always demand answers to questions you full well know that answers to, but you’d rather provoke and then feign innocence. We’ve caught on to the schtick.
So, what is CRT, in YOUR words and why do you fear it? Or more importantly, why are you scared of telling us why you fear it so? Because despite your protestations, there is no other conclusion one can draw from your remarks other than any Black intellectual who makes a claim is a grifter. You remember that, don’t you? And do you really think that as a white person you’ve never benefitted from that very fact? Ever? Now try answering a question that’s posed to you for a change.
Greg, I graduated from undergrad 30 years ago. I have a law degree and a PhD in a humanities field. I took a course in critical race theory in law school and I read works by every major critical race theorist in grad school. So, yes, as incredible as it may seem, I read that book more than 20 years ago.
Lol, so you weren’t suggesting I’m a racist, you were just saying that I’m a coward who does racist things. Got it!
I already answered your questions.
If you’re saying that I am racist because I do not like the work of Ibram Kendi or Nikole Hannah Jones — sorry I’m misinterpreting your comment, but sometimes I have trouble understanding what you’re trying to say — then we’ll have to disagree. I don’t believe that not being impressed by the work of Ibram Kendi and Nikole Hannah Jones, or even believing that they are grifters, is racist.
Have a good night, my friend.
CRT is the theoretical framework that underlies study of the impediments, in the form of systemic racism (which can be but isn’t always institutional), to achieving the end of racism via the body of law derived from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Systemic racism is racism that is baked into/inherent to systems, including political, economic, social, cultural, and institutional systems. Perhaps the clearest way to illustrate what systemic racism is is to give examples of it: Consider blacks and whites with identical credit histories, pay, and assets. The former pay higher interest rates for homes. Consider blacks and whites who have committed the same crimes. The former are much more likely to be arrested, are much more likely to suffer physical violence at the hands of arresting police, will receive higher bail amounts, are more likely to be convicted, and will get longer prison sentences. Consider blacks and whites with identical credit histories and earnings applying for rental leases. The former are more likely to be turned down, especially if they have applied in person. Consider blacks and whites who commit traffic infractions. The former are much more likely to be pulled over and to have their vehicles searched. Consider blacks and whites who present to physicians with identical symptoms. The former are much more likely to be told that it’s all in their heads and that there is nothing wrong with them.
And on and on and on and on and on. Systemic racism is so common, so ubiquitous, that being unaware of it seems like willful ignorance. One thing is clear: people of color are not oblivious to systemic racism. It’s their quotidian reality. It’s my friend Richard telling me about how white people cross to the other side of the street to avoid walking past him on a sidewalk and that clerks follow him around in shops to make sure that he isn’t going to steal anything. Not the white people. Just the black ones. Why? Because racism is BUILT INTO store security systems in the United States. It’s systematic.
Or told to hold the sign as part of an admissions and retention agreement signed by desperate parents at the time they were “accepted” into the school. A form of coercion. And who is behind the funding of this misadventure? The same question we ask about Moms For Liberty.
The money flows in multiple ways. Recently, DJT has quietly convened some of his wealthiest and highest-profile supporters for intimate dinners. Houston, Nashville and last FRI 7/8 in Vegas. Informal. Off the record. All hosted & paid for by his Super Pac Save America.
JW Marriott in Nashville and T International Hotel on Vegas Strip. No place particularly fancy. Carefully selected 12-16 per dinner but most with a history of cutting Big Checks. Chit-Chat agenda. The donation requests will come at a later date. Money flows to him but also from his deep/dark donor pockets that no foreign/forensic CPA seems to be able to crack or clarify.
He is a role model for how to be a huckster and fleece/finance Mater Academy kids out of a great public school education and a great life.
Digbysblog
The looks on the kids’ faces says it all. They look emotionless. Somebody undoubtedly made them hold the signs, but they couldn’t make the students look they believed in it.
Children should never to hold signs with political slogans.
Never “be asked” to hold signs
What would some of you out there think if you read this in your local paper? Would it worry you, make no difference and ignore it, or would you cheer them on?:
“[The superintendent] added the teaching staff has been instructed to teach only those topics and concepts found in the [ ] State Content Standard for [ ] public schools and that Critical Race Theory is not addressed in either the social studies or English programs.”
This would be a clear signal to me that I need to double down on teaching about the history of systemic racism in the United States. And the words that I would utter on reading this? Diane doesn’t allow those on her blog.
Well, since most if not all of those charter schools have harsh rules that don’t allow students to even talk between classes, imagine if one of them refused to hold that sign.
Those children would probably end up isolated and locked in closest until their parents picked them up… never to return.
If you think its tough dealing with FLERP! You should try my world dealing with actual Trumpanzees. A creature that has not quite mastered bipedal locomotion and listens to right wing media . FLERP! does share their persecution complex and the propensity to muddy the waters on issues. But perhaps not much else.
The actual definition of CRT is anything that might force a racist to admit that he is a racist. Forget whether it is a principal taught in law schools about the institutional effects of race and law. Or it is the teaching of actual history. Or the institutional effects of race and poverty. None of that maters and nothing you can say will break through. If its any consolation in the school board races here on LI , one of the hotbeds of racist attacks on School Boards, I am told that very few races were lost to the racists.
This is the nicest compliment I’ve ever gotten here!
It’s not surprising that these kids have no clue what CRT is. Neither do the Repugnicans who are all upset about it.
Zay haf vays in der charter Schule…ja, zay haf vays.
Those children in the picture do NOT look like they believe in the signs they are holding.
It would be very nice to find out why those kids are holding those signs. There are other possibilities besides being opposed to CRT or being indoctrinated. For example, they might have been asked to hold the signs.