A recap: The College Board is the owner of the Advanced Placement program, which provides a syllabus and an examination based on that syllabus. The organization is officially nonprofit, but it is a business that pays large salaries ($1 million+) to its top executives and relies on its revenue stream from the SAT and AP.
The College Board has engaged with leading scholars over the past two years. As the course grew closer to completion, it held meetings with state officials to collect feedback.
Florida has sought to be in the forefront of states banning a vague concept called “critical race theory,” which many teachers see as censorship of any discussion of racism in the past or present.
Florida officials denounced the early draft of the College Board syllabus. When the final draft was released on February 1, all of the topics and names that Florida singled out were either eliminated or made optional.
The College Board insisted that it did not cave to political pressure but stood its ground.
Unpersuaded, more than 1,000 scholars and supporters of African American studies signed a letter of protest to the College Board.
More than 1000 African American studies faculty members, administrators and supporters in higher education condemned the College Board’s capitulation to the Florida Department of Education in the creation of the Advanced Placement African American studies course.
In a letter addressed to College Board CEO David Coleman, the collective called for the current curriculum to be rescinded, resources be made available for students “confronting censored AP content,” to stop making false claims that the current class properly teaches African American studies and to fight “widespread efforts by states to censor anti-racist thought.”
“African American Studies is the study of the persistence of anti-Blackness and the connections between historical and contemporary efforts to resist structural racism,” the letter read. “It is an interdisciplinary engagement with the ways in which people of African descent remade and re-envisioned the world through ideas, art, politics and social movements despite the enduring character of white supremacy.”
The letter said the College Board did not uphold its “commitments against politically-motivated meddling” and specifically took issue with the removal of terms like systemic racism and intersectionality at Florida’s request, which “demean, malign and caricature Black life and the study of it.”
Signees contend that the current curriculum now lacks the fundamental aspects of African American studies and if not rescinded, some faculty will advise their institutions against accepting the AP credit.
“As a result, students may take the course without ever encountering key words and related concepts in the field including intersectionality, Black feminism, racial color blindness, institutional racism, and Black Lives Matter,” the letter read.
“Students and educators cannot engage these topics and ideas if the terms themselves are censored, as the terms themselves convey critical insights that are central to African American Studies. African American Studies is more than the study of the Black past.’”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article272531681.html#storylink=cpy
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here is a well-informed opposing perspective from someone who is a scholar first – not a political activist – and who is a rare academic willing to stand up to the Stalinist conformity that now dominates almost all college campuses, especially in fields like African-American Studies..
John McWhorter is a conservative scholar. Consistently. For many years.
John McWhorter is a moderate liberal who voted for Biden and who explicitly states in this essay that he won’t vote for DeSantis. He is a rare gem among professors these days: he thinks for himself and can’t be coerced into parroting whatever is PC/woke at the current time. I suspect there are many thousands of other moderate liberal professors who privately agree with him but who won’t risk their careers or public standing by saying so. In fact, McWhorter says that he receives communications all the time from professors saying exactly that. And Ron DeSantis is just one of many Republican Governors who don’t like what the first rollout of the AAS-AP course wanted to do.
McWhorter explained in detail (within space limitations) why he opposed certain aspects of that AP course proposal. Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you, or are they just stupid and/or evil?
When rightwing Professor Stanley Kurtz lambasted the AP curriculum in the very-conservative National Review, he lambasted the AP course for failing to refer to the work of Black conservatives like McWhorter.
McWhorter is/was a fellow at the far-right Manhattan institute, which supports vouchers and charters. He also has participated in events at the Hoover Institution, another rightwing think tank. Most of his writings are on the theme of why racism isn’t so bad after all, why anti-racists are wrong, etc.
As is the practice here, anyone who dissents in the slightest from the party line is “far Right”. I ask again: Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you, or are they just stupid and/or evil? I’ve read this blog often enough to know that your answer – and the answers of almost all commenters here – is no.
Do you doubt that the National Review, the Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute are “far-right.” That’s a matter of fact, not opinion. McWhorter is not far-right but he works is formally associated with the Manhattan Institute, as is Chris Rufo. 25 years ago, I was a senior fellow at both Hoover and Manhattan. I left Hoover in 2009.
To claim John McWhorter is a “rare academic” is a made up fiction. He is as activist and publicity seeking for his views as anyone. He has cultivated a public persona that allows conservatives to paint him as something of a moderate. It would be like claiming Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are confirmed liberals.
“Do you doubt that the National Review, the Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute are “far-right.” That’s a matter of fact, not opinion.”
Your opinion about those organizations is just that – your opinion, not incontestable fact. I know several people who describe the current version of Diane Ravitch as far Left – also just opinions.
I ask a third time, this time a shade differently: Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you – opinions that you once held yourself – or are they just stupid and/or evil?
The National Review is indeed on the right. It was founded by William Buckley as his outlet to express conservative views.
The Hoover Institution is a very conservative think tank. I should know. I worked there as a fellow for 10 years. Can you find anyone who says it is centrist? Hoover education scholars support vouchers, charters, and high-stakes testing.
Manhattan Institute is far to the right. I was a senior fellow there in the 1990s. Chris Rufo, the architect of the War against CRT, is now a senior fellow there; he was appointed by Ron DeSantis as one of six hard-right new trustees of little New College. The board’s mission is to turn New college into the Hillsdale of the East.
If you have any information to prove me wrong, please let me know. If you think that the National Review is akin to the New Republic or The Progressive, show the evidence. If you think it is a matter of opinion that Hoover or Manhattan Institute is not on the right side of the political spectrum, I’m eager to hear it.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but as the late great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, not to your own facts.
McWhorter is an old-school, moderate conservative regarding this issue. My guess is that his views on 21st century racism in America are closely aligned with the majority of Blacks, especially those who do not want their children to view themselves as helpless victims. Nor would they want white children to see themselves as racist oppressors who still bear some responsibility for plight of the Black underclass.
McWhorter’s political alignment should in no way be confused or conflated with the current fascist/autocratic, racist, misogynistic, anti-democratic, and batsh#t crazy MAGA-based iteration of the GOP.
I think you are right to call McWhorter a “moderate conservative.” In his shoes, I don’t know how he can bear to be a colleague of Chris Rufo at the far-right Manhattan Institute. Telling the truth about Black history should be required in all phases of US history. No, it won’t make white students feel guilty; it should make them more knowledgeable about why race and racism continue to be important issues in our society.
Rage with a typically good, sane comment.
Interesting to know what is considered “sane and reasonable” is to frame a discussion in a way that benefits only your position. Can I play?
My guess is that the majority of Black parents do not want their children to be taught that the white people who founded this country and wrote slavery into the Constitution need to be admired and respected and it really wasn’t a big deal that they condoned slavery, kept slaves themselves, or mouthed opposition to slavery when being completely willing to sell out the slaves because they felt that keeping Black men, women, and children in bondage in this great United States of America was a small price to pay for “freedom” My guess is that most Black parents don’t agree that white children are too fragile to be able to learn that. My guess is that most white parents who aren’t white supremacists don’t agree that their own white children are too fragile to learn that.
I wonder if that sounds “sane and reasonable” to flerp and rage?
GregB
What makes him even tougher to bear is his claim that the Black ethos of Victimization is holding Blacks back . After all every Black Child was born to a College Administrator and a Sociology Professor .
I happened to belong to one of the first Construction Trade Unions in the Nation to take in Black Members. Doing so as the Business Manager attended the March on Washington with A Philip Randolph and King. A decade later most of the trades in NYC had to be hauled into Federal Court to integrate . That said ,60 years later my Union still does not represent the ethnic make up of NYC . In part due to the father and son tradition of Construction trade Unions.The complexion of the Trades something that Buttigieg noted last week in a speech on infrastructure.
You would have thought McWhorter would have crawled back to his hole after witnessing the backlash that the election of a Black President brought on, from the tea party to Trump. A sizable Majority of White Voters not voting for a Democrat since Democrats Woke under LBJ and freed the slaves in 1964 . Why would that be ? Nothing to see here!
As de industrialization and offshoring of manufacturing and a neo liberal assault closed off those pathways to the Middle Class (union Jobs) that Whites had had in the 40s ,50s, 60s and 70s .
But again his privilege has allowed him to work at RIGHT WING! Manhattan Institute. Max Naumann comes to mind. .
If you follow McWhorter’s work over time, he seems to repeatedly rebuke anyone who is too concerned about racism. I don’t understand.
“Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you, or are they just stupid and/or evil?”
Yes, well-informed people can have principled differences of opinions.
Now we can move on… 🙂
“Yes, well-informed people can have principled differences of opinions.”
To quote the late Senator Moynihan again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Am I on “the far left?” I don’t think so, but probably some of my old friends on the right think so.
I’m sure Chris Rufo thinks so.
I don’t care.
I write what I believe to be true. I’ve been wrong sometimes, and I apologize when I make a mistake.
I apologized publicly for being a conservative most of my career.
I admit I was wrong.
I’ve tried to make up for the damage I did.
I agree that the publication and the institutions you cite are on the Right; nowhere in this thread have I questioned that fact. My point is that you have a habit of describing every conservative person, publication, and institution as “far Right.”
You’ve evaded my question three times, so I’ll ask it again. Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you, or are they just stupid and/or evil? I respect many people who disagree with me on numerous issues.
I did answer your question, but I will answer it again:
“Can you accept that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion with you, or are they just stupid and/or evil?”
I do believe that well-informed people can have principled differences of opinion. I do not believe that those who disagree with me are “stupid and/or evil.”
I call people “far Right” because I knew who they are. I do not call people far Right unless they are far Right. Having worked in multiple rightwing think tanks (the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Hoover Institution) and having many conversations in the past with friends at rightwing foundations (Bradley, Olin), I do not throw the descriptor around promiscuously. I was a rightwinger but I’m not anymore. I have a long memory. I also worked at the Brookings Institution, which is middle-of-the-road.
I remind you of the late Senator Moynihan’s comment: “You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
That’s the third time I answered your question.
Anyone who works for the same think tank as Chris Rufo is not likely to be a liberal, especially when that think tanks supports privatization of public schools.
Terese is using the same chapter in the right wing playbook that McWhorter used in the NYT, in 2022, “I’m prochoice but, I don’t think pro-lifers are bad people.”
IMO, the tactic is likely the play choice of the Koch network which uses it to make the red meat base feel better about themselves and to facilitate authoritarianism by Christian and Catholic nationalists.
There may be “well-informed” right wingers who tolerate (or promote) theocracy. When they sit on the sidelines against the threat about which Jefferson warned, they prove a lack of democratic principles.
Therese reluctantly admits McWhorter is conservative. A brief scan of internet comments shows the right wing base has been coached to believe Black people like McWhorter are liberal. It’s part of the playbook.
I don’t like the idea that one Governor with strong opinions decides what may and may not be taught.
I agree. DeSantis is a bully, not an educator. He has a vindictive nature and a need to control everything.
Yes. He alternates between schoolyard bully and tantrum-throwing toddler.
DeSantis is a classic victim bully.
All the Wokies, gays, BLMs, migrants etc are out to get him — to adulterate his precocious bodily fluids.
Therese,
Finding a single scholar who is on your side and ordering the rest of us to ONLY consider that scholar’s view and ignore all the others because Therese Kemman has decided that the only Black scholar worth listening to is the one who agrees with you the makes YOU the Stalinist.
It’s sad to see.
Your comment is typical of the the way you always write: full of rage and hysteria, always pigeonholing the views of someone you don’t know at all. Like all of the regular commenters here except for Flerp, you’re a fanatic.
Therese,
Your reply is full of rage and name calling. But you always pigeonhole my views while spewing hate and anger because you are so angry at me for challenging your worldview.
Therese, don’t be so angry all the time. Try to let your extreme hatred of those who don’t agree with you go. We are not your enemy. People concerned about racism are not your enemy.
I rarely comment on this blog, so you have no grounds to reply to me the way you did – you know nothing about me. On the contrary, you spend much of your time writing rageful comments on this blog, often directed at anyone who even hints at dissent from your extreme left-wing opinions. If you act in person the way you portray yourself on this blog, you are a very lonely person because no sane person would want to be around you.
Therese,
Anyone who actually reads my comments knows that I don’t have “extreme left wing opinions”!!! LOL!!!! Maybe compared to an extreme conservative!
So when you keep repeating that lie, it just reinforces that there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. Really.
Although I want to thank you for putting me into the same category as “all of the regular commenters here except for Flerp”. Somehow you got that one right! : ) Even if you did call all of us (except FLERP) “fanatics”.
fanatics! To quote Inigo Montoya:
“You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”
Inconceivable.
The site, Boing Boing bbs, posted a NYT opinion, “I’m pro-choice but I don’t think pro-lifers are bad people,” an article by McWhorter. The commenters’ opinions are worth reading.
One excerpt from “gracchus” follows. It’s about McWhorter’s view related to CRT, “Essentially, his argument can be condensed to, ‘ Sure America stole Black people’s candy. But, if the thieves are forced to acknowledge the theft, White people won’t have any candy and Black people’s teeth will rot eating all that fine candy. Why do you hate Black people’s teeth? ‘ ” Other commenters summarize McWhorter in this way, “McWhorter is so far from morality, he doesn’t know what it is,” He thinks any action by White people to mitigate the effects of White supremacy is actually an attempt infantilize Black people.”
Linda,
That is vintage Whorter. “All those people complaining about racism may have a point, but they go too far. They should recognize the great progress blacks have made instead of criticizing and complaining.” White conservatives love it.
McWhorter’s education was at a private school with tuition ranging from $37,500 to $46,000 (Friends Select School in Philadelphia), presumably, just the way the Koch network likes it.
There was a time when a black person was only considered 3/5ths of a white.
Blacks should recognize the great progress they have made since then (having gained nearly a full fifth) instead of criticizing and complaining.
Therese– I answer you below to get more margin space
“Stalinist conformity.” Yeah, all those U.S. colleges with their Berias and their Lubyanka prisons.
Give. Me. a. Break.
“Like all of the regular commenters here except for Flerp, you’re a fanatic.” says Therese Kemman
LOL, NYC. –Bob the Fanatic
Bob,
I welcome you to the club!
Can’t wait to try to out Fanatic you tomorrow, NYC! I’m going to wear my red T-shirt to do it, too!
Fanatics R US (aka Diane’s regular commenters, except FLERP, of course)
Thanks, Fl SDP. The new name is perfect!
Over and over again, radical right wing leaders are creating distrust and suspicion regarding formerly honored institutions. I’m a victim of that kind of assault. I no longer have faith in what has been an estimable institution…the College Board. Florida’s political leaders have fomented my newfound distrust. The College Board could have increased my trust by standing up to the baseless criticism flung at them by Florida’s leaders. The College Board failed us all.
The College Board is good at that.
The odds favor the fascists that protests like this will remain unnoticed by the voters that support extreme right fascist MAGA RINO candidates. Those voters don’t visit sites that report this news.
Therese @2/20 11:09 a.m– I admire McWhorter’s writing, particularly his essays on linguistics. To me, his political writing is thought-provoking as a counterpoint to über-progressive thinking [helps me find a middle ground]. Here’s my take on his NYT piece:
(Opener:) ”The… original draft depicted the history of Black America over the past several decades as an unbroken stream of left protest against a seemingly unchanging racist hegemon… This is not education but advocacy. And in no sense does racism mean that the difference has no meaning. The key issue is… essentially opinions that are treated as if they were facts.”
Example: the topic of reparations, apparently backed only by Ta-Nehisi Coates’ case for it. If accurate, I agree others need adding [McWhorter recommends a 2003 book presenting the gist of the argument from various POV.]
McWhorter explains his problems with aspects of CRT thinking, and what he thinks many get wrong in their attempts to present it. He communicates clearly and precisely: one would want a prof like this for any complex course in the history of political/ sociological/ philosophical thought.
But I think his argument goes astray here: “The original draft did not explicitly mention C.R.T., as opposed to intersectionality. However, it is reasonable to suppose that many teachers would use intersectionality as a springboard for instructing students, for example, that white people can be conceived as a single mass of domination and that racism is baked into America’s very essence in ways inescapable and unending.”
Maybe, maybe not. McWhorter IMHO would be a good consultant on source readings for both teachers and students of this [former] portion of the course – the history of “the past several decades”— which is all he addresses in this piece. But sadly, “the past several decades”– nearly everything from the early ‘70s to the 20teens is… MISSING. That handily eliminates controversial scholars and their interpretive frameworks.
P.S. The complete absence from the revised course of any expression equivalent to “institutional racism”—coined by Stokely Carmichael 56 years ago— is ABSURD.
The crux of McWhorter’s argument is here:
“The course’s original draft depicted the history of Black America over the past several decades as an unbroken stream of left protest against a seemingly unchanging racist hegemon. But Black history has been ever so much more than protest and professional pessimism. This is not education but advocacy — essentially opinions that are treated as if they were facts.”
However . . .
Much of this discussion is probably moot because the de-facto curriculum of any AP course becomes that, which is tested. Advanced Placement students and teachers alike inevitably become hyper-focused on the age-old question used to distill what is taught and learned: Is “this” going to be on the test?
I suppose it helps to grow up in a segregated society, as I did, to realize that Black people were humiliated everyday. Whorter’s right, most blacks lived with daily humiliation because they thought there was nothing to do to change the status quo. So they drank water from fountains marked “Colored only,” they sat in the back of the bus, they never dared enter a white person’s house through the front door. Protests were rare in the 40s and 50s when I was a student. Do you teach history to learn the status quo, which seemed to be permanent. Or do you emphasize the brave people who risked their lives to change it—and sometimes lost their lives? Goodman, Cheney, and Schwerner still resonate with me, as does Medger Evers, the Freedom Riders, and the student lunch counter protests.
bethree5,
Thanks for this thought-provoking perspective.
One point you made resonated with me:
“But I think his argument goes astray here: “The original draft did not explicitly mention C.R.T., as opposed to intersectionality. However, it is reasonable to suppose that many teachers would use intersectionality as a springboard for instructing students, for example, that white people can be conceived as a single mass of domination and that racism is baked into America’s very essence in ways inescapable and unending.”…
For a linguist, McWhorter’s so-called “logic” is indefensible. His use of the phrase “it is reasonable to suppose” to justify his opinion that he is unable to justify through actual argument raises huge red flags to me.
After all, we who object to excluding all the views of any historian who doesn’t hew to the conservative line could use the same nonsensical language that this esteemed linguiust does to support our views.
A possible “McWhorter logic”-based argument to engender outrage against conservatives who censored the original AP course:
“The new, conservative-approved version of the AP course does not explicitly say that Black people are too inferior and lazy to succeed in the merit-based, non-racist United States of the last 50 years. However, it is reasonable to suppose that many teachers would use the denial of the existence of any institutional racism as a springboard for instructing students, for example, that Black people can be conceived as a single mass of inferiority because racism inescapably has NOT been any part of America’s essence for 50 years.”
Is the above a good argument? Nope. It’s as ridiculous as John McWhorter’s.
“The original draft did not explicitly mention C.R.T., as opposed to intersectionality. However, it is reasonable to suppose that many teachers would use intersectionality as a springboard for instructing students, for example, that white people can be conceived as a single mass of domination and that racism is baked into America’s very essence in ways inescapable and unending.”…
Why is it reasonable to suppose?
Good argument NYC psp. if systemic racism is not a piece of the fabric of society, than how do we explain all the documented and obvious discrimination?
Does all this talk make me feel guilty because I am white? Absolutely not, but it does make me more aware of inequities I probably didn’t see in the past. I can’t see how being more aware is a negative.
speduktr,
Thank you for expressing that so much better than my comment did!
NYCPSP– Excellent turnabout of McWhorter’s para to make an excellent point!
To me, the single most damning thing about the course framework– draft or revised– is the studious avoidance of the concept of systemic [or institutional, or structural] racism. It’s an obvious descriptor for Jim Crow laws and redlining, which this and regular hisch history classes do cover. It’s inherent in the block-busting era, when realtors spread the borders of segregated housing beyond the inner city simply to pad their pockets with a continual flurry of sales commissions.
The decades missing from the AP course [late ’70s to mid-20teens] were not just the era of developing CRT and affirmative action. They are the period one needs to look at to determine what the effect was of outlawing the more obviously systematically-racist policies, going forward.
Ginny, can’t follow your logic here at all. Just the opener you cite makes no sense. For example, “The… original draft depicted the history of Black America over the past several decades as an unbroken stream of left protest against a seemingly unchanging racist hegemon…” is posited as a settled fact. It is anything but. Just the sentence alone simplifies all intellectual debate about Black American history that does not agree with his assessment as monolithic claptrap. How do I reach this conclusion? From the sentence that comes IMMEDIATELY after it in the way you edit it: “This is not education but advocacy.” This is an arrogant and unsupported way of saying, what I say is education, what they say is advocacy.
This is followed by: “And in no sense does racism mean that the difference has no meaning.” Ginny, please explain to me what this means (no pun intended). It is classic sophistry that says absolutely nothing while claiming the mantle of…of…of…something original and profound? This is McWorter the linguist using linguistic tricks to sound smart without saying a damn thing. Maybe you can interpret something out of it that McWorter himself is afraid to articulate.
And let’s just flush the entire “CRT” argument. You know, I know, McWorter knows, anyone with a brain knows that CRT is not being systematically injected into any curriculum. A teacher citing a fact about Black history that is not in approved standards is NOT CRT. A teacher being prohibited from teaching about the concept of generational wealth and how Black Americans have by and large been excluded from accessing it, with certain exceptions, is NOT CRT. The are both examples of actual history.
And lastly, WHY is Black history from the 70s until now “MISSING”? Is there not a relationship between this and the lies about CRT that are being perpetrated as public policy by republicans? And who exactly is “eliminat[ing] controversial scholars and their interpretive frameworks”? And how is controversial defined? Is it going against the myths that have been told or trying to tell the truth?
Greg as usual you are a mile ahead of me. I see I was ‘reading too closely’ [à la New Criticism]. Your critique shows that the problem I have with McWhorter’s “intersectionality” paragraph is already there right in his opening. And in your last 2 paras you are pointing to, well, what I was trying to point to.
bethree5,
Kudos to you for actually reading and commenting on the arguments given by Professor McWhorter.
I understand that labeling people as conservative or liberal saves much time, as partisans don’t feel the need to actually read the arguments of those with the opposite label. That is unfortunate.
My own contribution to this distinction is simplistic, but I think important. This is the first interaction of the course, and one that can be taught in Florida. Have faith in the students to see beyond the course. It is better for student to have this solid launching point than to be in the swamp that they currently endure.
” Have faith in the students to see beyond the course.”
You are kidding, right? Black kids are, I hope, going to see how their own history is made tea party fare. I’m not sure how that is supposed to be sufficient compensation. I hope the white kids who take the course are savvy enough to know there is something missing, but they don’t have the lived experience. “Whitewashing” the course makes it a joke and a bad one at that.
Few will learn anything about race issues in Florida because the law is vague enough to incite witch hunts, and that is the goal. Teachers will avoid the topic of race out of fear because DeSantis would like to ignore racism.
Shorter TE: Most commenters here are partisan hacks. But TE is just an unbiased observer, objectively pointing out the error of their ways.
Ha ha ha.
TE must have gone to Comedy College cuz he is one very funny fellow.
“Most commenters here are partisan hacks. But I, TE The Ecomniscient am just an unbiased observer, objectively pointing out the error of their ways.”
Donald Trump proved that one can win the Repugnican nomination for President simply by throwing tantrums. Ron learned this lesson well, didn’t he?
It’s interesting that when I Google the names of many of the conservative folks who show up at random on this blog to post links to alternative, conservative sources, I typically can’t find ANYTHING online mentioning them. I’ve done this again and again, and I wonder what’s going on there.
Perhaps it’s simply that there are many people with almost no web presence.
Or they are posting pseudonymously.
Interesting that people would choose pseudonyms that are so unique but believable. There are, of course, lots and lots of Bob Shepherds and Bill Watsons and John Smiths. But these names are not that common, typically. I am more inclined to think that these are people without a web presence, though that’s odd. Typically, somewhere, one can find that this person attended x high school or got y award from the z Association of Chewing Gum Manufacturers. Something.
I have no web presence: no Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. My professional work paid well, but was low profile. There are tens of millions of Americans like me. Nobody can find me online.
Bill, with a name like yours, it would be hard to identify you because there must be many people with the same name.
It’s interesting that when I Google my own name, the only thing I find is a lot of stuff on this blog that I never wrote.
Some other DAM poet is obviously writing under my name.
That’s a part of the great Socialist/CRT Precious Body Fluid Conspiracy, SomeDAM, impersonating good Merkins so they can be disappeared and their body fluids can be used to make pizza sauce in pizza parlors owned by certain high-profile Democratic Socialist Libtard CRT-promoting, child-grooming drag queen politicians, ofc.
“It sacrifices logic out of a quiet terror of being called racist (or, if Black, self-hating). How that is progressive or even civil in a real way is unclear to me.”
This is a very revealing sentence and in my opinion is one of the prime reasons that a lot more progress on racism isn’t be made.
Young people raised in a far more multicultural society instinctively understand something that too many older self-described liberal professors do not: Having one’s “racist” beliefs pointed out does NOT have to engender “quiet terror”! The fact that so-called liberals who claim to have no implicit biases at all instinctively react with “quiet terror” whenever an implicit bias they have is pointed out IS the problem. They don’t want to discuss it or reflect, they just want to deny it and attack anyone who points it out. Their “terror” takes over instead of their reason.
And that results in a lot more “division” than there has to be.
We all have implicit biases, REGARDLESS of our race. Being an anti-racist is simply about learning to recognize our own implicit biases when it comes to race. But it’s a good thing to practice for all biases, because we also all have implicit biases related to gender and religion, etc.
Anyone who believes that a person can simply say “I will no longer have any implicit bias anymore” is missing the entire point. It isn’t about making your implicit biases disappear. It is about stopping the defensive response of “shut up you are wrong” and really listening to what is being said and trying to do better.
Implicit biases include NOT seeing racism – or sexism, or homophobia – experienced by others because it is invisible to you and you make assumptions that the person did something to deserve it.
None of us can or are expected to be free of implicit bias. That’s impossible.What we can do it accept we will always have some and work to recognize implicit biases so it doesn’t influence our actions and views.
I am doing a lousy job of explaining it. But once you get “woke” to what many younger scholars and many young people have been telling us, you really don’t understand people’s denial that it exists.
I wanted to respond to an argument made in the comments on a previous post about the College Board AP African-American Studies issue that I can’t find.
Someone said that the general readership of this blog is playing politics because in other contexts, the readers would be criticizing the College Board and its AP/SAT system and in some cases hoping for the demise of the company. But because DeSantis is the one potentially doing damage to the company, the readers are hypocritically becoming College Board’s biggest defenders.
It’s not political games. It is about principles.
DeSantis supporters said the same thing about liberals defending Disney. “So you don’t think this big corporation should pay its fair share of taxes and have the same rules as everyone else?”
If DeSantis shortly after his 2019 inauguration said that he was going to form a commission to study agreements between corporations and the FL government to ensure that the playing field for all companies doing business here was level, even if it resulted in the dissolution of Reedy Creek (Disney World), I think that would have had bipartisan support with little to no controversy. There have always been questions about the Reedy Creek agreement in local media throughout the state.
But that didn’t happen. The Disney corporation through its then CEO spoke out against a bill it didn’t like and thus withdrew political campaign contributions. The FL Legislature then responded by passing a law dissolving special taxing districts formed before 1968, which was totally targeted at Disney. Meanwhile, special districts like Village Community Development Districts (aka The Villages), and the Daytona Racing District (Daytona International Speedway) still retain their status.
So yes, the College Board system needs scrutiny. Perhaps colleges shouldn’t put so much emphasis on SAT scores. Perhaps AP courses aren’t as rigorous as some claim. Perhaps International Baccalaureate and/or dual enrollment are better options for getting college credit in high school. Perhaps college should be funded so that…
But all of this talk of ending AP in Florida is happening because the College Board hit back at claims about the state’s communication about the American-American Studies course. If Florida ends up phasing out AP or requiring its post-secondary institutions to accept the classical whatever test, it’s not because they sat down and saw flaws with the College Board system. It’s political retribution.
FL,
I partially agree and disagree.
Nothing I wrote on this blog was a defense of the College Board. I think I made it clear that the CB capitulated to DeSantis’s demands, and I found that a betrayal of academic freedom.
The first draft was not perfect—they never are. There are subjects that other Black scholars might have trimmed.
But the College Board did not trim because of scholarly debates. It trimmed because of political pressure.
No southern governor should have the power to demand edits in a high school course simply because he doesn’t like it, even if it’s true. I don’t like to call people names, but I think DeSantis is demonstrably racist and homophobic.
He attacked Disney not because they had their own taxing district but because Disney—acting on the urging of its employees—criticized DeSantis’ anti-gay legislation.
He is a power-mad bigot, and he thinks that his bigotry will win over the base. It might. But I don’t think he can win a Presidential election based on his contempt for minorities.
I appreciate your comments. I think that commenter on the other post was making a generalization about what they felt most of the readership would be saying about the College Board in another context and not necessarily you. I wish I could find it share.
But yes, DeSantis is going after the College Board and Disney not because he had long-held opinions that they were bad operators. He is doing it because he was challenged by those companies.
After the whole “Gas stoves may not be good for us” reports that turned into claims about them being banned in the future, DeSantis had a news conference announcing sales tax exemptions for gas stoves. A quick Google search shows that only 8% of household use gas stoves in Florida. That’s the length of his pettiness.
Astonishing.
I think John MCWhorter would be a good person to present the conservative view of African-American history in the AP class. I that all sides should be represented in such a course (never 2 sides). He is a great, funny teacher on linguistics.
Yes he would. The conservative view would be that things aren’t so bad and they never were.
I don’t think so. He would never say things were never bad. He would say that we Americans need to move on. I don’t agree with that idea, but it represents a valid point of view. I think students should be presented with all sides, and I trust the majority of them would understand the harm that still persists with African-American communities. The Color of Law is a book that best represents this intential harm.
I have taught Black literature in a Community College in Benton Harbor to a wide range of students. When they read James Baldwin or Octavia Butler, they understand. When the black students tell their own stories of intimidation and racism, others hear. They also read the controversy between W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington. There have always been African-Americans who disagree about the best way to bring about the advancement of colored peoples. The can be heard without compromising a course on African-American history.
Chuck,
I agree that John McWhorter’s writings should be included in a course on contemporary Black studies. As should Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Race.
Is there systemic racism today? I think so. But that’s my opinion, not a fact. It should be debated. But in Florida, that debate would not be allowed.
** I think that ….
I think that ….
Odd that my user name appears five times in comments here. Some people still can’t help talking about me, I guess.
The spectacle of people here lecturing John McWhorter about racism and black history is quite something.
No more “a something” than the Edelman sons’ high visibility pronouncements about ed reform for the 90%.
FLERP, you are a popular guy.
What’s the problem with disagreeing with McWhorter? Is he off limits? Why?
Because FLERP agrees with him!
FLERP!
“The spectacle of people here lecturing John McWhorter about racism and black history is quite something.”
Why would that be ? What are his credentials that you feel make him an authority on Racism’s affects on Blacks in America. On what basis does he say that Black attitudes rather than Racism hold African Americans back .
“victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community’s response to all race-related issues”,it’s time for well-intentioned whites to stop pardoning as ‘understandable’ the worst of human nature whenever black people exhibit it”.
As a Linguist ,a school of Anthropology, and a Social Scientist, he is going against decades of accepted orthodoxy in the Social Sciences ever since Banfield made the same baseless claims about villages in Southern Italy in the 1950s . If only they had the right attitude and worked together their hillside farms would magically become more productive. Yup a small group of Social Scientists are still Alchemists.
‘
The problem I have with him beside the Economic realities for the vast majority of American Blacks , is his PRIVILEGED upbringing and his career in the Ivory Towers give him little personal credibility to make that argument for the vast majority of American Blacks.
56 percent or more of Whites voting Republican since Emancipation in 1964 says racism is the problem in America not Black attitudes toward it .
FLERP!,
Therese Kammen, who agrees with you about John McWhorter, said this:
“Like all of the regular commenters here except for Flerp, you’re a fanatic.”
I have re-posted that quote because it is so hilarious. And reveals a lot about the person whose views about John McWhorter are so similar to yours.
flerp says: “The spectacle of people here lecturing John McWhorter about racism and black history is quite something.”
Diane Ravitch, please don’t overlook how deceptive this comment is because these kinds of deceptive comments are insidious and dangerous. This commenter does not want to defend John McWhorter’s approval of censorship of certain ideas and authors in the AP course. flerp could engage in the content of the discussion, but does not do that. Instead, flerp offers fact-free assertions like “The spectacle of people here lecturing John McWhorter about racism and black history is quite something.”
Anyone see “lecturing” here?
This is so harmful. Maybe I can put it in terms that flerp understands. If we were as uninterested in discussion and dialogue as flerp is, and only here as provocateurs, every time flerp comments on Diane’s posts here, we could reply:
“The spectacle of flerp lecturing Diane Ravitch about education is quite something.”
The spectacle of flerp lecturing Diane Ravitch about education is quite something.
I assume we all know that anyone who posted the above comment is not interested in engaging in dialogue about the content of what another person said. The ONLY intention of these kinds of flerp-like comments is to intentionally reframe the discussion. No matter how good a point flerp may have made, the content is simply dismissed as a “spectacle” of flerp lecturing Diane Ravitch on education because flerp believes he has superior knowledge to Diane Ravitch when it comes to education.
The spectacle of flerp lecturing Diane Ravitch about education is quite something.
It’s the perfect comment to use if your only purpose in coming to this blog is to insult and try to shut down anyone who doesn’t agree with you, but you don’t have the facts or argument on your side so the last thing you would ever want to do is to engage in a real dialogue.
Odd that my user name appears whenever I post.
McWhorter is in a position to know where he fits into the plan of libertarians who have formed an axis with racists, sexists and the religious right.
An additional agenda of the religious right is to implement policy that keeps the 90% without money and agency.
“axis with racists, sexists and the religious right.”
The Axis Medieval
All my axes live in Texas
Texas is the place they really love to be
All Medieval axes live in Texas
That’s why I live where they don’t bother me