John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, describes how State Superintendent Ryan Walters tied himself up in verbal knots trying to explain why the Tulsa race massacre wasn’t about race or racism.
He writes:
I’ve been teaching the Tulsa Race Massacre, and discussing Critical Race Theory since the 1990s, but I finally learned the true facts about both, when “Oklahoma school officials announced plans Friday to begin teaching students that the Tulsa Race Massacre was a crime of passion that resulted from loving Black people too much.” The State Superintendent, Ryan Walters, explained:
It’s important that students are educated on how this horrifying event—which resulted in hundreds of deaths and the destruction of Black Wall Street—only happened because of how electric and wild the love was between white people and Black people at the time. … White people had been getting jealous because their African American counterparts were doing too well economically and couldn’t hang out as much as they used to. “We often end up hurting the people we love the most, and … Sometimes burning down more than 35 city blocks and 1,250 homes is the only way to express the fiery passion of your love for someone.”
Walters further explained that “the Tulsa Race Massacre had been left out of history books out of respect for Black people’s privacy.”
Okay, that was the narrative told by The Onion. But, still, it leaves open the question: which is crazier, The Onion’s satire or Superintendent Walters’ claims?
As KFOR T.V. and the Oklahoman reported, Walters spoke at Republican event at a library where “Silence!: Intense, heated moments” took over. He “was asked three times by someone in the crowd why the Tulsa Race Massacre doesn’t fall under his definition of Critical Race Theory (CRT).” The next day, Walters supposedly “walked back his statements. ‘I am referring to individuals who carried out the crime. They didn’t act that way because they were white, they acted that way because they were racist.’” And, as reported by The Frontier, Walters has also said,
“The media is twisting two separate answers. They misrepresented my statements about the Tulsa Race Massacre in an attempt to create a fake controversy.”
Reading the transcript of the meeting, it’s hard to understand Walters’ weird words, but it is impossible to deny he was saying contradictory things – that the Tulsa Massacre should be taught in school while also saying that the role of race, when it is mentioned in terms that he see as CRT ideology, is making whites feel bad about the history of violent racism, and that is banned by HB 1776.
Walters said:
Folks, I believe this is absolutely the greatest country in the history of the world. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. That doesn’t mean there weren’t mistakes. … The only way our kids have the ability to learn from history and make this country continue to be the best country is to understand those times we fell short, a very clear, very direct understanding of those events.
Walters then may have tried to explain his understanding of the “mistakes” made during the Tulsa massacre where members of one race committed mass murder of persons of another race. But Walters’ words – that threaten schools and teachers – were incomprehensible. And as the Oklahoman noted, “Two Oklahoma school districts had their accreditation downgraded for touching on topics of race and privilege, and educators risk having their teaching license revoked.”
An audience member pushed further and asked, “How does the Tulsa Race Massacre not fall under your definition of CRT?” Walters then replied, “I would never tell a kid that because of your race, because of your color of your skin, or your gender or anything like that, you are less of a person or in or are inherently racist. That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals.” But with critical race theory:
You’re saying that race defines a person. I reject that. So I would say you be judgmental of the issue, of the action, of the content of the character of the individual. Absolutely. But let’s not tie it to the skin color instead of the skin color determine it.
So an audience member then asked, “How does the Tulsa Race Massacre not fall under your definition of CRT?” Walters replied, “I answered it. That’s my answer. Again, I felt like…. (inaudible)”
So, what did Walters mean when he said the Tulsa Massacre and/or CRT should not be tied “to the skin color instead of the skin color determine it?”
The next day, after having the time to choose his words carefully, Walters said he wanted to be “crystal clear” that the “The Tulsa Race Massacre is a terrible mark on our history. The events on that day were racist, evil, and it is inexcusable.” But he didn’t seem to explain what could be taught about the “mistake,” the mass murder of around 300 Black people by a white mob, “Folks, I believe this is absolutely the greatest country in the history of the world. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. That doesn’t mean there weren’t mistakes.”

And to think this clown used to be a “history teacher.” Sigh
LikeLike
Why is that a surprise? If we were teaching History all along would there be such resistance to teaching about it today.
https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-texas-textbook-calls-slaves-immigrants-20151005-story.html
LikeLike
We ought to give this guy a break. How is he supposed to tell his entire constituency that the reason for opposition to discourse on racism is to get that constituency to support policy that hurts itself? To complex. What do you expect him to say?
“We don’t want schools talking about the reality of Tulsa because it might make people vote for other politicians instead of the ones we have purchased.”
That would lose him his job. It might be true, but it would lose him his job. Give the poor schmuck a break.
LikeLike
John Thompson is DRUNK.
LikeLike
Possible explanation!
LikeLike
You meant Ryan Walters, though. Thompson is the one reporting about Walters.
LikeLike
What did this guy actually say about the Tulsa race riots? With all this text (including the satiric rendering of what he said) I’m having trouble telling.
LikeLike
AUDIENCE MEMBER: “How does the Tulsa Race Massacre not fall under your definition of CRT?”
WALTERS: “OK, thank you. I’m sorry, I didn’t address that part. I would never tell a kid that, because of the color of your skin or your gender, anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist. That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals. You can absolutely. Historically, you should,” Walters said.
Had I been there and had a chance to speak, this is what I would have said:
BOB SHEPHERD: Uh, Mr. Walters, one cannot discuss a race riot without saying that it was about race, and one cannot accurately portray American history without discussing, among other things, race riots and lynchings and Jim Crow laws and other occurrences THAT WERE ABOUT RACE. It would make no sense to leave race out of such discussions. The part that you are lying by omission about is that you are trying to keep teachers from mentioning when events were about race and using the idea that some child might be offended as a ridiculous pretext for doing that. To pretend that these events were just about the actions of individuals and had nothing to do with race is ludicrous. To tell teachers that they cannot address racial and racist aspects of our history is to promote the teaching not of history but of nationalist mythology.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that you can’t talk intelligibly about Jim Crow or race riots/massacres without talking about race. That should go without saying, because saying the contrary would be absurd.
That said, is the audience member here questioning why Walters doesn’t believe teaching about the Tulsa massacre should be banned by Texas’s anti-CRT law? I have no idea (obviously, lol) but that’s what it seems like from the snippets I’ve seen. If so, I’m glad the superintendent isn’t taking the position that teachers should not be teaching about this incident.
Also, based on the text I’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that Walters is claiming that teachers should not talk about race or racism when teaching about the Tulsa massacre. It sounds like he’s taking the position that it should be taught as an example of a bunch of individual bad actors (i.e. “racists”), rather than conduct that was “systemic” or representative of something systemic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that is reality denial. It is astonishing that anyone would take the position that never in U.S. history was any racist incident related to systemic racism, as though, for example, enslavement were not a system in the antebellum South, as if Jim Crow weren’t a system in the post-Reconstruction South, as if redlining weren’t a system throughout the U.S. for much of the 20th century, etc., etc.
The question caught Waters off guard and made him appear foolish because his position was and is foolish. There was systemic anti-black racism and white supremacy in Oklahoma at the time, and the Tulsa Massacre was one outcome of this. Massacring black folks is something that white supremacists did. And yes, this had something to do with skin color.
DUH
LikeLike
NO ONE claims that they did this BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR. That’s RED HERRING cooked up by these contemporary white supremacists who want to falsify and mythologize our history. Claim that people are doing something they aren’t and use that false claim to enforce thought control. That’s the game plan that these people are implementing., and pretty effectively in large parts of the country.
LikeLike
What these asshats are counting on, and they have every reason to do so, is that school officials will, for fear of the law, keep teachers from teaching anything but the nationalist mythology. There is a reason why the laws are so breathtakingly vague. The intent is to quash speech in the classroom.
LikeLike
Why? Because Reich-wingers in the U.S. know that they have lost the young people, and they want to claw that back. How do they do that? By scaring school officials into ensuring that nothing is taught but nationalist mythology.
LikeLike
I would like to hear from a teacher in a state with an anti-CRT law how, if at all, they have changed the way they teach about the Tulsa massacre. I don’t see how it’s possible to teach or even talk casually about this without talking about race and racism.
“To pretend that these events were just about the actions of individuals and had nothing to do with race is ludicrous.”
I think the conjunction “and” is doing a lot of work there. Walter seems to be saying that the Tulsa massacre was “about the actions of of individuals” but does not appear to be saying it “had nothing to do with race.” We know that because he says the people who took part in the massacre did so because they were racist. Racism obviously has something to do with race. You and Walters certainly disagree about the “individual actors” versus “systemic” issue, but neither of you seem to think that the Tulsa massacre had nothing to do with race.
LikeLike
Diane posts material here all the freaking time from teachers around the country who are being censored and or are self-censoring because of these laws, and numerous comments have appeared on this blog from teachers still in the classroom relating their experiences of such censorship.
LikeLike
Look, Flerp. Right-wingers wanted a means to stop teachers from teaching about racism. So, they hit upon the idea of making the charge of anti-white racism against teachers. Here’s how they couched that: when you teach about racism, you are making the white kids feel bad about being white. You are being racist against white people.
THIS IS A RED HERRING. Sane people never advocated teaching that people were racist because of their white skin color. They did advocate teaching that there has been a lot of racism against black and brown people, perpetrated by white people. That’s different from saying that it was perpetrated BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE.
What is extraordinarily objectionable about Mr. Walters’s comments is that he is perpetuating that red herring created for the purpose of preventing the teaching of accurate history.
LikeLike
I don’t recall seeing any posts or comments by teachers from states with anti-CRT laws discussing how they have changed the way they teach about the Tulsa massacre or other historical events as a result of those laws. If you do, could you point me to them?
LikeLike
I’m not going to interrupt what I am doing to go on this hunt for posts, Flerp. But clearly, you have never taught. This is a constant issue for teachers, who continually have to deal with administrators censoring content. Why? Because administrators deal all the time with complaints from teachers. But if you will look back over Diane’s posts over the past few months, you will find a number of them that deal with some teacher being censored.
LikeLike
I’m not asking you to stop posting comments here so you can search for these posts or comments. I read this blog a lot and I’ve never seen anything like this, though.
LikeLike
I also feel obligated to disclose that I taught English composition for several years at the university level while in a PhD program. But I don’t consider that very relevant to K-12 or this discussion.
LikeLike
Okay, FLERP, I will bite. I teach in a state with an anti-CRT policy. It’s not a law, because the state board of education did the policy or else, the legislature threatened, it would become a law
It has changed mine and my colleagues ‘ teaching tremendously. Race is barely mentioned now. Even though the district in which I teach is under Department of Justice sanctions because of racism, race is barely mentioned. I am just glad I am not teaching US history, because I did a lot with race and diversity. But I barely teach racism in geography anymore, and when I have asked to teach it, I have been denied by multiple administrations
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, TOW!
LikeLike
TOW, thanks so much for responding. Can you give a specific example of how you have changed your teaching?
LikeLike
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/teacher-who-wanted-students-to-sing-dolly-parton-and-miley-cyrus-song-rainbowland-is-terminated/ar-AA1dP1ZN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d190fac4030e47e0bae57ddca505d05b&ei=16
LikeLike
Sorry that was badly posed. You said you asked to “teach racism” in geography. What does that look like? I’m having trouble conceiving of what it means, specifically, to teach racism in geography.
LikeLike
Geography includes cultural geography. So, I assume that what TOW just told you was that he or she used to teach about racism in his or her Geography course but no longer does that for fear of censure by admin.
LikeLike
My friends, this intense interchange seems to me both not OK and WAY above my paygrade. I would suggest that you both take it to discussion with professional psychologists. I have a young son who works among a lot of other young men who have a tendency to get all macho and threaten one another. He sometimes wants to respond in kind (my son is physically imposing, as strong as a bull). I counsel him as follows: It is far, far more impressive for a person to step back, breathe, and put that energy elsewhere. That’s the tougher, saner, civilized thing to do. We’re not savages here, or shouldn’t be.
LikeLike
Bob Thank you for saying that. Things are not always happy-happy here; but the recent turn to threats of physical violence was alarming to me also. CBK
LikeLike
Democracy is messy and, sometimes, nasty. But it sure does beat the alternatives.
LikeLike
Bob Copy that, absolutely. CBK
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob, for intervening. I was out for the evening and did not see until now that the antagonism between two commenters had boiled over into macho threats. This is my living room and threats are never ok. I will delete objectionable postings. If necessary, those who can’t control their language will go into moderation.
LikeLike
For those who didn’t see these threats, I just want it to be known that I was NOT the one making them. I’ve saved them, but I would have preferred to have them left on the site, for my own protection.
I’m going to try to take a break for a while.
LikeLike
Diane In this environment? . . . If the ONION really published that first paragraph (bold above), they are severely out of tune with the times where some people apparently actually believe the stuff that Bob writes about in his note.
Also, Roy’s “poor schmuck” apparently is trying to “work both sides” in a mud-wrestling contest. But whatever else he thinks, and though it doesn’t excuse running away from the realities of race history, my view is that he got this right (if he actually said this), as the blogpost above reports:
“The next day, Walters supposedly ‘walked back his statements. ‘I am referring to individuals who carried out the crime. They didn’t act that way because they were white, they acted that way because they were racist.’”
No better reason can be had to teach about racial injustice as an integral dimension of American history. CBK
LikeLike
If that quote is the thing that people are freaking out about, I don’t get it. Seems like a reasonable and even anodyne statement.
LikeLike
FLERP! Unless there’s more to it that we are not seeing, I think the ONION (as an example of “the Press”) is doing a disservice to itself and to its readers. But in today’s environment, who knows what people actually say or think.
I CAN think it reasonable to think that a person who actually taught history for any length of time could say (what they quoted him as saying) . . . about the difference between being white and being racist; but again, it was quoted much later in the post above. And I also think that a focus on that difference is a good basis from which to teach the history of racism to young people . . . even essential in a democracy.
I’ve stayed away from the flap about CRT; but from what I HAVE noticed, my guess is that such statements are completely in line with it. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, for a different, mouth-foaming perspective, please see Greg Brozeit’s comments in this thread.
LikeLike
CBK,
I think you have to look at it from WHY it is required that the Tulsa murders had nothing to do with the perpetrators being white. Because white supremacy was their motivating factor, and you can’t just blame it on “they were racist”, because what that means is that they believed people who were NOT white deserved to be murdered.
As a Jew, I would find it very odd if someone demanded that the fact that the Holocaust was perpetrated and designed by the German government with tacit approval by German citizens was minimized and instead it was taught as “people who were anti-Semites” were responsible for the Holocaust.
Can you imagine the history of Northern Ireland being limited to teaching that “anti-Catholic” people were responsible for the atrocities? Because mentioning that those anti-Catholic people committing atrocities were Protestant or British was not allowed. It was all the fault of some vague issue of “anti-Catholicism” and the ethnic background of the perpetrators was too unimportant to include. And it might make British and Protestant people uncomfortable to mention their own ethnic or religious backgrounds and it is THEIR comfort that it paramount.
But hey, putting the comfort of British Protestants over Irish Catho9lics is very important so British Protestants aren’t too upset. And putting the comfort of white people over Black people is very important so white people aren’t too upset. And putting the comfort of German people over Jewish people is very important so German people aren’t too upset.
That’s pretty much how our own implicit racism works. Not noticing those needs are considered most important. It’s not intentional, but being woke to me means that we are willing to consider how our own implicit biases affect our perceptions of what is important, and what is people whining too much about their own victimization.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent writes: “I think you have to look at it from WHY it is required that the Tulsa murders had nothing to do with the perpetrators being white. Because white supremacy was their motivating factor, and you can’t just blame it on “they were racist”, because what that means is that they believed people who were NOT white deserved to be murdered.”
First, white supremacy is already a racist position.
But second, I think you are absolutely right IF you ask about motivations . . .please do, . . . but identify these motivations as true (if they are indeed), and even identify Walters and others’ motivations as USING the other truth of the argument, rather than confusing the WHY motivations with that other truth: that all white people are not necessarily racist any more than all Germans are all necessarily antisemitic.
In this case, Walters might be using the truth of the “white is not necessarily racist” argument to obscure his own WHY motivations (and more probably for many of his followers). But that’s a different question, which has its own singular truth (Walters is or is not using one truth to support the more nefarious truth of his motivations), but which neither of us knows at present (and where the ONION apparently doesn’t care to find out, much less give the benefit of the doubt to). Walters is a long-term teacher; and again, I can easily give him credit for holding to the truth of the white is not necessarily racist statement.
OR as a history teacher diving headfirst into politics, Walters, again, may be just mudwrestling trying to placate his severely conflicting but present extremes that are moronic and will not be placated.
It is folly, however, beyond the present argument, to mix the IS truths with the WHY truths as if they were one; when in fact, holding the WHY question often negates the IS truth that, in fact, tacitly defines the aim and ideal, even if we haven’t reached it yet.
The truth I was talking about, however holds: that people can be white (or any x) and not be racist (or any bias). And where truth is concerned, being well-informed, comprehensive, and collaborative in your knowledge is the polar opposite of being biased. (I can give you the theory and citations on this if you like, and the example this week of Christopher Wray as a Catholic but also as a professional on that Congressional hotseat.)
So, I think you are right in the import of the WHY question; but where such rightness gains its gauge of authenticity by its tacit relationship with the truth of the IS argument. Think about what it would be like without the IS of that relationship, at least as implicit to such arguments. Negating that relationship is a surefire invitation to step onto a slippery slope and start sliding downhill. CBK
LikeLike
NYC public school parent Don’t cook the swan yet. My reply went to moderation. CBK
LikeLike
NYCPSP — I’m not sure I agree with everything you wrote here. The point you’re making is a little nuanced and I think reasonable and well-meaning people could disagree. So I continue to think there’s nothing incorrect or offensive with what Walters said (and for the hundredth time, I am assuming that this two sentence quote is the entire statement at issue). But thanks for trying to make the more nuanced case, as opposed to flying into a rage and accusing people of being bigots.
LikeLike
By using my last name, his purpose — sad you don’t see this Diane — is to try to hurt me personally. If he had any guts, he would share his name with me. Instead he is a coward. And he demonstrates here with every comment.
LikeLike
Greg, you use your name here and elsewhere. Diane has used your last name here. If you think the way you conduct yourself here reflects poorly on you personally, well, I don’t really disagree, but how you act is up to you.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Maybe I am not accusing everyone of being a bigot, but I am certainly accusing the anti-CRT people and the ones who are manufacturing outrage against CRT of being bigots. Because even if they deny their own racism, they are normalizing racism and using it for their own political ends.
I was taught about white racism when I was a kid and in college and the race of the perpetrators was never hidden or minimized. Their race was part and parcel of their racism. And the idea that a white kid like me was too much of a snowflake to hear something negative about my own white race would have been easily dismissed as the Ku Klux Klan view, not the view of even conservative Republicans at that time. The fact that the far right propaganda has made so-called mainstream folks embrace what would have been considered only the view of white supremacists is shocking to me, and depressing.
The CRT “controversy” is manufactured to divide us. It frames a topic in a false way: It takes an entirely untrue premise that is blatantly false, like “talking about the fact that white people perpetrated the Tulsa massacre makes white kids feel bad and think all white people are evil” and then requires the debate to be this:
“is it good or bad to have white children learn that their race is evil and all white people are evil racists?” Please state whether this is good or bad because voters want to know if Democrats want to teach white children that they are evil, or if they agree with the Republicans that CRT is evil.”
FLERP!, I have no idea whether you do it intentionally or not, but you often try to legitimatize the right wing view by framing arguments so that it’s impossible to discuss the nuance. You could be calling it out and RE-FRAMING it instead of amplifying it. You tend to just legitimize it by repeating over and over again that you see nothing wrong with that right wing framing and you want the rest of us to prove our side (of that false framing) to convince you.
“It seems reasonable” to say that not all British Protestants committed atrocities on Irish Catholics. But it isn’t reasonable to amplify that irrelevant point when the discussion is about whether it’s okay that the British government has now passed a law requiring all Irish history to be taught without any discussion of the religious or ethnic background of people who committed atrocities on Irish Catholics. Because a group of politically powerful Protestants believe that mentioning the ethnic and religious background of the perpetrators would be too upsetting for Protestant or English children to learn.
We all have implicit biases. I have found that many young people who attend multicultural schools are not afraid to admit to their own biases, but their parents are, and that fear takes over. It happens with sexism, too. But we also have become less racist and we can see the portrayals of non-whites in popular culture that we once found acceptable and not racist were actually quite racist. Or sexist. Even 20 years ago. So I don’t understand why we aren’t more open minded to what is still problematic.
Some parts of CRT and DEI can be presented in a way that is stupid, idiotic, or a waste of time. But that criticism can be made of everything – the first attempts to address sexism in the workplace were also flawed. It doesn’t mean that there was no need for that kind of education to change workplaces and schools – it means that it would evolve to be better, just like everything else that doesn’t become a right wing talking point.
But the big lie is that DEI or CRT teaches that all white people are evil. Or that feminism taught that all men were evil. The people who pushed that narrative wanted to shut down all talk of sexism and efforts to combat it. They weren’t interested in a nuanced dialog. Just like those who profess to see a grave danger if the race of the Tulsa perpetrators is mentioned want an excuse to shut down talk of racism and efforts to combat it.
LikeLike
CBK,
If you starting premise is that you have no implicit biases, then that’s a problem. Young people who are far less racist overall acknowledge their own implicit biases. They are shocked at the tv shows and movies we watched 20 years ago thinking those shows were the epitome of non-racist, non-sexist culture. I assume you have noticed that yourself, and if you haven’t, then then why not?
The revelation I finally had after being defensive about it for so long is that “we didn’t know that those portrayals were racist so we weren’t racist” is unacceptable. It is because we were racist (or sexist) that we didn’t notice what was offensive about them. And there are things happening right now that we aren’t noticing or dismiss as due to something other than racism because we all still have implicit biases. Having those biases is human. Refusing to acknowledge them because you are already certain you don’t have any is white privilege.
LikeLike
NYC Public school parent No, I’m not saying “I have no implicit bias.” I’m saying that implicit bias is early-learned and, when it exists, it can be self-expunged; though it is difficult and too often it is not even taken up. A love of self-reflection is hardly an ingrained American habit; though self-reflection, in this case about implicit racism, remains potent to human intelligence (in individuals or groups) and to our culture, such as it is.
You say, “having those biases is human.” ME: There are all sorts of biases, but their variety alone tells us that no particular one is essential to being human. This insight should be followed by the one that regards that humans are not stones. We re humanly developmental and cultural, both in all sorts of ways. And this point applies exactly to this discussion.
Then you say, “to acknowledge (implicit bias) because you are already certain you don’t have any is white privilege.” ME: “White privilege” is surely a good example of a deeply set kind of “my way or the highway” thinking, implicit for being thought of as the only right way to think again, by individuals and/or by groups.
Whereas, when we are aware of their possible presence and are self-reflective, we can be on guard for our own thinking, much of which often comes to us from our past, long before we are able to be self-critical about such things (this is evident in your note about young people and their parents).
The point I made, however, is a general/theoretical one: racial bias is a kind of “individual” and/or “group bias.” The theory is of individual and group biases, then, one of which is racism or sexism (as examples), as they developed in our country and are still present today in albeit sub-variant and convoluted forms. Generally, however, and though biases are extremely common, certainly, maintaining an idea of an empty-head and blank slate as the ideal is the stuff of old and overly simplistic social-science still working with humans under the assumptions of “scientism” (where data are wrongly understood in the same way as are non-human data).
By now most that I’ve read understand that, instead of putting bias against empty heads or self-ignorance, fostering any sort of bias differs from being intelligently informed and open to critique and, most importantly, to self-critique.
My more critical point in this conversation is that confusing (a) the potential presence or absence of bias in any individual or group with (b) motivations for their presence or absence in any specific historical situation, is to confuse what has been so difficult to distinguish and to understand as rightly differentiated, which only then can be rightly related without such confusions coming into play: biases and their WHY motivations. CBK
LikeLike
I think most of us understand that it is human nature to have preconceived ideas and assumptions, and that part of being a smart and conscientious person involves trying to identify and challenge those preconceived ideas and assumptions. Certain there are various identity-based notions that fit into that bucket.
That said — and realizing that I probably will be called a bigot for asking this question — what evidence is there (1) that “implicit bias” exists in any measurable form and (2) that, assuming implicit bias exists in some measurable form, it corresponds to actual bias in the real-world?
LikeLike
FLERP! I sent a reply to your note in error to NYCparent . . . about measuring implicit bias (sorry NYCparent). Here is that note:
Implicit bias is recognizable in conversations and human activities and, yes, in the systematics of writ-large history (like government endorsed slavery?), but most importantly in our own interior dialogue. Self-reflection is probably the only way to expunge it and to stop modeling it to our children by the fact that forcing such thinking is known to be folly for us.
The very idea of “measuring” implicit bias, however, needs some severe work on oh-so-many levels, not the least of which is philosophical.
Not here, though; and BTW what would be the point of “measuring” it; or is that just a commonsensical term for trying to understand it and for recognizing its presence in others and in ourselves? CBK
LikeLike
There is research that shows, irrespective of demographic group, people in the study fired a gun faster when a black man was on the video then when it was a white man, holding all variables constant. A point that, it is irrelevant because it isn’t real life lacks support given the analysis of real life traffic pull-overs sorted by race and criminal punishments for similar crimes sorted by race. No one will be able to give you an answer that you will accept. A demographical diverse jury can select as foreman a white man 98% of the time in hundreds of thousands of trials and you will reject an answer of bias.
LikeLike
Is this the thing he said that people are finding objectionable? I assume it was something else but I can’t tell.
LikeLike
Parse this one for us, Mr. Attorney. Tell us what you really want to say. Don’t be afraid. Surely you’ve written legal briefs that explain things (how well, I have no way of knowing). Tell us why it’s not objectionable. And don’t just answer with a bunch of leading questions. This should be fun.
LikeLike
Sorry, Greg. I know you are universally regarded as a brilliant mind. But I am a relatively simple man. I meant what I typed: I don’t understand what is offensive, ridiculous, or otherwise objectionable about the passage I quoted above. If that passage wasn’t the thing that has people in an uproar, I would appreciate someone explaining out what the real controversy is about.
If you have any specific questions, I’ll try to answer them. And I really hope I didn’t ruin your fun.
LikeLike
Funny how smiling bigots only use questions and snarky comments, but seem deathly afraid to share their real opinions in mixed company. But I’m guess you’ve had a lifetime to practice it and hone your avoidance.
LikeLike
You’re not making any sense, Greg. Say what you really want to say, insofar as there’s a coherent thought beyond calling me a bigot.
LikeLike
And this constant “universally regarded as a brilliant mind” comment is quite revealing. Your comment says more about your insecurity than it does about me. You are a small man fearful of anything that does not confirm your limited view of humanity. The only thing that gives you “courage” is your anonymity.
LikeLike
Greg, you are an absolute loon. Do you want to challenge me to a fight again? I’ll probably decline again on the ground that it is absurd and infantile, but on the other hand you’re not getting any younger.
LikeLike
Love being called a loon by a guy who still thinks teachers should have gone to work in April 2020 because his kiddies couldn’t go to school. Let’s go back to that and see how well it ages. How many additional hundreds of thousands might have died if we followed your hysterical ravings?
LikeLike
Show me the comment where I said teachers should return to in-person schooling in April 2020. If I said that in April 2020, I would have been wrong. I don’t think I did say it, though. And I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re making it up. So there — now you have a homework assignment!
I call you a lunatic because you conduct yourself like one. Telling people to kill themselves because you disagree with their arguments and positions. Challenging people on the Internet to fights. Calling people a racist or a bigot with no evidence (because, again, you don’t like it when people disagree with you). Flying off the handle constantly and resorting to personal insults because you can’t control your temper. But you’re correct, actually. You don’t suffer from mental illness like I do. You’re just a huge a$$hole.
LikeLike
Have just a little bit of integrity. (Look it up, might be in your DK legal dictionary.) What do you not find objectionable about Walters quote? Is it possible to discuss the slaughter and destruction of a functioning Black community committed by white persons without discussing race and intent? Can you do it?
LikeLike
I don’t find anything objectionable about the statement that Tulsa rioters did not riot “because they were white,” but rather “because they were racist.”
Why you don’t explain to me what’s objectionable or incorrect about the statement? You believe they rioted and committed murder not because they were racist, but rather because they were white?
Also, do you still stand by your earlier exhortations that I should commit suicide?
Also, are you still interested in setting a time and place where we can have a fistfight? You absolute weirdo?
LikeLike
Hello Greg In thinking about this discussion (and aside from all the rancor), it seems to me that the Walters quote (about white as not necessarily racist, and whether HE said it or not) is true; and easily can be used as a basic framework for discussion in teaching the unadorned truth of racial history (like the massacre, and according to age appropriateness as matched with the levels of horror in this or other historical incidents.)
The assumption that goes with that framing is that neither white nor black children/students need (necessarily) identify their own whiteness or blackness with racism . . . from either side of the divide as told in history.
On the other hand, both white and black students can choose to identify with those of their own or another race or color whom they find they can admire and emulate. We know of endless cross-race idols, regardless. I trust I need not make a list for any form of racial identity. (My grandson who is just 13 loves Jackie Robinson for both his spectacular baseball but also for his place in making change in our racial history . . . he watched that Ken Burns PBS special on Baseball and I bought him a book as a follow up.)
Just as we know some Germans hid Jews or helped them leave the country during WWII at great risk to their own well-being, so there were white people, Jews, and people with all sorts of religious backgrounds from several races, who Walked the Bridge and Freedom Marched in the South during the Civil Rights protest era.
As you probably know, history overlaps and changes with each generation. But as with sexism, it takes several generations, and sometimes with various times of backsliding, to see solid cultural change; and especially with what is so deeply ingrained in world history over long periods of time, as with racism or sexism.
Such biases are tendencies for human beings, especially when those biases go unquestioned and are culturally and legally endorsed; and there is a natural transition to be had when children move from their early family/tribal identity to identifying with our tendency towards intelligent thought and excellence in all that we do; and sometimes that transition is not made; but tendencies (as when we harboring biases) are not essentials to our existence as human.
Some in our own generation will never change and continue to seem more and more like neanderthal people to new generations who are taught from a CORRECT framing that tells us and our students the truth of their complex existence: that we can choose to identify with our race or gender in some things, but we might want to think about others, especially those handed down to us unthinkingly from our past. . . .
This makes for a challenging but delicate teaching task requiring wise teachers who know their stuff, who already know their students, and who are able to “read a room” well.
Just some thoughts. And let’s lighten up? CBK
LikeLike
Flerp, let me explain to you what is objectionable about the claim that they did this because they were racist, not because they were white.
NO ONE SANE is claiming or ever did claim that such actions were taken BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE WHITE. That is a RED HERRING created by right-wingers as an excuse to ban speech (discussion and study in classrooms of race and racism in American history) that they dislike.
And it is because this is a red herring that it is objectionable. Do you follow what I am saying?
LikeLike
Yes. You’re much better at this than Greg.
LikeLike
I’m glad that that explanation landed, Flerp.
LikeLike
Bob,
It seems to me that Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility, explicitly states that being white and being racist are the same thing. Do you think I misunderstand her position or do you think she is not sane?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have vehemently argued against such a framing. I think it insane.
LikeLike
Bob,
Thank you for this reply and for the ones above.
I tried to make that point to FLERP! in my comment above about how the right wing specializes in FALSE FRAMING. What you call the “red herring”.
FLERP! too often tries to legitimize the false framing. FLERP! often repeats it, says he/she doesn’t see anything wrong with what the right wing is saying, and then rejects everything we say as not convincing enough to sway him/her from their belief that the right wing view of the false framing is true.
LikeLike
In fairness to me, NYCPSP, you do tend to say that most things you disagree with are falsely framed by right-wing narratives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FLERP!,
In fairness to me, I do tend to say that when I disagree with you because most of your comments are falsely framed by right-wing narratives. You notice it because I find it tiresome (and dangerous) to see you do it and not be called out, so I call it out. When we stop calling that out, it becomes normalized and acceptable, which is what has happened to public discourse.
There is something seriously wrong with the Republican party. Yet they are presented by the media as if they are normal. The framing they choose becomes normal. Their lies become normal. Their fear-mongering becomes normal. There is no “both sides”. The 2 sides of the debate are happening WITHIN the Democratic/progressive movement. The Republicans simply embrace power and propaganda. Treating them like a normal political party is like treating Putin as a normal political leader,believing that the norms of democracy mean that “both sides” have a fair chance of winning elections.
There is a reason that Republicans expel folks like Liz Cheney, who supports almost all the same right wing policies as they do. It is because it is not enough to agree on policy. To be a Republican, you must accept that the truth is whatever they say it is.
Embracing their framing makes you complicit. Willingly or unwillingly. People spent a lot of time here trying to address the questions you pose, but you have never shown any interest in their answers. You rarely engage in the conversation — Bob can make numerous points, and instead of explaining why you disagree with those points, you just sort of blow it off. Or in my case, insult me.
So often you seem to be here to provoke, not discuss. You provoked GregB and I don’t think you understand what it means to sincerely CARE about democracy and the future of this country. So often, it seems like it’s all a game to you to play devil’s advocate and keep provoking or insulting, while GregB and the rest of us actually care. We may disagree with one another, but we care. It’s definitely easier to provoke someone into anger if they care about something and you don’t. I know the proper thing is to ignore folks who think it’s fun to provoke instead of engage. But that’s hard to do when you understand the danger that our country is in and you care.
LikeLike
So sorry to provoked your pal, NYCPSP. I guess I’m the bad guy here.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Flerp, but that link doesn’t seem to be working. And no prob, really.
LikeLike
I am happy to engage in vigorous debate on the issues. But I have a pet peeve. It really upsets me when people don’t read carefully what I have said, accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say, and then get furious about my having said what I didn’t actually say. If you read through the rest of the comments on this page, you will see example after example after example of that. It’s maddening and time-wasting. In my experience, you don’t do that, Flerp. When you disagree with me, you state accurately what I said, and then you give your reasons for disagreeing. I appreciate that. It’s how things are supposed to work.
BOB: The sky is blue.
CERTAIN COMMENTERS: I can’t believe you actually think that the sky is orange. Don’t you know anything? Sure, maybe twice a day it can be orangeish.
BOB: I never said that the sky was orange.
CERTAIN COMMENTERS: And you call yourself an educated person. The sky is not orange. [insert 27 paragraphs arguing that the sky is not orange here]
LikeLike
Bob,
FYI, you are smearing both CBK and me in this comment. Not just me. I know I am an easy target, especially if you have FLERP! to gang up with, but you accused CBK of doing exactly that multiple times (she wasn’t) and drove her from this discussion.
LikeLike
(Comrades; Fellow Rights Workers), I stand before you in shame. Long I thought that I was fighting the good fight for (the Revolution; Equal Rights). I thought that my actions were pure, that I had the proper zeal. Little did I know until it was pointed out to me by (the Red Guard; NYC PSP) that I harbored irredeemable, inescapable (counterrevolutionary; racial) biases of the most devious and subtle sort. That I did harbor this secret sin follows, of course, ineluctably from the fact that I was born (to parents who were both players of Western and thus counterrevolutionary chamber music; with white skin), which ensured that I would have these failings whatever I might do to try to escape them. How subtle are the ways of (capitalist running dogs; the white supremacist system), that these biases, these failings, would appear not at all to me until my (revolutionary class consciousness; anti-racist consciousness) was jolted by (the Guard; NYC PSP) and I became as one (awakened; woke). And so I hereby acknowledge my profound unworthiness, as a foolish, completely unaware instrument of (Bourgeois, Capitalist; racial) bias and thus (counterrevolution; systemic white supremacy) without my even having been (awakened; woke) enough to be aware of this evil within me, which all have, of course, I more than most because of my long denial of these failings. I await your just punishment for these my sins that I cannot enumerate because they are unseen but certainly are there because (The Chairman and his Red Guard; PSP and the Purity Police) say that they must be. How grateful I am that they can see the unseen and that I have the opportunity either to experience rectification of my faults or, if that is impossible, elimination so that I might not spread abject (counterrevolution; racism) abroad in the world without knowledge of what I am, in my unworthiness and lack of self-awareness, doing.
LikeLike
So many words in this comment that demonstrate my earlier point that despite your denials, you continue to believe that having implicit biases means you are a very bad person.
I stand before you in SHAME.
I harbored IRREDEEMABLE, inescapable biases
secret SIN
my profound UNWORTHINESS
this EVIL within me
No matter how many times I explain that having implicit biases is HUMAN, not shameful, sinful, evil, etc., you simply reject that out of hand. To you, an implicit bias is evil.
Therein lies the problem. Young people don’t get offended and outraged if they are asked to consider their own implicit biases because they claim it is a non-debatable fact that they have none. Because they understand that having implicit biases is HUMAN, not evil.
LikeLike
It’s a satire, NYC. Satire.
But it has this very serious message: A claim that all white people harbor implicit biases against all black people and/or that all white people harbor implicit biases against all white people is a claim all white people and/or all black people are rascists, for ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF “racist” is “person who is biased against people of a particular race.”
This is NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, NYC, so why do you insist on refusing to grok the consequences of your own claim. In fact, in the past, you have said this QUITE EXPLICITLY–that implicit bias means that all people are racist.
And that is the very claim that is being popularized right now in a bunch of books and that has been ADOPTED BY REPUBLICAN RACISTS TO END ACCURATE TEACHING OF HISTORY IN AMERICA.
It’s a stupid claim for the many, many, many reasons that we have tried, fruitlessly, to explain to you.
Do you seriously think that one can be BIASED AGAINST PEOPLE OF A PARTICULAR SKIN COLOR AND NOT RACIST? Seriously?
If you do think that, then you simply do not know what these words mean.
I am done. Seriously. Done. it is impossible to get through to you. You do not seriously consider arguments. You completely mischaracterize everything that is said to you.
You respond to everything with a list of absurdities. One feels compelled, because they are so ridiculous and egregious, to respond. But it’s a complete waste of valuable time. Clearly.
LikeLike
Do you seriously think that racial bias is not a failing? Seriously? Seriously?
If it’s not a failing, what is it? Is it just hunky dory to be biased against people of some supposed racial group?
Here, since you obviously didn’t get the meaning of the satire, let me spell it out for you:
IN BOTH CASES, a person is being identified as having INVISIBLE, IMPLICIT characteristics THAT ARE NEGATIVE.
And that’s simply ridiculous. I know that you have this thing that is unseen.
I see the unseen.
Yup. Wow. Mystical ability, that.
LikeLike
It’s just profoundly ludicrous, and profoundly dangerous because it just feeds into the characterization of antiracists that the Republicans have latched onto. They want to portray us all as folks like the authors of White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist who argue that all people have implcit biases and are thus racists.
Though I guess you disagree with those folks now, that now you are saying that somehow you can be biased against people of a particular race but not be racist. You know, the way you can draw a square circle or paint white darkness.
LikeLike
These ludicrous notions that you are defending serve one purpose politically in America today: they provide ammunition to the extreme rightwing, to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It enables them to make the false claim that all of us who hate and work against racism think that everyone is a racist and want to teach littel white boys and girls that they are racist by virtue of being white because of their implicitr biases.
ONE PURPOSE THIS SERVES; It provides the ammuniation that these racists need to pass legislation to end the teaching of accurate history. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING, right now, and its is important, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, to understand what is happening and why. THAT IS WHY I AM SO PASSIONATE ABOU THIS. I believe that actually fighting racism by teaching actual history is extremely important, and it really upsets me when people who think they have the moral high ground are actually throwing gasoline on the flames from the bonfires of our curricula and pedagogy that the republicans are setting right now.
Is that so freaking difficult for you to understand?
LikeLike
you continue to believe that having implicit biases means you are a very bad person
Oh, gosh, no. I think that having biases against people because of their race is just wonderful.
One cannot make up argument this idiotic. You say hat racial bias like it’s a bad thing.
ROFLMAO. Mind-numbing cuckoo.
Yes, racial bias is a very bad thing.
If you don’t get that, Lord help you. I can’t.
LikeLike
And with us this evening, spokesperson for young people, NYC PSP! LOL.
LikeLike
Maybe for young people so naive that they will believe any cockamamie theory that happens to hit the memosphere.
LikeLike
I have indulged this ridiculous conversation as long as I have because I have seen that the following syllogism,
All white people have implicit racial biases against black people.
Racial biases are racist.
Therefore, all white people are racist.
A stupid argument made in several popular books and now, sadly, popular in the memosphere
Has been enthusiastically picked up by the likes of DeSantis, Gaetz, Abbott, Walters, Cruz, Hawley, and their vile ilk
And used as an excuse for passing legislation that prohibits teachers from teaching about race on the pretext that it is spreading this idea that all white people are racist.
This is very, very serious. It is extremely important for people to understand what these Republican politicians are doing and why. They are using the arguments of a few extremists to label all people who teach about race as extremists and racists, ironically turning antiracism against itself.
this is an extremely effective bit of agitprop, disinformation. Time to stop feeding into it. Past time.
LikeLike
You just wrote 7 posts in a row.
Is there ANY way to talk about implicit bias? Or do we just guide ourselves by fear of Republicans and say that implicit bias DOES NOT EXIST and must never be mentioned? As long as a teacher, juror, judge, and anyone else already knows they have no bias, case closed.
I don’t even know if you think Atticus Finch is explicitly racist or implicitly racist or not racist at all. Or is that a censored subject when teaching TKAM? If we say Atticus had biases, does that mean we have to say he is racist?
LikeLike
Implicit bias exists. I have said repeatedly that it does. But I have been crystal clear about what matters: what people profess and how they act. Not what people imagine them to think or be or believe based on their skin color. That’s idiotic. It’s as idiotic as is the very concept of race, which exists not as any intelligible scientific or biological phenomenon but almost completely as a matter of culture. Atticus Finch is less racist than is Bob Ewell, clearly, but yes, he is a character of his time and place. All the characters in this book are of their time and place, and good teachers teach that. They do character analyses with their classes to draw out these matters, to drag them into the light, just as they drag into the light the fact that the speaker of Browning’s “My Last Duchess” is a murderer.
LikeLike
Let’s can the whole implicit bias thing and TALK ABOUT WHAT MATTERS–professions of bias, intentional or unintentional (e.g., “The blacks–they love Trump. Where’s my black? yeah that guy. Great guy,” Trump literally said at one of his rallies) and racist actions. Those we can see. Those we can know. Those really matter.
Here’s an old bit from acting school. Stand in front of a mirror and scowl. Feel how you emotion’s change when you do that. Now, smile, big. Again, feel how your emotion follows your expression. Change the overt via sanction, negative and positive. Throw over ridiculous, worse than useless, actually extremely counterproductive notions like ferreting out implicit biases. Attend to what actually matters.
LikeLike
Now, if you will kindly excuse me, I have been trying to edit a book here. Thank you.
LikeLike
“Atticus Finch is less racist than is Bob Ewell, clearly, but yes, he is a character of his time and place. All the characters in this book are of their time and place, and good teachers teach that..”
In other words, you are saying that Atticus Finch is racist.
I used to be very defensive talking to my kid, especially watching tv shows or movies that I liked decades ago where I finally noticed some of the casual racist and sexist depictions that never bothered me.
My knee jerk reaction was always to say that we didn’t know it was racist. In our time and place we didn’t know it was racist. My kid would say “why does that matter?”
It took me a long time to realize the the problem with citing the time and place in a discussion about racism or sexism or antisemitism.
I don’t care if it was common to hold negative attitudes towards Jews in the 1500s or the 1700s. I don’t care if it was common to hold negative attitudes toward Black people in the 1930s or 1940s. I don’t care if it was common to hold negative attitudes toward women in the 1970s.
Either those negative attitudes are racist or sexist or antisemitic or those negative attitudes are not. The time and place doesn’t matter. It’s certainly fine to talk about how those attitudes were common at that time, but it doesn’t make it any less racist or sexist to have those attitudes.
That’s why I am open to the idea that I might hold some attitudes now that are common in our time and place that I might look back on in the future and realize were biased. I don’t know what they are. But I wouldn’t deny the possibility, since what I believed wasn’t racist in 1980 is different than what I think isn’t racist today.
LikeLike
I’ve heard a lot of excuses in my time, but this one stands out as particularly absurd. Right wing extremists are so deeply delusional that they will twist and facts and fabricate misinformation to suit their racist agenda. What is even sadder is that their followers believe their misleading nonsense. While race, an artificial construct, does not define people, skin color is often what inspires an irrational, violent response from certain white people as in the Tulsa Massacre.
LikeLike
In other earth shattering news, Tommy Tuberville admitted today that white supremacists are racists.
LikeLike
At least the Onion’s version makes sense! Some as poorly educated and inarticulate as the superintendent should not be in his position.
LikeLike
Emphatically agreed
LikeLike
There is such a thing as “implicit bias” which must be made conscious (self-consciously unearthed) to be worked on and expunged in oneself. However, the opposite implication is that if I am white (or any “color” or background), then I am by definition racist.
And that is more moronic thinking than the worst of the MAGA base, as it flies in the face of everything we are and know about human development and the history of it. CBK
LikeLike
This implicit bias stuff really sets off alarm bells. It reminds me of the forced confessions prior to their executions a) during Stalin’s show trials and purges and b) during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. (For a superb evocation of the latter, see the first few chapters of Liu Cixin’s superb sci-fi novel The Three-Body Problem.) The implicit bias stuff is objectionable on so many grounds. First, we must reject genetic determinism. Second, it’s racist. Third, it is a violation of what is to me extremely important Existentialist principles: that we are, or can be, artists of ourselves and are responsible for the self we make; Fourth, it’s self-defeating because it doesn’t recognize that people can emerge nonracist from a racist milieux; if that’s true, why bother? and Fifth, it’s based in sloppy, irreproducible research suing sloppy techniques for data gathering.
AND: I do not want to see someone insert here 86 interminable paragraphs arguing for implicit bias. I am already familiar with the so-called research on this topic and think it mostly bogus, like a lot of so-called social “science”–the claims that Libet’s Delay negates free will, for example, and I don’t need or want to see 1,000 pages of amateur defense of this nonsense, any more than I want to see 1,000 pages of arguments for the creation of a perpetual motion machine.
LikeLike
“..people can emerge nonracist from a racist milieux…’
I have seen this happen. My own mother was a good example. Raised in the North Carolina that immediately post-dated the Wilmington race massacre, she had every reason to step into line with those who hated, but she arrived at a philosophical opposition to mistreating people on account of their differences. This arose in her naturally from her study of Christianity, and from her general nature.
We can draw ourselves pictures of ourselves that are positive. But sometimes it takes work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a beautiful thing, Roy. My mother as well. Raised in a small town in Southern Kentucky but virulently antiracist. Proud of her for that.
LikeLike
Bob Oh, well. We depart again. Sorry about that, chap: there is allot of wheat in your note, but also some chafe: And the chafe is your view of implicit bias as “bogus.” And your association of the basic idea with Stalin, etc., might have a wisp of truth to it, . . . any human reality can be used and abused by humans; and I understand that someone who is steeped in the history of that time might experience some resonance with it, but only that . . . wispy and resonant, yes, but it is hardly a straight-up or even responsible analogy . . . so far away from Gulag to make my eyes go a-rolling. Sorry about that, chief.
As implicit, however, bias consists of a set of usually early-learned assumptions (like accepting racism or sexism from one’s parents and then never thinking about it again). As learned assumptions, however, we don’t think ABOUT them anymore, but rather we think WITH them. As assumptions, and until we root them out, they remain a part of our thinking apparatus that, without thinking about them, we bring to any and all situations and conversations. Such is the meaning of “implicit.”
As biased, those assumptions are what, AS YOU REFER TO IN YOUR NOTE, come under question with the introduction of different assumptions and views in the media, etc., but also in formal education where discussions can be had that, along the way, inspire self-reflection on one’s own set of assumptions and biases; . . . so that instead of thinking WITH a set of already accepted biased assumptions, we can think ABOUT them in ourselves and so we come within range of expunging and changing them if we choose to do so.
That set of insights from several of the social sciences is FAR FROM “BOGUS.”<–chafe. If change actually does occur, which I assume you understand that CHANGE for the better DOES OCCUR across the generations, it’s more long-lasting influence occurs when those old accepted implicit biases actually become explicit in our thinking; and so, in our self-reflections, we’ve gone to the source of our character in life, and so our other thinking and the spontaneity of our actions also can undergo transformation, over time, on account of the process.
I’m going to re-read your note now . . . because there’s lots of wheat there. But I thought it important to say the above up front, so to speak. CBK
LikeLike
As I mentioned, I am NOT interested in getting into a long discussion about the reality or lack thereof of implicit racial bias. OF COURSE there are people who are extremely unaware of their own racial biases. But that does not mean that this is a necessary condition. Again, I just don’t want to get into this. It’s a side issue, and it will be endless and fruitless to discuss it here.
LikeLike
A much sounder notion for capturing that early enculturation is the French Marxist critic Louis Althusser’s notion of interpellation–that which people acquire unconsciously without even knowing that they did. The sign says, “Uncle Sam wants you.” Implicit in that is the notion that one wants to be wanted by Uncle Sam. That becomes the unconscious interpellation: it is a good thing, something that people want, to be wanted by Uncle Sam in this way.
LikeLike
But again, I REALLY DO NOT want to get into a discussion of this. When a certain someone sees my note and posts a twenty-volume amateur explanation of why I’m wrong based on nothing whatsoever but hot air, I’m not even, this time, going to bother reading it.
LikeLike
OF COURSE, CBK, I am familiar with the phenomenon. I’m not claiming that it doesn’t exist. I’m claiming that most of the stuff said about it is bogus, e.g., the claim that all white people are implicitly biased against black people. That’s an idiotic claim. It’s based in pseudoscience (yes, I knew about that test already) and more fundamentally upon really poor conceptualization and understanding of how people work at multiple levels of cognitive processing.
LikeLike
But getting into that is literally a book. I’m NOT GAME. NOT here, NOT now.
LikeLike
Most of the uses (or, rather, misuses) of the fuzzy and poorly conceptualized notion of implicit bias are really poor armchair pop psychology. They are the flip side of the coin that is, say, Jordan Peterson. These extraordinarily claims–to be white is to be a racist and not know it–belong in the same garbage heap with the pseudoscience on with the state mandared ELA tests is based. But I am not interested in talking to most people about that subject for the same reason that math professors don’t want to hear from people about their new method for squaring the circle. Engaging will mean endless mischaracterization and misunderstanding based on extremely limited knowledge. “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” Pope wisely wrote in his Essay on Criticism, and that’s what the problem is the idiocies popularized and appearing on blogs routinely regarding implicit bias. I am not interested in spending enormous amounts of my time on this. I have much better things to do.
LikeLike
Bob “These extraordinarily claims–to be white is to be a racist and not know it–belong in the same garbage heap with the pseudoscience on with the state mandared ELA tests is based.”
Good grief . . . now THAT’s a qualified mischaracterization, as is the rest of your note. So, I guess YOU are an amateur also? You’ve turned a whole qualified movement of thought, and discussions by many long-time professional teachers and researchers, into a joke, and me and others here into “amateurs.”
Great big silly me . . . Though we cannot do full-out science here (the many links often lead to that), I thought Diane’s blog was about (mostly) professionals sharing information and learning from one another.
Wrong again. So much for that. This is me, wiping my hands together to get the dirt off. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, I am not talking about your in particular, and I am not denying that implict bias exists. Of course it does. What I am concerned about is the widespread promulgation of an idiotic view that all white people are, by virtue of being white, out-and-out racists because of their implicit and unsurmoutable bias. That vew has been promulgated in a number of best-selling books, AND it has provided the straw man for Repugnicans like Walters to use. These people are saying that it is BAD TO BE WHITE. And they are using that argument to pass vague laws to suppress speech and accurate history in our classrooms. So, what I am attacking is that simplistic notion THAT LENDS FUEL TO THE BOOK BURNING BY THE ENEMY–those racist Republicans.
I am not writing about YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS. Again, please do not read things into my writing that I did not say.
LikeLike
So, I did NOT say that there is no such thing as implicit bias. Obviously, there is.
And I did not characterize ANYTHING that you said or this “whole qualified movement of thought.”
And I did not call you an amateur. I have no notion how much you know about all this.
I am addressing, in particular, a popular culture phenomenon that is occurring right now. Several authors have issued bestsellers that have used the notion of implicit bias to make the claim that to be born white is to be a racist, and that LUDICROUS claim, which has been echoed ad nauseum by one commenter here. has provided right-wingers with the ammunition that they have used in legislation around the country to end the teaching of accurate history in our classrooms. THAT’S MY CONCERN. Period. I want people to stop providing the Reich-wingers with that ammunition, which they have been successfully using. They are making the claim that those who teach about race are teaching that being white is bad. And they make that claim based on bogus use of implicit bias theory. THAT is what I am attacking. Have I finally made this clear?
LikeLike
Bob Addendum: If you’ve characterized Pope correctly, he has solidified the idea of an enclosed and dead-end “ivory towerism.” He has also failed to show how such blogs also serve as a vibrant intersection between the world of theoretical investigations and the PROFESSIONAL practice that well-developed theory is supposed to inform.
IF so, then he also has proved himself an arrogant ass, as I am coming close to thinking of you as and regardless of the richness of (and notable derailments of) your accumulation of knowledge. CBK
LikeLike
e has also failed to show how such blogs also serve as a vibrant intersection between the world of theoretical investigations and the PROFESSIONAL practice that well-developed theory is supposed to inform.
Great point
LikeLike
CBK, you really need to start reading comments more carefully before responding to them. You have a tendency to read stuff into them that isn’t there.
LikeLike
And then to become incensed about stuff that wasn’t there.
Which requires an explanation of why it wasn’t here and what was actually said.
Which in turn generates long explanations from you of why you thought the stuff that wasn’t there was there.
And this gets to be old.
But I must remind myself that this is the democratic process at work. These kinds of things happen in a public forum.
LikeLike
Bob Go screw yourself. I don’t want to talk with you anymore either. CBK
LikeLike
Again, a mischaracterization. I did not say that I don’t want to talk to you. I said that I do not want to get into a long back and forth on implicit bias. So, once more, you illustrate this phenomenon, accusing me of saying something I did not say.
LikeLike
Bob And you write so many one-or-two-word blog notes and corrections that I get weary just looking at my inbox after being gone for 10 minutes. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, I believe in trying to say things as precisely as possible. I spent a lifetime as an editor and as a teacher of English. When I have typos in my writing, I try to correct them. I am not going to apologize for that. I think that it’s a virtue.
LikeLike
So, I think that there has been a misunderstanding here, CBK. You thought that I was responding to your comments in particular. I was not. My concern is with the the main post about Ryan Walters in Oklahoma. My concern, addressed in my comments, is that
Republicans have used the argument that whites are implicitly biased, that to be white is in itself bad, to make the claim that teaching about racism is racist against white kids.
That’s what Walters did. This is an Utterly Bogus use of implicit race theory.
That’s what I was saying and why.
My comments were further informed by a several interminable conversations that I had on this blog with NYC PSP, who was arguing that if you are white, then you are, ipso facto, implicitly racist. That’s the currently widespread popularization of the notion of implicit bias that I was attacking. It’s a widespread meme right now.
I was not attacking YOU.
LikeLike
You often, CBK, attribute things to me THAT I DID NOT SAY, and you do this based on an assumption that I don’t know about this, that, or the other. You then go on and on explaining something REALLY BASIC to me, as though I were a complete idiot and hadn’t learned about that AGES AGO. It’s exasperating.
LikeLike
I don’t need someone to explain to me what implicit bias is or that it exists. OF COURSE IT DOES. ONLY A FOOL WOULD IMAGINE OTHERWISE.
What doesn’t make any sense whatsoever is the WIDESPREAD USE OF IMPLICIT BIAS THEORY to say that to be white is to be a racist. IT IS THIS VERY IDEA THAT RACIST REPUBLICANS HAVE PICKED UP AND WEAPONIZED AGAINST TEACHING ABOUT RACE. And THAT is what I am opposed to, as well as to the idea that people cannot make themselves into nonracists.
LikeLike
Bob I hope you are not saying you are completely closed on the subject of implicit bias. On that hope, I’ll comment REALLY BRIEFLY on your paragraph below. And BTW, in this context of information, I’m hardly an “amateur.”
YOU: “Third, it is a violation of what is to me extremely important Existentialist principles: that we are, or can be, artists of ourselves and are responsible for the self we make;”
ME: NOT a violation but an endorsement of the Existentialist principle that we can change ourselves. Making it explicit, or recognition of it in oneself, is also a “call” to self-reflection that enables such change to occur.
YOU: “Fourth, it’s self-defeating because it doesn’t recognize that people can emerge nonracist from a racist milieux; if that’s true, why bother?”
ME: It’s exactly the opposite of what you say above. The “racist milieux” is first IMPLICIT and BIASED. We learn it early, and it becomes a set of implied/implicit racist assumptions, in actions and in dialogue, like the use of “boy;” and that’s what needs to become EXPLICIT to our thinking and hopefully expunged.
YOU: *”It’s based in sloppy, irreproducible research (using) sloppy techniques for data gathering.”
ME: We can start the research by remembering and finding implicit bias in ourselves, naming it, and trying to work it out our systematic selves. It’s first personal, but once you understand what it means, it’s also easy to see in the world. Though you didn’t give it this name, your note talks about the same change people undergo from generation to generation . . . from parents to the more enlightened thinking of their children.
The rest is science which (as we have talked about here before) is still on some bad philosophical footing–like the assumption (ahem) that we cannot use our own personal experience and data for research and affirmation. “Amateur.” BAH. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, I have read EXTENSIVELY ON THIS SUBJECT. I am not interested in discussing it ad nauseam with folks who have a minimal understanding of it. Seriously. I’m NOT going to engage further on this.
LikeLike
I’m glad that you are thinking about this topic, CBK. But again, I’m done. I have stated quite clearly that I do not intend to engage further on it here.
LikeLike
CBK, when I used the term amateur, I was thinking, in particular, about the ENDLESS and UTTERLY FRUITLESS discussions I attempted to have on this topic, in comments on this blog, with NYC PSP.
LikeLike
So, been there, done that. Not interested in a repeat performance.
LikeLike
And I did not say that I was closed on the subject. I never said that. I don’t understand why, CBK, you continually attribute to me statements that I did not make, and I would encourage you to read the statements that I do make a little more carefully because you often mischaracterize them.
LikeLike
Bob About reading clearly, I said I HOPED you weren’t closed on the subject; but then you have assured me, in no uncertain terms and in several notes, that you ARE closed on the subject, at least “not here and “not now.”
But I quibble. I forgot we were doing “rhetorical circus” here. CBK
LikeLike
Being closed on the subject is a general statement. It means GENERALLY CLOSED ON IT. And I am not generally closed on it. But I don’t want to talk about it here any further, for two main reasons that I made clear:
I have had long and utterly fruitless conversations here on this subject alredy and do not wish to repeat those
A proper treatment of what is wrong conceptually with the characterizations of implicit bias in our popular culture (for example, in various recent popular books on the topic) would itself require a book-length treatment
LikeLike
Nothing I said before or after your comment suggested that I was GENERALLY closed on the topic. That I do not wish to talk about it here and now is not evidence to the contrary. Again, you are misreading.
LikeLike
Bob More rhetorical circus. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, if I say
The sky is blue.
And you attack me for saying that the sky is orange
That’s not “rhetorical circus.” That’s you mischaracterizing what I said and then getting upset at me for saying something that I didn’t in fact say. I’ve given you examples of this. Several times. And not just year, on previous threads as well, It’s something you do a LOT. You need to start reading more carefully.
LikeLike
Bob Oh, my, . . . that’s rich. CBK
LikeLike
No, CBK, that is not “rich.” It is what you have done throughout this thread. You have gotten furious about my saying x when I actually said y. And you have done this over and over and over again. And when I explain an example of this to you, when I spell it out clearly, you then misread the explanation and get furious about that. Aie yie yie.
Really, you need to start reading comments more carefully.
LikeLike
cx: And not just here
LikeLike
What I did say is that I am NOT interested in getting into this here yet again, any more than I am interested in having an interminable discussion with someone about why his or her perpetual motion machine won’t work.
LikeLike
This is EXACTLY, btw, the same sort of psychology that was applied by Stalin and Mao’s regimes. They both promulgated the idea that people had implicit Capitalist/Bourgeois biases that had to be consciously expunged, often in public confession, in order for them to become new Communist men and women. Pol Pot took this even further. His view: those implicit biases can never be expunged. That’s why he decided that he had to kill every person in Cambodia over the age of 12.
LikeLike
CBK,
Thank you so much for engaging with Bob on this topic. I assume his gratuitous nasty allusions to “86 interminable paragraphs arguing for implicit refer to me”. I’m probably the only one who sees the irony of that insult being hurled by someone who just wrote as many as 6 long replies to one of yours.
We all have implicit biases. The books referred to on here have been simplified as the author saying “all white people are racists”. When those books are about far more nuanced ideas about how living in a culture of white supremacy when we are white means that we hold all kinds of implicit biases that make us NOT recognize that things are racist when they are.
That’s what young people get. The ones who grow up attending multicultural schools and have multicultural friend groups don’t deny their implicit biases. They don’t simply say “I don’t see race”, they try to be open to understanding their own implicit biases when they are pointed out instead of being defensive and repeating the mantra “I don’t see race”. Sometimes that also means “I don’t notice when things are racist.” Just like we all watched movies and tv shows not noticing the casual racism that many people who weren’t white noticed. Even though the makers of those tv shows and films were absolutely certain they weren’t racist. And the people who watched them and thought there was nothing racist about them were absolutely certain they weren’t racist.
I remember fairly recently at a high school there was a lot of discussion about how teachers and administrators seemed to be racist in their approach to female students’ dress codes. Black students who wore similarly skimpy outfits as students who were white or Asian were disciplined more because the teachers/administrators noticed them more. Noticing – or not noticing – can be unconscious but that doesn’t excuse it.
And that’s what young people get. They don’t announce that they don’t see race and they are “cured” of implicit bias. They accept that we all have implicit biases. It’s not about making yourself free of implicit bias. It is about listening to people who aren’t white if they point out some implicit bias, and not just listening to the ones who reinforce your own personal narrative. Acknowledging your own implicit bias doesn’t make you more racist, it makes you LESS racist.
LikeLike
I assume his gratuitous nasty allusions to “86 interminable paragraphs arguing for implicit refer to me”.
You assume correctly,
LikeLike
NYC public school parent Yes, racism is horrible and, though it has morphed, it is still horribly with us. Also, I think the term “bias” has become too big to hold all of the meaning that flows in and out of it in common conversations. It’s one of those terms that needs defining before launching into a critical discussion.
In reading your note, however, I was reminded of how shocked I was when I saw a documentary on smoking and the movies, as in the 30’s/40’s/50’s. Almost everyone smoked, and I had never noticed it before, even though I had seen probably hundreds of films from that time period. But I think THAT experience is related to THIS discussion. And to return to our time, my “take” on MAGA is that they are overflowing with implicit biases and that they are a most un-self-reflective bunch.
Do put up with Bob, though I won’t. I think the ONION/Walters thing was particularly misleading and most of us “stepped in it.” However, I think Bob is like allot of writers who think they have put on the page what remains in their heads. That’s why re-reading one’s own notes before publishing is so important. Readers cannot read what’s in a writer’s mind but lost to the page. (I know Bob sees some great irony in this–from his point of view, he would; but I was responding to what he actually wrote, not to what he may have been thinking–though I’m not a perfect writer or reader, apparently there was a difference there, as with that disgusting but revealing Pope quote.)
Another case in point: there is nothing in a critically established “general” that does not have particulars. So, unless a listener is clearly not a member of the general grouping, and unless writers expressly exclude particulars in our general communications (and I mean at least Bob here), such references become a form of careful winking-and-nodding in social situations; or they are passive-aggressive slights. . . and those either by conscious intent (I don’t mean Linda here, because she apparently doesn’t understand what I’m talking about) or innuendo used by weak personalities who refuse to self-reflect and so with a lack of serious self-knowledge (I do mean Linda here, though I don’t know her well enough to say for sure).
BTW, did you hear that Republican Congressperson on the floor talking about “colored people in the military”? Sheesh.
Thank you for your reflections. I enjoyed reading them. I have checked my receiving notes here to only getting Diane’s headline blog notes; but will receive no more comments. So, I’ll respond to the ones that are already here and then check in, but only from time to time, when I feel better about the whole thing. I have work to do, and this “notes all day long” thing is interfering with it. CBK
LikeLike
Bob,
Given how you engaged with CBK, maybe ….just maybe…you might consider that it isn’t all me. CBK and I have different styles and perspectives, but you didn’t even try to consider what she was saying nor address it — you just kept accusing her of misunderstanding you when in most cases, she did not.
One of my comments has been held up, where I mentioned how much I appreciated your thoughtful responses here. I don’t really understand why you get so angry at me (and others) when I talk about implicit bias because I can’t imagine we are so far apart.
But to clarify, are you saying that YOU have cured yourself of having any implicit racism? Or you never had any implicit racism that had to be addressed?
Because I think our biggest disagreement is whether someone who strongly believes they don’t see race could ever be implicitly biased against someone who is another race. I believe we all have implicit biases and acknowledging them is being anti-racist.
LikeLike
NYC, I loathe racism. I have spent a great deal of my life fighting it. If you want a surefire way to get kicked out of my house, make a racist remark.
LikeLike
And no, NYC PSP, I do not have implicit bias against people of color. The very idea of people being of a particular race I find utterly preposterous. Idiots think that this concept makes any sense whatsoever. But again, I have implored you here, I do not need you to explain to me what implicit bias means or who has it and who doesn’t, and I do not one to get into another day-long back and forth about this. I have work to do. Thanks. I’m glad you hate racism, too. Let’s not give ammunition to the Rayan Walterses of the world by going around saying that a) all white people are racist and b) they need to admit that and c) we ought to teach such ideas in school.
LikeLike
Bob (Leftover notes) Apparently, Walters said nothing of the sort, just the opposite, actually; or as far as the initial note reports . . . . with quotation marks. My own and others’ prior notes here are clear on that. CBK
LikeLike
I quoted what he said to Flerp, above, CBK. Walters was drawing upon this theory that has been instantiated in legislation and stump speeches and speeches on the flour of the House and of the Senate for months now.
LikeLike
Once again, I repeat the transcript:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: How does the Tulsa Race Massacre not fall under your definition of CRT?
WALTERS: OK, thank you. I’m sorry, I didn’t address that part. I would never tell a kid that, because of the color of your skin or your gender, anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist. That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals. You can absolutely. Historically, you should,
He is referencing the theory that folks who teach about racism are saying that all white people are racists by virtue of being white people. That’s the one that Republicans have been running with, and it’s based on this implicit bias argument: All whites are implicitly biased against blacks. That’s racist. Therefore, all whites are racist.
It’s saying that our teaching about racism is racist. Why? In order to stop that teaching. To have a chilling effect on that teaching. And this has been written into law all across the country. We need to be reacting here to the reality, to what is actually happening, and I have freaking been trying to explain that.
LikeLike
Bob I (and probably everyone here) already understand what you are saying about Republicans using the implicit/racism idea to wrongly “tag” teachers with teaching that implicit racism, and that such a situation means that all whites are inherently racist . . . though your notes were not clear on this earlier. However, that point doesn’t address the question that came up earlier either.
If those quotations in the original post above are correctly drawn from Walters, then he was not expressing the above Republican dogma. He said:
**”I would never tell a kid that, because of the color of your skin or your gender, anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist. That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals. You can absolutely. Historically, you should . . . ”
THAT is the opposite of saying that white people are inherently racist just by being white. The other quotation from later in the note said the same thing in different words, and that was the quote that several of us were questioning, though both quotes carry the same meaning.
(If I don’t answer further notes addressed directly to me, it is because my new WordPress directions have kicked in.) CBK
LikeLike
CBK, you aren’t understanding what Walters was saying. Let me explain this as carefully as I can.
He is saying that when people teach about the Tulsa Massacre, they typically teach that the perpetrators of the massacre carried it out BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE. In other words, he is attributing that claim to teachers who teach about the massacred.
And his way of expressing this is by saying that he personally would never do such a thing, would never say, as those teachers do, that this is because of their being white.
And then he goes on to say it was not because of their being white, it was because of their racism.
So, he is defending the legislation around the country that says that you can’t do any teaching that might make some kid feel bad about being white.
Knowing that people will attempt to avoid falling afoul of this law by avoiding teaching about racism and racist incidents.
LikeLike
Bob The irony is, I was going by what’s in the Walters’ quotations (both of them), and not by what you think he meant. Not so ironically, it’s not like “he cannot have it both ways,” but rather, with your interpretation, Walters cannot have it EITHER way. That is, he cannot mean what he says (in the quotations), and he cannot square what he says with what he means . . . if what you say is true.
But I liked what he said allot. My guess is that whatever he MEANT will come clear in what he says and does as he goes through his present mudwrestling crisis. Oh, well . . . CBK
LikeLike
CBK, you cannot read this comment by Walters out of context. ONCE AGAIN, as clearly as I can possibly say this, states all around the country have taken a lead from DeSantis and Abbott and Hillsdale College and Rufo and passed into law legislation that says you cannot teach divisive concepts about race or anything that would make people think badly about themselves for being of a particular race, and THIS IS THE CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT. Like Reich-wing Repugnuts all across the country right now, he is attempting to characterize instructional bout race as racist and saying that he would never do that, say that it was about being white. Your comment not well informed. If he gave a press conference and said that we should not be sending weapons to countries way across the world so that they can fight our friends the Russians, he would not have to say that he is talking about Ukraine. Aie yie yie.
LikeLike
Bob That’s what I meant earlier by “mudwrestling.” Walters seems to be trying to placate his supporters who, we all assume, are right-wing Republicans. But then his statements are completely opposite of the R dogma. I said that EARLY on in my first correspondence on this thread.
What Walters purportedly SAID is true, and fortunately he can be held to those statements–and it also makes sense to me that someone who teaches history actually understands that truth. But then, there are his supporters, and he cannot get the mud off.
About reading closely, again, this all came out earlier; and then you got fuzzy about the “BOGUS” idea of implicit bias, and then that Pope idea that had nothing to do with me, of course. You cannot see me, and I know this will piss you off. But as you howl and read this, I am pointing my finger at you. Don’t worry, though. That juvenile Linda is happy we are having this argument. She thinks I’m going miss my tag-teaming with you. Oh dear . . . I’m now so ALONE! CBK
LikeLike
Never fear, CBK. I know that you are a decent person, and I count you among my friends. And you will not be the first person to have given me the finger.
LikeLike
Bob So to be clear, I DIDN’T read that note “out of context,” as you suggest. So, I guess you didn’t read or digest my earlier notes. Now THAT’s no sin; but get off your high horse about it. CBK
LikeLike
Republicans have hit upon the idea of ending accurate teaching about race in our schools by accusing that teaching of being racist. And it’s the implicit bias argument that they are using. They are accusing teachers of teaching that being white is bad.
All white people have implicit bias against black people. Implicit bias against black people is racist. Therefore, all white people are racist.
Republicans are PRETENDING that that’s what our classroom instruction is about. And they are creating legislation worded in that way as a means for stopping teaching about race and racism altogether.
LikeLike
They are using this Red Herring to accomplish that end, and Walters was simply parroting the party line on this. It’s teaching that being white is bad.
LikeLike
Bob says: “Republicans are PRETENDING that that’s what our classroom instruction is about.”
It astonishes me that instead of discrediting that Republican propaganda, you confirm it by misrepresenting a nuanced view of implicit bias into “all white people are racist”.
But the fact that you already believe you have absolutely no implicit bias yourself explains it. You are certain of it, so you absolutely know that whatever you deem to be non racist is non racist. And as you did with CBK, you (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresent what anyone who challenges you says (“banning TKAM!” “all white people are racist”) so that you can then discredit it. You and Harper Lee are the most perfect anti racists ever, and anyone who suggests either of you might have some implicit biases that make you less than perfect anti racists needs to be belittled, discredited, etc., because actually thinking about what they are saying is simply not worth your time when you already know that is is virtually impossible that either you (or Harper Lee) could have any implicit biases.
I think of getting woke is becoming aware of the implicit biases that we unwittingly hold and trying to do better. It isn’t a firm belief in our own perfect anti-racism.
LikeLike
I did not present that view as my own, NYC. I presented it as the one that Republicans use. Can’t you freaking tell the difference? If I say, Jack the Ripper thought that women were evil, that doesn’t mean that I think that women are evil. LOL.
I was waiting for you to start with the comments about how racist I am because I won’t stand up and do the I AM AN IMPLICITLY BIASED RACISM public confession for you.
SO PREDICTABLE.
LikeLike
Please insert 80 paragraph screed here about how racist I am because I won’t do the public apology for my implicit racist bias. HAAAAA. Because CLEARLY, NYC PSP, you know my soul very much better than I do. I am CLEARLY one of those incredibly benighted people who hasn’t the amazing self insight that you, in your exalted antiracism, have.
HAAAAAAAA. This crap you write is self parodying. And it supplies ammunition to the Reich-wingers.
If you think that all white people have implicit bias against black people, and if you think that implicit bias against a group is racist, then you think that all white people are racist against black people. That’s just straightforward deductive logic, NYC PSP.
Duh
LikeLike
The claim that all whites are implicitly biased against blacks is about as nuanced as a mortar shell.
LikeLike
Comrades, forgive me. I appear before you in my abject racism, with my implicit biases. I am not worthy of your forgiveness. I throw myself upon the mercy of the purity of thought police and accept, no, embrace whatever punishment you deem appropriate for my many errors in thought if not in deed, and especially for those many errors that I thought implicitly without allowing them expression even to myself.
HOWLING AT THIS.
LikeLike
Bob What block are you stuck on? No one here that I know of is saying that all whites are implicitly racist and cannot be otherwise, and least of all WALTERS, according to the initial note. CBK
LikeLike
You have to be kidding me. I JUST EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU.
LikeLike
Again, Republicans across the country ahve been passing these “divisive concepts laws” suggesting that teaching about systemic racism or racism in our history is divisive and makes white kids feel bad about being white. THAT IS THE CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT. That’s why he claims that it’s not about being white. He is attributing to teachers of the Tulsa Massacre and of what he thinks of as CRT GENERALLY the claim that white people do this kind of thing because they are white, and that’s why he said that he would never do that.
CONTEXT.
Context matters. “We have to tie up these loose ends here” means different things if it is said by a macrame instruction or by Tony Soprano after a hit.
LikeLike
Bob Is there anything you won’t write to avoid getting the point? CBK
LikeLike
Bob In moderation. And “pointing” is not the same as “giving the finger” though I am known to NOT be beyond using such uncivil gestures. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do you think he made that statement in this particular context?” In the context of defending divisive concepts/CRT regulation like that in the other states? Language functions in context, CBK. If you don’t grok the context, you won’t know what was being said.
LikeLike
Bob Is that you way of explaining why, unbeknownst to you, your thoughts don’t always make it to the page? CBK
LikeLike
OK. I’m done CBK. No more engaging with your comments. They are totally off the wall.
LikeLike
Bob And I’ve wasted my morning trying to talk around a block that apparently will not dissolve. My stream here will probably be broken soon anyway, so, so be it. CBK
LikeLike
It was clear to me from what Flerp and others were saying above that they didn’t get this context and its implications for the meaning of his statement. AND SO I CLARIFIED THIS.
LikeLike
Bob WRONG. You just jumped to your own conclusions. CBK
LikeLike
Asking me to consider whether I am actually, unbeknownst to my benighted, un-self-aware self, of my implicit bias against black people and other people of color is like asking me to rethink whether I am actually an avocado.
Idiotic ideology.
LikeLike
But clearly you know my heart, mind, soul much better than I do, NYC PSP. So please, go on. Explain to me what a terrible racist I actually am.
[face palm]
LikeLike
Yup. That is part of my delusion. My oft-repeated claim that I am the perfect antiracist. Boy, you really nailed it there, NYC.
ROFLMAO. I mean, seriously, there are comedy clubs that would pay for this stuff.
LikeLike
CBK,
Can you see how hopeless it is? We don’t always agree, and we write long posts (but not nearly as long as Bob’s), but I don’t recall us ever having this kind of conversation, where we simply dismiss whatever the other person says.
It’s clearly a waste of time. I have barely contributed (despite Bob invoking me) and I spent way too much time trying to explain that implicit racism is more complicated than Bob presents it. I know you have your own view, but I find it odd how quickly Bob keeps responding negatively – in multiple posts before you even get a chance to respond.
LikeLike
Bob, you’ve done a great job summarizing my misgivings about the way the concept of “implicit bias” is used today.
LikeLike
Were there world enough and time, I swear I would attempt a book on this subject. It’s fascinating but complex.
LikeLike
Did you guys know that the persecutors of Jews in Nazi Germany were not motivated by anti-Semitism or any of the lies that had been spread about Jews?
LikeLike
But that’s not what he said. He said it wasn’t because the persecutors were white, it was because of racism. That’s akin to saying that the persecutors of Jews didn’t do it because they were white, they did it because of anti-Semitism.
LikeLike
This is what I’m saying. There must be more to this than that statement. Because that statement is correct. Also, check out Herr Brozeit’s unhinged comments to me here on the topic.
LikeLike
EVERYONE I found the whole post quite misleading. When I read that first part of the post (paragraph 1 with quote marks, then 2/bold), I thought they were quoting Walters directly and (of course) thought: sheesh, how crazy can it get?
Then, after continuing to read, I realized it was, at least in part, ONION “satire;” so I re-read. But (with FLERP!s comments) I still thought it was very unclear, especially right at the beginning, where Walters’ actual quotes stopped and where the sarcasm started. It looks to me like an exercise in misleading, or at least an unforced error.
THEN, I quoted (here) that (accredited to Walters) on-the-mark statement, later in the piece, about the distinction between being white and being a racist who, in this case, happens to be white.
After reading the (somewhat nasty) remarks by GregB in response to FLERP!’s (I thought reasonable) question, I have to wonder if GregB actually read the piece . . . with his critical glasses on? What’s the situation, GregB? CBK
LikeLike
Greg-
Your defense of me in another thread is costing you in vitrol from CBK. She decided a tag team effort with Flerp was the way to go, after he wrote a criticism of me.
Students engaged in learning with you would have the best teacher possible. Communities are better because of views and knowledge like yours.
I like to think that those who read the comments make the right assessments with a few exceptions. I choose to believe that. And, I believe the arc of the road you are on
is the one that will make the nation a country where I would like my family to live.
LikeLike
He’s a pompous, self-regarding, horrible person, but I still like you, Linda, because you don’t make things personal, and because you can take a joke and even a jab or two.
LikeLike
FLERP Linda doesn’t make things personal. Ha ha ha ha ha!
I didn’t for a long time, until I stupidly thought I could coax her out of her habit using half-truths to cover her smearing and using inuendo, as only two fallacies in her logical fallacy closet. Great big silly me. CBK
LikeLike
Linda You’d be better not to judge me or others by your low-level horizon. CBK
LikeLike
Oh dear, you may be looking at your tag team partner in the rear view mirror.
LikeLike
Linda It’s about the truth of the argument . . .not who is “tag teaming.” That idea is so juvenile, . . . and unexpected, even for you.
Better not to judge my ways of discussing by your own. I should have thought that when I tried to talk you out of your own fascist methods and low-level discourse. What a waste of time and effort THAT was. Talk to Josh. that’s more “up” to the quality exhibited in your conversation. And I’m sorry I have had the time today to even open your notes. My bad. CBK
LikeLike
GregB No, I didn’t know that. But I do know that the persecutors of Jews in Nazi Germany were not motivated by being German. They WERE motivated by being anti-Semitic and by believing lies that were spread about Jews. My question is, what is keeping you and others here from grasping the essential distinction in the quote and discussion? CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
You think Hitler’s whole Greater Germany idea had nothing to do with their anti-Semitism? Aryan superiority had nothing to do with being a “real” German?
There was always anti-Semitism in Europe – in England and France. But to systematically use the powers of the state to annihilate men, women and children had everything to do with German/Aryan superiority. They were absolutely motivated by it. They wanted that German/Aryan culture cleansed of the Jews. I expect many Americans have unconscious biases towards Jews, but when those beliefs morph into “we need to rid the country of all Jews to keep it great”, that’s about embracing a myth of a superior race/religion that will be tainted.
LikeLike
NYC Many Jews considered themselves German . . . because they lived within the geographical borders for centuries and participated in State activities, like being in the pre-war military, and if my memory serves me rightly, they were considered citizens even by the State. (Probably Bob or others here can correct me there if I am wrong about citizenship.)
Certainly, I GET WHAT YOU MEAN by what “German” came to mean under Hitler. As a bias, and in our view of it, being “German” came to mean being “human,” whereas Jews, etc., came to mean sub-human. All that says, however, is how insidious political tribalism can be, even as substantially unhooked to religion . . . as is happening in our country now . . . our own brand of bias is on its way to becoming normative.
So, when we talk about being “German,” or anything, we have to understand what we mean by even that. But that’s exactly why assuming ALL are concretely (not abstractly) a part of the human race, before every other kind of identity (German, American, Indian, Asian, etc.,), is so important to us all . . . it’s a major political distinction that extends out to everything personal, moral, and cultural. It’s an idea that is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, and other ideas like FDR’s Four Freedoms or the Declaration of Independence or, in our time and for all its foibles, the United Nations and international courts.
It’s to everyone’s advantage, not to mention at the root of truth itself, to identify all with being human in the first place, and only secondly with bloodlines or geography, or group affiliations, or religion, whatever. (Where would Nazi Germany be with such ideas at their root?) And it’s not “either/or” but rather a dynamic and overlapping relationship between two sets of principles; and it’s what the sustained cultural revolution in human history is really all about. CBK
LikeLike
Oy vey!!!!! With clowns like this in education positions, we are in big trouble. These lying morons continue to get away with crap like this because they know that there are so many low-education dimwits out there buying their BS. All educators, or anyone who cares about truthful, accurate educational policies, must call them out loudly & often. The Righties’ long term efforts to dumb down America is slowly, but steadily working.
LikeLike
Too much social media and right wing tv shows aren’t helping either.
LikeLike
If the superintendent weighs in about the teaching of the history of the Indian Boarding Schools (last one closed in 1965), the public will have an understanding about Christian religious sects. The schools were run mostly by the government and two religious sects- Catholic and Anglican. There were many in Oklahoma. Native News reports that “even in government schools, there was Catholic influence.” The schools are currently in the news because children’s remains have been found on the school sites. The tribal leaders express a concern that churches are dragging their feet instead of being forthcoming with records.
A Memorandum of the Convention of Catholic Principals (1924)
“All true civilization must be based on moral law which Christian religion alone can give. ..Several people have desired us to countenance the dances of the Indians…but, their habits, being the result of free and easy mode of life, cannot conform to the intense struggle for life which our societal conditions require.” In the plains states, many Catholic families with many children’s mouths to feed were required to tithe income they could ill afford to the church. The opulence of those churches give witness.
There will eventually be acknowledgement that hiding American history is about protecting the churches.
LikeLike
NYC parent Implicit bias is recognizable in conversations and human activities and, yes, in the systematics of writ-large history (like government endorsed slavery?), but most importantly in our own interior dialogue. Self-reflection is probably the only way to expunge it and to stop modeling it to our children by the fact that forcing such thinking is known to be folly for us.
The very idea of “measuring” implicit bias, however, needs some severe work on oh-so-many levels, not the least of which is philosophical.
Not here, though; and BTW what would be the point of “measuring” it; or is that just a commonsensical term for trying to understand it and for recognizing its presence in others and in ourselves? CBK
LikeLike
CBK — to the extent you were addressing my comment above, the point of measuring implicit bias is that it would tell you whether it is actually a valid psychological concept. In other words, whether it exists as a phenomenon beyond the noble truism that we all must be careful not to judge books by their covers.
If someone is told that he has unconscious bias against a specific “group,” it is reasonable to ask whether that unconscious bias manifests itself in the real world. Does this person actually exhibit unfair bias in the way he treats people? That is ultimately the only question that matters. If some white guy (or black guy, or Hispanic guy) takes the Harvard implicit association test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) and is told that his performance indicates implicit bias against some group, but he doesn’t actually discriminate against members of that group, then who cares?
I know there has been research on this and my recollection is that the evidence that implicit bias can be reliably measured or is predictive of actual behavior is mixed at best. Note also that implicit bias is business.
LikeLike
FLERP I think today, “measure” is an unfortunate term.
But different words, same idea” “… whether that unconscious bias manifests itself” (me: in conversations and in actions) “in the real world. Does this person actually exhibit unfair bias in the way he treats people?” Thanks for the citation. CBK
LikeLike
I just took the Harvard implicit bias test. Apparently I am biased against white people.
LikeLike
FLERP! Wow. I didn’t know the Harvard test was out there. thanks for the link . . . I’ll take it! Be careful though, there be Catholics there. CBK
LikeLike
LMAO..
LikeLike
The very idea of “measuring” implicit bias, however, needs some severe work on oh-so-many levels, not the least of which is philosophical.
agreed
LikeLike
“Folks, I believe this is absolutely the greatest country in the history of the world. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.”
Folks, the idiot who made this statement has no clue of the other countries in the world. There may be no doubt in his mind as simple minds cannot allow room for doubt.
Those of us who have studied and lived in other countries know that his simplistic fantasy level of what America is has little to no basis in reality.
LikeLike
Folks, the idiot who made this statement has no clue about other countries in the world. . . . no basis in reality.
Absolutely right, Duane!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should be able to love the place you live without denying that others probably feel the same about their homelands. We just need to be good to each other. The greatest may make some people feel good, but it is at someone’s expense. Why do we have to do this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why indeed
LikeLike
The fantasy of the US is the streets are paved in gold. I love our ideals. I just wish we lived up to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Walters clearly states that he thinks critical race theory teaches that “race defines a person.” This is what he objects to. Odd for him to try that, given that the real CRT (not the thing modern detractors try to generalize about) is indeed based on the idea that mainstream America has defined various groups by race. Walters must surely know that African-Americans have been defined legally and socially by race for all of the history students will be taught.
For him to suggest that this attitude is attributable to CRT is just on more example of the Republican tendency to blame its negative attitudes on others. Obama caused the rising hostility between the races leading up to George Floyd. The poor are to Blame for being poor. It reminds me of the day when we would insult someone with a name-calling, and we would respond with “well, you another.”
Walters clearly wants to avoid the appearance of being a bigot, while still receiving support of the faction of his party that has not come down from that tree at this point.
LikeLike
Walters must surely know that African-Americans have been defined legally and socially by race for all of the history students will be taught.
He should, but his education is clearly sub par.
LikeLike
By the way and off topic (sorry), California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond for California governor in 2026! Looks like he’s going to run.
LikeLike
Republicans are already trying to head him off.
LikeLike
Tony Thurmond is a good guy.
LikeLike
A new low, even for Oklahoma.
LikeLike
I want to be clear about what I think Mr. Walters and other Republicans have been doing when they discuss teaching about race in K-12 schools. And in the process, I want to make clear in a way that isn’t made clear, typically, in discussions like those above, what Republicans like Mr. Walters are actually up to legislatively, in the courts, and in state education regulation and other mandates.
For a long time now, Republicans have been distraught because, as all the polls clearly show, on issue after issue, THEY HAVE LOST THE YOUNG PEOPLE of our country. I saw this firsthand as a high-school teacher, at the end of my career, in Southern Florida. Many of the parents of my students were quite racist. Their children, however, weren’t. They easily made friends and dated across racial lines. When those kids encountered racism, they reacted strongly in opposition to it. It infuriated them. This was really pleasantly surprising to me. I expected the kids not to have fallen far from the family tree.
Republicans think that such changes are due to indoctrination by teachers and due to multicultural curricula being used in schools. THEY ARE MISTAKEN. Anyone who actually knows anything about child psychology understands that by Middle School, the attitudes of kids’ peers are FAR MORE influential on their attitudes than are those of their parents or teachers or other external authorities. What is happening is NOT primarily or at all significantly about teachers indoctrinating kids but about A MAJOR AND MUCH BROADER CULTURAL SHIFT driven in large part by popular culture media. What do the folks in those television shows and movies and songs that kids care about think? What are kids learning from their media peers? Go watch Euphoria on HBO to find out. That series is pretty indicative of what’s going on the mass popular media culture generally. (I am, btw, a big advocate of academic Pop Culture Studies; I think you can learn a lot from these.) Kids today get into a text chat. Someone says something racist. The other kids all pile onto that person. They learn not to be racist via the most powerful means to that end–social sanction, positive or negative. There is, nationwide, a lot more of this kind of anti-racist social media interaction than there is fringe racist online stuff among incel boys in gaming or neo-Nazi communities online. It’s far more common but doesn’t generate headlines. This just in: Student named Chandra texts, “That’s racist, dude.”
We are seeing among young people pop culture-driven social change. Big time. With regard to a lot of issues–race, gender expression, Socialism–many more. Kids today don’t read a lot of books. But they read their peers’ viewpoints ALL THE TIME and those of their pop culture idols.
Republicans who want to hold onto their white supremacy and to raise up the next generation of white kids to be as racist as they are, have a problem. The anti-discrimination national legal framework since Brown prevents them from formulating laws and curricula that are blatantly, in-your-face racist, like Reconstruction-era Jim Crow Laws or the Nuremberg Race Laws of September 1935. It also prevents them from banning teaching about race. Current U.S. anti-discrimination law won’t let them do that. So, Republican racists have had to come up with a Plan B, and THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE MEDIA AND ON THIS BLOG SEEM TO BE MISSING:
The Republican Plan B has been to say that classroom instruction today about racism in our history or in our culture now IS ITSELF RACIST. The sneaky trick being played is to turn anti-discrimination law around and focus it on anti-discrimination instruction. This is breathtakingly ironic. Here’s how they have formulated that hat trick (I know, I am mixing my metaphor): Teaching about racism in American society and politics in the past and present is, they claim, teaching that these problems are about skin color–it’s blaming terrible events on skin color, which is itself racist and makes white kids feel bad. Therefore, it must stop.
In other words, they have tried to end instruction in accurate history about race in America by creating a Red Herring and writing it into law: you can’t have instruction that blames social problems on skin color and so makes white kids feel bad. This is meant to be an acceptable a stand-in for, “You can’t teach about race.” Here’s the truth: NO ONE SANE blames American racism on skin color. NO ONE SANE makes the ludicrous claim that whites are racist BECAUSE OF, IN VIRTUE OF, BEING WHITE. NO ONE SANE thinks that if you are born white, you are genetically determined to be a racist, that this is ineluctable, inevitable. IDIOTS think that. They don’t teach that WHITE IS BAD. That’s the Red Herring that is embodied in the speech-chilling legislation that Republicans have pushed around the country and that is parroted by Mr. Walters.
So, what do teachers who teach actual history about race in America ACTUALLY claim? Well, there are three claims:
1) that in the past and continuing into the present, racism was or is built into our political and social systems,
2) that in the past and in some milieux in the present, racism is taught to or otherwise transmitted to people when they are young, and
3) that both 1 and 2 are wrong, are antithetical to basic democratic principles like “all men are created equal.”
THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CLAIMS. THOSE ARE NOT CLAIMS THAT BEING WHITE IS BAD OR THAT BEING WHITE MEANS IPSO FACTO THAT ONE IS RACIST.
So that’s he Republican hat trick that needs to be called out, that I am calling out here: FALSELY claiming that accurate history and accurate teaching about current events related to race is teaching that white people are bad. Racist Republicans upset that the kids coming up aren’t racist like them understand that making his equivocal, false claim has the salutary effect of chilling classroom thought and speech about race. Teachers and administrators, these days, are constantly worried about keeping their jobs. So, they would rather quash instruction in real history than have bunches of moronic parents show up to the next school board meeting screaming about CRT and making little white Johnny feel bad.
It’s a really sneaky and subtle bit of equivocation that lies about what is actually going on and turns antiracism back on itself. And its purpose is to stop instruction in actual history and to promote teaching of history and current events that is whitewashed and mythologized. That’s part of the greater attempt to turn back the clock on the social change instantiated in this generation of young people. Don’t say gay laws are another.
LikeLike
And those who go on and on about implicit bias and white people being necessarily racist simply PROVIDE THE REPUBLICAN REACTIONARIES WITH THE VERY TOOL THAT THEY ARE USING TO COMBAT TEACHING OF ACCURATE HISTORY.
That needs to stop. Like, NOW. As they kids say.
LikeLike
Nope, the kids would never say to stop talking about implicit bias. It is just the opposite. My kid is the one who made me realize some of my own implicit biases and also helped me understand that acknowledging them is a good thing that helps you be less racist, not proof that you are a bad person.
LikeLike
I was referring, NYC, to the phrase “Like, NOW,” which is a phrase that high-school kids use. There are young people now who believe, because they have read Abraham Kendri or someone else, that to be white is to have implicit bias and therefore inherently racist. And unfortunately, this idiotic characterization of affairs provides people like Ron DeSantis with the very weapon that they use to try to prevent accurate teaching about race. They write legislation that says, you can’t teach that being of a particular race is inherently bad, and you can’t teach about race in a way that makes white kids feel bad about being white. In other words, they are characterizing all reaching about race in America as teaching that race inheres in skin color. They are accusing teachers, by virtue of any antiracism instruction, of being racist against whites. And people who make this “all whites are racist because of implicit bias” argument HAVE DELIVERED THAT WEAPON AGAINST ACCURATE HISTORY into the hands of DeSantis, Abbott, Walters, et al. That’s the argument that Walters was making in the original post to which we are all responding.
LikeLike
Bob I think you might be responding to that satirical beginning bolded paragraph which, though it had quotation marks in the body of it, later in the note was identified as SATIRE. . . but even that identity was confusing.
The later Walters’ quote (also with quote marks around it) was quite different and not identified as satire. But I doubt I’ll get any more notes here at all. . . as soon as my new filter clicks in. My guess, in a cooler mode, is that you are going with some older arguments and ideas and not paying much attention to the notes here.
But frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn . . . at this stage. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, I just gave you the actual quotation from Walters, a transcript of the audience member’s question and of his response.
LikeLike
It was unfortunate that the Onion article was included in that piece, but that is NOT what I responded to. Again, you have misread what I said. I QUOTED WALTERS TO YOU JUST NOW, exactly what he said, and then I explained how what he said is related to the general way in which Repugicans have been trying to stop teaching racism around the country. Please go back and read carefully this time.
LikeLike
Nope. I quoted exactly what Walters said to Flerp near the beginning of this thread. I just quoted it to you again. I wish that you would actually read what I say rather than respond to some notion you have of what I might have said, which is almost always something entirely different, LOL.
LikeLike
Bob, I also want to add that aside from our very strong disagreement on the last part, your entire long comment above at 5:37am was brilliant and insightful. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, NYC, for saying so.
LikeLike
“I wish that you would actually read what I say rather than respond to some notion you have of what I might have said, which is almost always something entirely different, LOL.”
Bob, I wish you could do this when it comes to your knee jerk rejection of implicit bias. I have noticed when you say it exists, you seem to exclude a lot of admirable white people from having any. I may be wrong, but I thought I recalled Diane Ravitch talking about getting insight about her own implicit biases. That’s an admirable thing. I can’t imagine Diane Ravitch saying that she already is certain she has no implicit bias and case closed, no need for her to ever reflect on that subject again. I don’t think it is possible to be total free of implicit bias but it is certainly possible to be aware of our own implicit biases to mitigate their effect on how we think and how we act.
LikeLike
NYC. I am the artist of myself. I decide what I am, for good or ill. I try to be self-reflective. I have long been so about matters related to race. I do not remember a time when I thought that white people were somehow superior. I think that a ludicrous notion. I loathe that idea as much as it is possible to loath an idea, and I loathe the people who promulgate it. End of story.
Don’t imagine that you know my heart and soul better than I do. That’s breathtaking presumption.
LikeLike
“I do not remember a time when I thought that white people were somehow superior.”
Neither did I. So what?
Do you remember a time when you watched a movie and didn’t notice some casual racism in it that, when you watch it now, is evident to you? Or casual sexism?
I do not remember a time when I thought white people were somehow superior. I do not remember a time when I thought men were somehow superior.
I do remember a time when I watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s and was completely oblivious to how offensive Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of an Asian man was.
I do remember a time when I watched Love, Actually and was oblivious to how casually sexist some of the relationships between men and women were.
I do remember a time when I watched Billy Crystal in Blackface and was oblivious to why anyone who was Black would find it offensive.
Since I never thought Asian or Black people were inferior, and I didn’t think women were inferior, does that mean that my not noticing that there was anything racist or sexist in those portrayals has nothing to do with implicit biases I had?
Never mind. Nothing I say will change your view of implicit bias. If we loathe the idea of white supremacy or that whites are superior to anyone else, there is no need to consider any biases we have because we know our own hearts and we don’t have any.
LikeLike
Well, I must say that I am astonished that those things did not bother you before, NYC.
LikeLike
It so important to me to have you around to explain me to me, NYC. Gosh. So grateful here.
LikeLike
Comrades, I come before you today in humble and abject apology and pleading for rectification, having recognized that I have Bourgeois thoughts that I wasn’t aware of thinking because they were implicit all this time, hiding beneath my awareness–thoughts that I didn’t think and so have just become aware of. I humbly shall accept, of course, whatever rectification or punishment is fit for a vile creature such as me who has thought the most terrible things without thinking them.
ROFL
LikeLike
Bob,
I find it hard to believe that your view of what is sexist and racist has remained exactly the same since 1970. But kudos to you — unlike the rest of us, your life experience over the proceeding decades did not make you any less racist or sexist because from a young age, you already had no biases at all and always noticed how offensive so many of the non-white or female characters were presented. Your view of what is racist and sexist is exactly the same as it was in 1970. It hasn’t changed one iota at all.
Maybe that’s not what you are saying, but it certainly sounds like that since you have made a wholesale rejection of the possibility that you ever had any implicit biases.
LikeLike
Again, so, so grateful to you, comrade, for explaining me to me. What a gift!
LikeLike
Many years ago, back in the 1970s, a girlfriend of mine went off to Hamburg to study and came back radicalized. I remember as though it were yesterday a conversation we had. She came back with the notion that it was just fine for them to shoot capitalist captains of industry at random and that all white people were implicitly biased against black people. I had the same argument with her. But as I said repeatedly above, explaining the reasons why I reject the widespread conceptualizations of implicit bias would require a book, for it depends on many factors, levels of subconscious cognitive processing, free will versus determinism, the free won’t, sloppiness of research methods and hastiness of interpretations of data in the social sciences in general and in psychology in particular, theories of moral responsibility, and much, much more.
I’m glad that you care about implicit bias. I’m glad you oppose racism. Now let’s not place weapons in the hands of the likes of DeSantis and Abbott and Walters that they will use to shut down the teaching of accurate history.
LikeLike
I never said that my views are the same as they were in 1970. I never said that I have never had any implicit biases about anything. I did say that I am not biased against people of color. This is not difficult to grok, NYC.
LikeLike
Struggle session in progress.
LikeLike
Multiple flame wars simultaneously, as in Canada and the Northern US generally due to the global warming that is entirely a hoax according to one American political party.
LikeLike
FLERP!
July 15, 2023 at 7:58 am
Struggle session in progress.
Flerp!, thanks for another flerp!-like contribution to the conversation. Even when we disagree, I know I can always count on you to offer a comment like this one that you seem to believe helps illuminate the subject being discussed and is never intended to provoke. It also gives a lot of insight into what is important to you. Please do continue to make comments that help us understand why you are here and what you value.
I find it interesting that you are mystified and confused as to why your comments would ever provoke a thoughtful, caring person like GregB to say intemperate things to you. GregB spends a lot of effort to write long comments that have illuminated a lot of issues for all of us. I actually can recall a handful of times over the years you have done the same, but those times are rare, while this kind of comment is far more typical. So unnecessary. So unkind. I respect Bob, but we disagree strongly on an issue where you and Bob are kindred spirits. I have read comments by you where you also declare yourself free of any implicit racism, although maybe you have changed your mind about that. So I do have some insight as to why two people like you and Bob would feel like kindred spirits.
LikeLike
You are exactly the sort of personality that would participate or even lead a struggle session on implicit racism. Is that clear enough for you?
Lol. Greg Brozeit tells people to kill themselves and then threatens them with absolute seriousness. Multiple times. You not only ignore it as you have ignored it in the past. You actively defend it. Poor Greg was provoked! He just cares so much about democracy! Indeed, he cares so much, how could he be expected not to threaten people when “provoked”?
Just terrible, hateful people.
LikeLike
Here is that breathtaking evocation of the Struggle Sessions that, among other things, like looting people’s homes to find and destroy Western books and music and art, that characterized the Cultural Revolution.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The whole three-volume trilogy by Liu Cixin is magnificent. Highly recommended.
LikeLike
The piece by Liu Cixin powerfully evokes the brutality of the Struggle Sessions, but for a more detailed look at how they depended upon accusing people of implicit bias, see Edvard Radzinsky treatment of the persecution of the old Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev by Stalin. Stalin reveled in cruelty, in holding out hope, eliciting confessions, dashing the hope, and then rinsing and repeating until his victim was utterly insane. Orwell caught this perfectly in 1984 when O’Brian explains to Winston that the party first renders someone completely subject and harmless and then, having utterly crushed any possibility of opposition in him or her, puts a bullet through the person’s head.
But I did nothing wrong!
Only a reactionary counterrevolutionary running dog would deny his or her implicit bias! Do you confess?
But I don’t, . . .
You lie, pig!
LikeLike
The fact that both of you falsely equate someone trying to have a discussion about implicit bias with the forced confessions of the Cultural Revolution says it all.
Young people who grew up and embrace the multicultural society and have friends and relationships across racial and ethnic lines are quite skeptical when a white person announces “I am absolutely free of any implicit bias due to race, and although I might have some implicit biases, I have none about race.”
Young people who oppose racism understand that implicit bias is “bias felt by someone or influencing them without them being aware of it”. Young people rarely claim they are above having any implicit bias. They understand that the point of being an antiracist is to consider their own biases that are unconscious.
FLERP!, you seemed to agree on July 13:
“FLERP!
July 13, 2023 at 5:15 pm
I think most of us understand that it is human nature to have preconceived ideas and assumptions, and that part of being a smart and conscientious person involves trying to identify and challenge those preconceived ideas and assumptions. Certain there are various identity-based notions that fit into that bucket.
That said — and realizing that I probably will be called a bigot for asking this question — what evidence is there (1) that “implicit bias” exists in any measurable form and (2) that, assuming implicit bias exists in some measurable form, it corresponds to actual bias in the real-world?”
FLERP! says: “part of being a smart and conscientious person involves trying to identify and challenge those preconceived ideas and assumptions.”
BINGO. But why would anyone who ALREADY knows that every idea and assumption they have cannot have any bias when it comes to race (because a person who has no implicit bias about race — themselves! — is having that thought) ever do that, no matter how smart and conscientious they are.
They ALREADY KNOW that every assumption and thought they have is absolutely free of any bias regarding race because that thought was had by a person they already know has no implicit bias. Themselves.
Talk about Orwellian.
Regarding the second part of FLERP!’s quote above, that is the real “RED HERRING”.
FLERP! says: “what evidence is there (1) that “implicit bias” exists in any measurable form”
Why does bias need to be “measured”? It’s a phony, dishonest requirement. I grew up learning about antisemitism but no one tried to “measure” the implicit bias that Gregory Peck experienced in the movie “Gentleman’s Agreement”. No one said it isn’t bias unless it can be measured. No one said that someone who says they are free of antisemitism and just never noticed that their club never admitted any Jews (and were telling the truth about not noticing) is free of bias. Because it was their implicit bias that was the reason that they didn’t notice that the club they belonged to had no Jews, or just a few token Jews.
What harm, someone like flerp! would ask. What harm if a Jew can’t join a club? Have we measured the harm? If there’s no harm, how DARE anyone try to mention implicit bias. Do you want Christian people to feel like they are antisemites? What is wrong with those Jews and those who aren’t Jewish who are willing to acknowledge that we all have implicit biases for teaching Christian kids that we all have implicit biases and – as FLERP! said – “part of being a smart and conscientious person involves trying to identify and challenge those preconceived ideas and assumptions.”
You can substitute any ethnic group or race. There is implicit bias against Asians and Muslims. If teachers are normalizing to students that if they really feel certain they have no implicit biases, they should feel free to go on the attack whenever someone challenges any assumptions or beliefs they have, how is that good? How is it good to blame the EXPLICIT racism and antisemitism and biases of the far right that has taken over the Republican party on the people who are trying to make us aware of the implicit biases we all have so we can challenge ourselves to do better?
LikeLike
The answer, NYC, to your question is Russell’s thought experiment about the teapot. Your implicit biases against black folks that all white folks have by virtue of being white is precisely analogous to Russell’s teapot. It’s an unfeasible and therefore utterly unscientific claim, like the claim that a wafer turns into the body of Christ or that Socrates had a headache on the morning of the first day of 300 BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
LikeLike
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
LikeLike
–Bertrand Russell
LikeLike
Note that you did not offer any refutation of the analogy to the implicit racial bias business to implicit reactionary/Western bias in the Cultural Revolution Struggle sessions is telling. All you could do is say that the analogy appalled you. Here’s why: the analogy is quite precise. PRECISELY the same irrational claim, the same fallacy of unverifiability. Same likely consequences of acting on such an irrational claim.
LikeLike
How is it good to blame the EXPLICIT racism and antisemitism and biases of the far right that has taken over the Republican party on the people who are trying to make us aware of the implicit biases we all have so we can challenge ourselves to do better?
OK. I will spell this out again very slowly and carefully. All across the country, Republicans have recently passed legislation worded in such a away as to impute anti-white discrimination, or racism, to teachers of accurate U.S. racial history. And Mr. Walters, as DeSantis and Gaetz and Abbott and other extremist Republicans have done, they have claimed that any teaching about race = teaching that white people are bad.
If people make the claim that if you are white, you necessarily harbor implicit bias against people of color–in other words, that if you are white, you are racist–they are making the very claim that the Republican reactionaries are imputing to those of us who teach antiracism.
If that is too difficult to understand, I give up. I think I was quite clear.
LikeLike
OK, one more attempt to be even clearer.
The Republicans are making the claim that those who teach about racism are accusing all whites, including little white Johnny or Jill in the classroom, of being racists.
And implicit bias theorists are in fact accusing all whites, including little Johnny or Jill in the classroom, of being racist.
So, IT’S PRECISELY THE SAME TERRIBLE REASONING.
LikeLike
^^^And please, if both of you are going to reply with multiple lengthy tomes full of snark and attacks comparing what I said to the cultural revolution, while making offensive personal attacks that you believe demonstrate both your superior intellects, don’t bother.
Let’s just agree to disagree. It’s a waste to write multiple 8000 word posts complaining that my comments are too long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess that we can’t all have your exalted purity, NYC.
LikeLike
It’s pretty simple. If something cannot be measured, how do you know it exists? (Answer: you don’t.)
Why are you convinced that all white people are implicitly/unconsciously biased against black people?
LikeLike
NYC’s usual MO is to make a claim, vigorously defend in in endless posts, and then, once it’s clear that it makes no sense, back off and claim that she didn’t say that. For instance, he or she went on and on about how Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird is a “white savior,” and so the book should be removed from the curriculum and replaced. Then, after learning that Atticus saves no one and cannot, he or she claimed never to have said that. And after having made the claim numerous times that all white people have implicit biases against people of color and are therefore racist, he or she now claims that just the first part is so. But how one can be biased against people of color and not be a racist is beyond me. It’s another attempt to save an absolutely indefensible position.
But who knows, perhaps NYC PSP has a special seer’s stone.
When I think of all the white folks who have joined with their brothers and sisters among black and brown folks and fought the hard fight against racism, of all those who actually gave their lives in this struggle, this smear of everyone just angers me. It’s so ignorant and stupid and vile.
LikeLike
and wrong, profoundly wrong, in the various senses of that word
LikeLike
And presumptuous
LikeLike
Bob,
You keep misstating my views on TKAM. Way back I mentioned white savior in a larger context, and you immediately jumped on it, and when I responded that your interpretation wasn’t what I intended to say, and accepted all responsibility for not writing more coherently in the comment where I used that phrase, and then tried to CLARIFY my point, you accused me of “walking back”. What is wrong with you?
Bob says ” this smear of everyone”
SMEAR??!!!
That explains a lot. You think that acknowledging implicit bias is a “smear”. It isn’t. Ask any young person.
“When I think of all the white folks who have joined with their brothers and sisters among black and brown folks and fought the hard fight against racism, of all those who actually gave their lives in this struggle, this smear of everyone just angers me. It’s so ignorant and stupid and vile.”
It isn’t a SMEAR. It is simply recognizing that humans can be complicated. Abraham Lincoln isn’t “smeared” just because we teach that some of his beliefs were implicit racist. The founders of the US aren’t “smeared” because we teach that some of their beliefs are implicitly racist. That’s the right wing view. That acknowledging the implicit biases we have is a “smear”. Instead of the way that we can become less biased.
Do you teach your students that Atticus Finch, who has “fought the hard fight against racism” doesn’t have one iota of implicit bias regarding race? Do you flunk your students for suggesting such a thing? Or do you do what you did to me and just attack and belittle them because as a man without an iota of implicit bias about race yourself, you know that any student who didn’t shut up and accept your opinion must be an idiot?
Do you teach your students that Harper Lee had no implicit bias about race? That she merely portrayed the Black characters the way she did because it is impossible to demonstrate that Black people in the south had no agency AND also have Black characters that have thoughts and feelings that are worth knowing? Wouldn’t want to read a book that did both, because here is this white woman who has so much insight into how white people felt about EXPLICIT racism and virtually none about how Black people felt about it. Because it is absolutely necessary that teens in 2023 understand how white people in the south felt about EXPLICIT racism 75+ years ago.
I never said TKAM should be banned. I said there were valid criticisms to be made about a book written in a very different time. That today’s teens already understand the HUMANITY of people of other races and they didn’t learn it because they read a book about how a white family thinks about Black folks in their town.
I am not “smearing” myself when I say I believe I have implicit biases and so I try to be conscious if someone points out that something I casually say, like “we weren’t racist because we saw nothing wrong with watching Billy Crystal” is actually implicitly racist. Something isn’t racist just because the person who does or say it INTENDS it to be racist. But the expectation for those of us who aren’t already certain they have no implicit biases is to LISTEN. Instead of being defensive because any mention that they might have an implicit bias is a “smear”.
LikeLike
Ask any young person.
Now you are not only an expert on my internal life but on young people generally. Quite the accomplishment NYC!
LikeLike
Bob, I read your comment above and you are still so defensive. Admitting you have implicit biases DOES NOT MAKE YOU BAD.
It doesn’t SMEAR you.
It doesn’t SMEAR a famous author from 75+ years ago or SMEAR Abraham Lincoln to acknowledge those biases.
It doesn’t SMEAR people who fought for civil rights to acknowledge those biases.
Because they aren’t BAD because they acknowledged them. Or because they had them.
LikeLike
I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you. Not about TKAM, which you clearly know nothing about. And not about implicit bias, which is utterly misused by you and others for all the reasons listed above that you clearly did not understand. ENOUGH.
LikeLike
cx: an unfalsifiable claim
LikeLike
Lincoln didn’t have biases, btw. He was a full-blown racist. You would know this if you had actually studied his works.
LikeLike
Meaning, that he wasn’t just a little biased and so a little racist. He was a full-blown white supremacist. He literally believed that black people were inferior to white people. Horrific. Common in his day, but that doesn’t excuse it.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” –Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, 1858
LikeLike
You clearly have not thought for two seconds about any one of the 20 or so arguments given, above, against this idiotic pop culture implicit bias argument THAT SO COMPLETELY SERVES THE PURPOSES OF REPUBLICAN RACISTS LIKE WALTERS AND DESANTIS.
LikeLike
I’m beginning to think that you do not understand what an argument, what reasoning about the arguments for and against a proposition, entails. It is not simply repeating your position over and over again.
LikeLike
I am not defensive. I LOATHE the all whites have implicit bias argument. I emphatically reject it on the twenty or so different grounds that I and Flerp have put forward above. I think it utterly stupid and unscientific and indefensible and divisive and dangerous. Extremely dangerous.
And it’s not surprising to me that it is attractive to some very young and very naive people. So is Ayn Rand.
LikeLike
This defensiveness claim comes straight out of your unwavering ideology. I must be acting from defensiveness because I must be implicitly biased against POC.
Idiocy.
LikeLike
Bob says: “I must be acting from defensiveness because I must be implicitly biased against POC.”
I have said repeatedly that your constant use of the word “smear” demonstrates that you are acting defensively because you believe that any consideration that any of your own thoughts could ever demonstrate any implicit bias based on race makes you a bad person. It doesn’t.
Harper Lee wrote a moving and wonderful novel about life in the south a long time ago that gave readers insight into how harmful and terrible explicit racism is. But doesn’t mean she had no implicit biases regarding race. I wonder if she would be one of the first to acknowledge them instead of rejecting the idea?
“I LOATHE the all whites have implicit bias argument. I emphatically reject it on the twenty or so different grounds that I and Flerp have put forward above. I think it utterly stupid and unscientific and indefensible and divisive and dangerous. Extremely dangerous.”
It isn’t just white people who have implicit bias. If you read some of the authors you and flerp! seem to dislike, you would see that they acknowledge their own implicit biases.
IT ISN’T A SMEAR. Young people you disparage aren’t “smearing” themselves by acknowledging they all have implicit biases. They are simply trying to be aware of assumptions they never thought about before, because that helps make the world better.
LikeLike
My constant use of the word smear? I used it once, in a specific context. And not the one that you are imputing to me. Aie yie yie. Learn to read.
LikeLike
That’s so well said that I’ll repeat it:
“I LOATHE the” all whites have implicit” bias argument. I emphatically reject it on the twenty or so different grounds that I and Flerp have put forward above, NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE BOTHERED TO THINK ABOUT AT ALL, MUCH LESS DIGEST, JUST AS YOU DIDN”T BOTHER TO READ TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD AND TO LEARN ABOUT HOW IT IS USED AND WHAT THE CONSEQUINCES OF THAT USE ARE BEFORE CONSIDERING YOURSELF A FREAKING EXPERT AND PONTIFICATING IDIOTICALLY AND POINTLESSLY FROM AN ENTIRELY IMAGINED MORAL HIGH GROUND ABOUT IT AD NAUSEAM. I think the “all whites are implicitly biased and therefore racist” argument utterly stupid and unscientific and indefensible and divisive and impudent and dangerous. Extremely dangerous.”
LikeLike
OMG. Finally, I’ve had a breakthrough!!! I FINALLY SEE what you are saying, NYC! It just occurred to me that I am really an alien from Gleise 667 Cc! This was entirely implicit before, but now, I can see it. I can really see it. I was just defensively hiding the fact that I’m really an extraterrestrial. Who would have known?
LikeLike
I couldn’t tell all these years because it was implicit. I should have listened to that little voice in my dreams saying, “Phone home.”
Gosh, thanks NYC!
LikeLike
I am glad that you have retroactively revised your position on TKAM. Your old view goes down the Orwellian Memory Hole. LOL. But you still don’t have a freaking clue how valuable this book has been and STILL IS in the fight against racism in America. It’s major reason why we have made the progress with kids that we have and a major reason why the white supremacist Repugnicans are blaming things on teachers. They hate that we have been so successful using that, among other, texts to teach the mechanisms and consequences of racism.
LikeLike
then an aggressive encounter with a Black person has nothing to do with implicit bias?
Are you being purposefully dense? Both Flerp and I have argued that what matters is what people profess and what they do. This (having an aggressive encounter with a black person) is an example of what he does. It is not an example of “implicit racism.” It is an example of racism, period. It is overt and explicit.
LikeLike
“You keep citing some measurement which is of course impossible.”
Listen to yourself. Youa re advocating acting based on IMAGININGS, based on things that are NOT KNOWN.
I’ve sorry, but that is not even a little short of moronic. OBVIOUSLY, based on observations and stats (arrest rates by race, for example) one should do careful screen and establish clear sanctions against racist activity. Duh. BUT BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS, not on imagined, imputed, hidden bias, which is not falsifiable and thus not empirical or scientific, certainly not anything that would be presentable in a court as evidence, because it isn’t. It’s just idiots deciding that they have attained some imagined moral high ground, just like the freaking Maoist Red Guard.
LikeLike
“you still don’t have a freaking clue how valuable this book has been and STILL IS in the fight against racism in America. It’s major reason why we have made the progress with kids that we have and a major reason why the white supremacist Repugnicans are blaming things on teachers. They hate that we have been so successful using that, among other, texts to teach the mechanisms and consequences of racism.”
Bob, are you talking about 1970 or 2023?
I am going out on a limb that I am sure you will attack, but I think the reason today’s young people are far less racist than their parents who ALSO read TKAM! in school – I repeat, all the Trump voters who are middle aged read TKAM – is not because of some magical power of TKAM but because the students in 2020 and 2023 were reading books by non-white authors that showed the humanity of people of other races and ethnic backgrounds FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE!
Their parents read TKAM, a book that taught them what racism is EXCLUSIVELY from the perspective of a white person.
Can you not even see how it is implicitly racist to give a book by a white author some special power in 2023 that apparently didn’t work too well in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s but suddenly started working on younger students?
Why not consider that the reason that younger people are less racist NOW than their parents might be because the curriculum got expanded to help them understand racism from the perspective of people other than a non-white family? Not because of some magical power of TKAM that didn’t work on their parents.
LikeLike
NYC. I have spent decades working in curricula in the U.S. I have met with thousands of English teachers. I have heard or read enormous numbers of reports on using TKAM. I myself have taught TKAM for several years in mixed race classrooms. YOU ON THE OTHER HAND WRITE FROM A PLACE OF UTTER IGNORANCE OF THIS, of the book and of its actual use and value in classrooms. You clearly understand NOTHING about this book our how it works. It’s an extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism. BTW, did you finally get around to reading it after I called you out for going on and on about a book that you hadn’t even read?
LikeLike
I have explained to you ad nauseam why this book works so particularly well. You clearly did not understand or bother to understand any of what I explained to you. And you clearly did not grok that this is only ONE book in what is now a heavily mutlicultural curriculum nationwide, one that I helped, to a large extent, btw, to make into a multicultural curriculum by choosing selections for literature textbooks and writing and editing textbooks on African-American literature. You are writing about a subject you know almost completely nothing about. It’s as though you were going on and on about quantum electrodynamics or Enowning in Heidegger.
LikeLike
TKAM, AGAIN, is an unique book because of how it is structured.
It has two parallel plotlines. One deals with prejudice against the black character who has been arrested for rape. One deals with prejudice against the reclusive Boo Radley. The reader identifies with Scout, who FALLS INTO this prejudice against Boo, so the reader FALLS WITH the protagonist. And then the protagonist AND THE READER WHO HAS IDENTIFIED WITH THAT PROTAGONIST realizes how wrong she was and, in the process, LEARNS HOW PREJUDICE WORKS. Furthermore, the book is at a PERFECT READING LEVEL for intro high-school kids AND is engrossing to them. SO, in hundreds of thousands of classrooms, it HAS BEEN AND IS BEING used incredibly successfully to teach antiracism, and you, DEAR NYC, are entirely freaking clueless about what a unique treasure this is.
Furthermore, it is utterly boorish and uncultured in an adult, though one might expect this from an ignorant child, to imagine that just because a book is older, it isn’t still incredibly valuable. There are reasons why it is A CLASSIC, a part of the canon. It did not become part of the canon because it was mandated. It became part of the canon AND CONTINUES TO BE because IT FREAKING WORKS IN THE CLASSROOM. How to I get that through your head?
And tell me, do you also, in your ideological purity and ultramodern wisdom thing that we should eliminate Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 or Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnet 14 from the curriculum because there are so many better love songs now being written by, I don’t know, throw a stick at the pop charts, because you have made that argument repeatedly.
Your argument about the parents versus the children doesn’t fly, NYC. Yes, the book has been in the curriculum for a long while now. It is still used in almost every high school. But casual racism was deeply ingrained here and still is in may parts of the country. It has taken time to work the magic. But it ahs been worked, and English teachers know that TKAM has been a big part of that EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RELEVANT EXPEREINCE OR KNOWLEDGE despite your going on and on about this. Again, you might as well be writing about nominalization in Xhosa. You know as much about that as you do about the teaching of TKAM, which is NOTHING. NADA.
LikeLike
Bob says: “this is only ONE book in what is now a heavily multicultural curriculum nationwide”
And yet YOU are the one who credits that one book with some magical power and raise it above all.
You present it as a flawless, perfect antiracist book, which is the way it was taught for all those decades to the parents of your students. And yet it didn’t seem to influence them to be antiracist. Why is it so wrong to assume that it was the multicultural curriculum that made the biggest difference, not a book about explicit racism from a white perspective written in 1960 about southern life decades earlier, that was the same book their parents had read?
By the way, I want to point out that YOU linked to article where “white savior” was mentioned and then you claimed your link was for some other reason. It was clear to me that you did not even read or consider the criticism at all.
I no longer want to discuss TKAM. But I do think that some future generation will be stunned that it was held up in 2023 as the one perfect antiracist book and given some magical power that more likely has to do with the recent expansion of the curriculum to be more multicultural. And not some magical power contained in the very same book that had been read in schools for some 60 years.
I watched a video on implicit bias during jury duty. I probably missed the disclaimer about how some people don’t have any implicit bias at all about race (or anything else) and if you believe that is you, no need to watch.
LikeLike
NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONE BOOK. IN FACT, I SAID PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE, THAT IT IS ONE TOOL IN WHAT IS NOW A HEAVILY MUTLICULTURAL CURRICULUM. How many tables of contents of literature anthologies for students have you examined in the last 20 years, NYC?
Well, I have examined ALMOST ALL OF THEM, every toc in every book in every textbook series on literature published in the U.S.
SO I KNOW WHAT I AM FREAKING TALKING ABOUT.
LikeLike
The one perfect book
THAT IS JUST MORONIC. NO ONE EVER SAID THAT.
Stop writing about matters you are entirely ignorant of. Seriously.
LikeLike
You literally have no notion what you are talking about. You have zero relevant experience. You haven’t been there to see how the teaching of this book NOW, TODAY, makes kids antiracist. YOU R CLUELESSNESS IS MATCHED ONLY BY THE DEGREE WITH WHTICH YOU ARE UNRELENTING IN THAT CLUELESSNESS.
LikeLike
What idiot would ever say of any work done by a human that it was flawless? Is A King Lear flawless? It is a magnificent play. Flawlessness exists in the overheated imaginations of theologians.
WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT IN THE CRUCIBLE OF ACTUAL CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE, ENGLISH TEACHERS HAVE FOUND TKAM TO BE AN INVALUABLE AND BREATHTAKINGLY SUCCESSFUL TOOL FOR TEACHING THE MECHANISMS AND DANGERS OF PREJUDICE. And because it was chosen in the crucible of actual classroom experience instead of mandated by the RACIAL PURITY THOUGHT POLICE headed by NYC PSP, it is extraordinarily valuable, and replacing it, as you have called for over and over and over and over and over and over and freaking over again would be a terrible mistake.
LikeLike
I don’t want it banned. I jsut want it dropped from the curriculum and replaced. Not used. But that’s not banning. LOL. That’s NOT AT ALL what the freaking MOMS FOR LIBERTY do every damned day in America now.
School Board Member: So you want us to ban The Grapes of Wrath because it contains sex?
MOM FOR LIBERTY: Are you saying that this is the Perfect Book, the one perfect book? Are you accusing me of wanting to ban it? I am just saying that some future generation will be stunned that it was held up in 2023 as the one perfect anti-exploitation book and given some magical power.
BTW, TKAM, here’s how a book comes to be canonical.: BECAUSE IT HAS FREAKING MAGICAL POWER.
LikeLike
To you get, from that example, how ridiculous you sound?
LikeLike
Of course you don’t. But my prayer is that others will read this exchange and understand why it is so freaking stupid and dangerous to willy-nilly, for capricious and ill-thought-out reasons, go meddling in what English teachers have found that works. That’s an extremely important lesson.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd
July 17, 2023 at 4:42 pm
“It’s an extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism.”
Bob means that TKAM is an extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism in 2023.
That might have been true in 1980 or 1990. But Bob, the fact that you are still making that claim in 2023, when our understanding of being antiracist is more complex, is my point.
I wish TKAM was taught as just a good work of literature that was a rare and perfect tool for teaching about racism in the 1970s and 80s and maybe the 1990s. Because in 2023, calling TKAM as “extremely rare and perfect” when it comes to teaching racism belittles the books written by Black authors that have given today’s young people JUST AS GOOD – if not more relevant to 2023 – understanding of racism.
I’d say check your biases, but I already know you have none when it comes to race.
LikeLike
that something works perfectly for some purpose does not mean that it is itself perfect in all ways or the one and only. Naptha works perfectly to remove glue. Other things do to. Is it absolutely perfect in all ways? Well, that’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
hat might have been true in 1980 or 1990
Again, you are talking about something you know NOTHING about. I JUST a month or so ago had a long talk with my friend Dan who had just finished teaching TKAM to his mix-race 9th graders. Dan, who is young and brilliant and extremely progressive, couldn’t stop raving about how successful this book was with his classes.
LikeLike
You are a piece of work, NYC. You know that everyone else has terrible hidden biases and is deluding themselves if they think that they are not racist. You know that TKAM needs to be replaced int he curriculum even though you have never freaking seen it taught. Tell me, what is your take on proof of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture? I AM CERTAIN that you know as much about that as you do about teaching TKAM and its place in the curriculum.
And your notion that TKAM should be replaced because it was written some time ago is simply boorish, vulgar and vulgarian, shockingly coarse, crass, tasteless, uncultured. Again, there are reasons why this work is canonical and why English teachers swear by it, ones that you have NO FREAKING CLUE ABOUT. So stop writing about matters you know nothing about.
LikeLike
“What idiot would ever say of any work done by a human that it was flawless?”
The phone call was perfect.
LikeLike
HAAAA!!!!
LikeLike
I’m now being told it’s “incredibly weird” that I “don’t want to give an opinion about [an] implicit bias video” that I have never seen to a woman who mischaracterizes everything that is said to her.
LikeLike
Bob,
Teaching about prejudice is important, and I agree with you that TKAM does that. I agree with you that is a good thing.
That still doesn’t make TKAM an extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism in 2023.
As a parent, I am mystified about why it is so impossible to acknowledge TKAM’s flaws as a “perfect antiracist tool”. Rather than responding to criticism and considering whether that characterization is warranted in 2023, it’s just repeating ad nauseam that TKAM is an extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism in 2023 and anyone who challenges that view must be censored and banned.
LikeLike
I am deeply committed philosophically to going with what works. What has proven itself and continues to prove itself in the crucible of practical experience on the ground. That’s why Common Law is superior to Statutory Law. That’s why centralized economic planning (example, Stalin’s collectivization; the Russian five-year plans) fails. That’s why we don’t need the freaking Thought Police and Taliban Morality Police and Purity Police and Language Police dictating to us top down. That’s why it’s a terrible mistake to have the feds tie testing to one set of “standards.” That’s why it’s a terrible mistake to put state departments and large, bureaucratic districts in charge of education. And that’s why I will fight to the bitter end attempts to censor curricula discovered to be extraordinarily effective by literally millions of teachers in millions of classrooms.
LikeLike
Bob, did you just walk back TKAM being the extremely rare and perfect tool for teaching antiracism in 2023? Are you now acknowledging that the novel is an IMPERFECT tool and was ineffective without students also being required to read novels by Black authors that deal with racism? And I don’t mean in an anthology that signals to the students that these novels by Black authors are not nearly as perfect and rare a tool to teach antiracism as TKAM.
At least we seem to agree that TKAM was ineffective – dare I say NOT PERFECT – when it was taught to all those students’ parents. I just don’t understand what made you say, in 2023, that TKAM is a “rare and perfect” tool for teaching antiracism today. It didn’t suddenly become the “perfect” tool to teach antiracism in 2023 but an ineffective tool for teaching antiracism in 1980.
Let’s stop this now. I am tired of debating you. I get it.
You feel very strongly that there are some white people who have no implicit bias when it comes to race and you (and presumably flerp!) are among them. I salute you and the rest of your co-victims who are forced to watch juror videos about an implicit bias that they already KNOW they don’t have.
All I can say it the most antiracist young people I know do not hold themselves out as the kind of perfect people without any implicitly racist bias that you and FLERP! do.
FLERP! would challenge them to reveal all their implicit racist biases so he could “prove” that those young people are like him and Bob and don’t have any.
I got the Bob and flerp! seal of approval to no longer have to listen to anyone who at any time in the future challenges a casual assumption I make because I am unconscious of my biases. I already know I don’t have any! Therefore any belief I have is by definition, perfectly antiracist! Just like TKAM! Thanks, guys.
LikeLike
NYC. The book works. Millions of classroom teachers have seen that it works. No one claims that ANY WORK ever created by any human is perfect. BUT THIS ONE WORKS. DON”T MESS WITH WHAT WORKS. And the Either-Or Fallacy you indulge in is just mind-numbling ridiculous. It’s not that it’s one or the other. Students today read enormous amounts of material by black authors (partly because of work I did over the years, BTW) AND TKAM. Not one or the other.
Really, this is a waste of freaking time explaining this stuff to you. It doesn’t get through. All you do is mischaracterize, attack imagined straw men, and repeat yourself. This is way past ludicrous, and I have actual work to do. I have indulged in this so far because protecting what teachers have learned from their experience is successful from armchair reformers with their iditoic ideas about how to do things better is important to me. And because the canon as established by teachers is worth defended. But please, CAN YOU FREAKING STOP????!!!!!
LikeLike
No. No. No. No.
LikeLike
You clearly understood nothing preceding this comment. Nothing. The comment is simply ridiculous. Mind-numbingly so.
LikeLike
“More of your conversation would infect my brain.”
–Coriolanus, Act II, scene i
LikeLike
There are few things for which I have more unadulterated loathing than for the ideas of armchair pundits who think that they have greater insight than those drawn from literally millions of hours of actual classroom experience on the part of teachers.
LikeLike
“What harm if a Jew can’t join a club? Have we measured the harm?”
This is weird stuff. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender is wrong and harmful. If we don’t share that belief, we don’t share enough common values to have a discussion.
If you don’t understand the difference between someone’s unconscious and unverifiable thought processes and racist, discriminatory practices, I don’t think I can explain it to you.
LikeLike
Exactly, with one suggestions
If you don’t understand the difference between someone’s purported subconscious and unverifiable thought processes and racist, discriminatory practices, I don’t think I can explain it to you.
LikeLike
Suggestions accepted.
LikeLike
cx: suggestion [singular]
LikeLike
The late great English philosopher Derek Parfit called the brilliant ethics that he published late in life in three large volumes On What Matters. Well, here’s what matters about people: what they profess and what they do. By their fruits are they known.
Not by fantasms imputed to them.
LikeLike
In that direction–the imputation to people of imagined, imputed, implicit, inherent characteristics–lies egregious wrong. Books could be written on the ugly consequences of this moronic and extraordinarily dangerous and divisive view.
LikeLike
FLERP! this is how I interpret what you just wrote, and feel free to clarify (but if you just throw insults, I will assume I am right).
Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender is wrong and harmful, unless it is a person’s unconscious and unverifiable thought processes, like when police are trigger happy because they see someone of a certain race as more dangerous. We don’t know their thought processes, and we can’t “verify” them, so we need to shut up. BLM needs to shut up in all of those cases where one can’t verify a police officer’s thought processes when they are aggressive toward a Black person. It has nothing to do with race. At most is it “one bad cop”.
However, BLM is allowed to speak up if they come across any police force that is specifically teaching their police officers that they should view people of a certain race as more dangerous and they must be more aggressively policed. How surprising there is no police force like that. Job done!!!
FLERP!, you seem to use the vague term of “racist, discriminatory practices” to mean that club members cannot be accused of having any implicit racism if they have a couple token Jewish or Black members, because the unverifiable and unknown thoughts of why 99% of the members are white and Christian has nothing to do with the implicit racism of the club members who decide who gets to join.
You seem to be saying that it would be the height of anti-white outrage for someone to suggest to the club members who welcomed the couple token Black and Jewish members into their fold that the fact that the vast majority of applicants that they deemed worthy of joining their club were neither Jewish or Black. But they were rejected for “other reasons” that had nothing to do with being Jewish or Black.
In fact, that WAS the argument made not that many decades ago. I recall the same sort of arguments I read here, that accusing the club members of having an implicit bias against Jewish or Black applicants would cause more racist and antisemitic sentiment. In fact, tacit acceptance of that just gave legitimacy to it as perfectly fine.
Just like tacit acceptance of aggressive policing toward people of certain races was acceptable.
LikeLike
Do not impute idiotic positions to people that they did not take. If you thought at all clearly about this, you would recognize that one judges these matters not on imputed implicit bias but on actions. Does Officer Joe pull over 30 black people for every 1 white person in this town where blacks make up 7 percent of the population. THAT is actionable. Does Officer Joe make jokes about pulling over black people in the locker room at the police station. THAT is actionable. Not speculations about what he might feel or think. THINK, NYC. FOR ONCE.
LikeLike
I meant what I wrote. That when people take action to discriminate on the basis of race, that is wrong and harmful. And that is qualitatively different from someone having thoughts or reactions that are unformed and unknown not only to you and I, but also to the person himself, that could be characterized as “biased.”
How about this: You say that you have implicit biases. What are your implicit biases against black people?
LikeLike
Bob,
You think about it.
You are the one who keeps citing some “measurement”, which is of course impossible.
Black Lives Matters wants police to be aware of their own implicit biases, even those who are certain they have none.
As long as officer Jones doesn’t have a history of pulling over 30 Black drivers for every white driver or making racist jokes, then an aggressive encounter with a Black person has nothing to do with implicit bias?
And all the other officers who HEAR the jokes and don’t do anything has nothing to do with their own implicit bias?
It’s so mystifying to me why you insist on some “measurement”. We don’t “measure” racism or antisemitism. If you hear someone commenting “that public school has lots of Jews” or “lots of Asians” and making an assumption based on that, it is implicit bias. Pointing it out isn’t to “smear” them, it is to give them some insight about themselves. Someone who says “Atticus Finch was not racist at all” doesn’t have some “measurable” amount of implicit bias. But if they are open to considering why they won’t countenance the idea that Atticus Finch could ever be considered to have any implicit racism, that is a good thing. Atticus’ implicit racism doesn’t have to be measured to exist, even if we don’t know what is in his heart, and even though Atticus fought against explicit racism and sacrificed and did good.
I don’t believe all police are policing in a racist manner. But that doesn’t mean that all police don’t have biases. Some are explicit and obvious. Some are implicit. Your requirement that an aggressive police encounter can’t be the result of implicit bias unless the police officer has a documented history of overtly racist actions is absurd. In my opinion.
LikeLike
NYCPSP, what are your implicit biases against black people?
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I find your argument to be silly. Implicit bias isn’t about LEGISLATION. It is about education (not necessarily formal) and opening your mind. Getting woke to your own implicit biases.
I thought Atticus Finch was the absolutely ideal non-racist person that we should all aspire to be like, and I didn’t see anything wrong when those who agreed with me silenced and attacked all who dared to suggest otherwise.
I had jury duty in NY recently and all potential jurors were shown a video about implicit bias. Which, according to you and Bob, was a waste of my time and an outrage.
LikeLike
^^^Because I already knew I held no biases and how DARE the state imply I was racist by having me watch that video. NY State is helping the right wing win, by giving them more fodder about how all white people having implicit biases.
I imagine you both will be delighted if the right wing bans such videos in the future. They are almost as evil as DEI programs where white teachers have to consider their own implicit biases.
LikeLike
Your response is gibberish and I have no idea why you think I was talking about legislation. Instead of writing “if you just throw insults, I will assume I am right,” maybe you should have just written “I will assume I am right.”
Again, this is what I wrote: “I meant what I wrote. That when people take action to discriminate on the basis of race, that is wrong and harmful. And that is qualitatively different from someone having thoughts or reactions that are unformed and unknown not only to you and I, but also to the person himself, that could be characterized as ‘biased.'”
So I told you what I meant. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But you don’t need to mischaracterize what I said.
Still waiting for you to explain what implicit biases you have against black people. You seem reticent for some reason.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Are you against that implicit bias video shown to jurors in NY State because you believe implicit bias doesn’t exist?
Is that video just some “woke”, misguided effort that will make white people angry?
You don’t seem to believe implicit bias exists, or if it does, it is wrong to try to make people more aware of it so that they can consider how racist bias can influence their judgement and sometimes their actions.
The time to think about that isn’t AFTER it influences someone’s actions with a negative outcome.
That video wasn’t to prevent some juror from spewing white supremacist rhetoric to convince others.
It’s to have each juror consider the biases that we all have, because the way to make those biases have less impact is to CONSIDER them, not to DENY them.
I truly don’t understand both of your anger.
LikeLike
I’m done answering your questions, which is always a pointless exercise anyway because you completely mischaracterize whatever I say.
You answer my question. What implicit biases do you have against black people?
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Whenever I hit a nerve, you change the subject.
You do realize that the meaning of implicit biases is biases that are unconscious, right? You keep asking me what mine are. What is wrong with you? The whole point is to consider how your own opinions or thoughts or actions that you don’t believe have anything to do with bias are unknowingly affected by bias.
You don’t want to answer the question about the implicit bias video that all jurors in NY State show. Why?
It is incredibly weird that you don’t want to give an opinion about the implicit bias video that all jurors in NY State watch. Why not?
I have no idea if it is helpful, but I am glad they TRIED. Jurors who consider their own implicit biases instead of coming in already CERTAIN that they have none are more likely to be less biased. In my opinion.
LikeLike
The subject is implicit bias. You have said that everyone has implicit biases, and you have lambasted me and Bob for questioning the notion that all white people necessarily have implicit biases against POC.
So, tell me, then. What implicit biases do you have against black people? Or are you changing course and now taking the position that you don’t have any such implicit biases?
If you refuse to answer, just tell me so and I’ll stop asking.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Let’s be clear here. You and Bob are both saying you have no implicit biases when it comes to race. None.
And now you are challenging me to tell you my own implicit biases, because by your logic, if I can’t come up with some unconscious biases I have, that means i am like you and Bob and free of all implicit bias.
It is surprising you are an attorney and you don’t know that implicit bias is UNCONSCIOUS.
Not noticing racism because you aren’t being victimized by it is implicit bias.
For the 3rd time, I am pointing out that NY state has jurors watch a video about implicit bias, and I asked you if you think they have a video about something that DOESN’T EXIST.
You didn’t want to answer. You don’t have the courage of your convictions — you are just here to provoke. And then you play victim.
I quoted you acknowledging implicit bias and now you walk it back.
I watched the video. It did not say implicit bias exists only when it can be measured accurately.
Do you believe that it is wrong to advise and educate jurors about implicit bias?
Does educating jurors about implicit bias insult jurors because it assumes that they all have implicit biases when there are people like you and Bob who already know they are bias-free when it comes to race?
LikeLike
Why don’t you want to say what your implicit biases against black people are? Your refusal to answer makes me think they’re pretty horrific.
I have no comment on the implicit bias video that I did not see, because I did not see it. Although I suspect that if this was something produced for prospective jurors, it probably was totally useless and assumed that its audience had an IQ of 85.
But it sounds like you found the video very useful. Did it help you discover any implicit biases against POC you have been harboring?
LikeLike
FLERP!
Your tiresome repeating that I should reveal my unconscious racist biases that I am not aware of simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what implicit bias means.
Why are you even in this discussion? To provoke me the way you provoked GregB because it worked so well to get him to leave?
I stand by my point that implicit bias is real, that we all have implicit biases and people who start from the premise that it is absolutely impossible for them to have any unconscious biases related to race will always have their beliefs confirmed.
The rest of us inferior people will remain open-minded about our own biases and consider whether we are letting our own implicit biases influence our judgements or actions.
LikeLike
So you know you have implicit biases against POC, because it is somehow axiomatic that all white people them, but you don’t know what those implicit biases are because they are unconscious? That’s quite a theory you have there.
Sorry you feel provoked. Are you going to threaten to find my identity and hunt me down now? Is that out of your control because, like Greg Brozeit, you are someone who cares SO MUCH about democracy and implicit bias and whatever other correct views you are passionate about that you are unable to keep yourself from making physical threats and telling people to kill themselves? I hope not!
You should realize that your incessant questioning on this blog can also be quite provoking. Yet somehow I’ve never seen anyone tell you to kill yourself or make disturbing threats against you.
Know people by the company they keep.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I doubt you are really unaware of how frequently you throw on gratuitous insults to belittle me when you comment. Bob does it, too (and did it to CBK, which drove her away from this discussion), but not nearly as frequently as you do. So it’s rich to see you playing victim. GregB reacted badly, but your comments that day and previously should also be condemned. That doesn’t excuse GregB, but you aren’t JUST a victim here.
Routing out implicit bias isn’t something DONE to you. It isn’t a “punishment”. It isn’t a reeducation camp. It’s simply being open to the idea we all have implicit biases so that you can consider whether some of your beliefs or ideas or actions might be influenced by them. It might make you a better juror. Or a better teacher. Or a better attorney. Or a better human being.
Case in point that is close to your heart, flerp!, as the great defender of Eva Moskowitz against her critics like me. You never agreed with me that there was implicit bias in the fact that journalists, oversight agencies, funders and even some readers of Diane Ravitch’s blog accepted without question Moskowitz making the absurd claim that her outrageously high suspension rates for Kindergarten and first graders was because of the violent actions of those 5 and 6 year old children. She said on national television that she often had parents who didn’t believe her about their child’s violent actions in the classroom necessitating the suspension, but she told them that they weren’t there. She explained to them that their 5 or 6 or 7 year old is dangerously violent in the classroom. And the schools with the highest suspension rates for very young 5 and 6 year olds had virtually no white students.
John Merrow was one of the few reporters who didn’t just accept the “our kindergarten students are especially violent” narrative to explain the extraordinarily high suspension rates. He got excoriated by a lot of people – including at PBS – that are absolutely certain they have no implicit biases.
And all the reporters who never questioned the narrative of the incredibly violent 5 year old lottery winners are certain they had no implicit bias at all.
Imagine if those reporters were open to the idea that they might UNCONSCIOUSLY have implicit biases? Imagine if that made them reconsider their casual acceptance of the “violent lottery winner” narrative?
Why are you obsessed with implicit bias being “measured”? Does that mean that all the reporters and oversight agencies and perhaps even you are absolved from noticing the implicit bias in the fact that a white CEO can simply say she suspended lots of 5 year olds because they were violent? Because we can never know whether those reporters would question that if those students were white or Asian? So it’s okay that they just happen to believe it when the students are virtually all Black?
I am ready for some belittling comment, since you have a history of attacking me and changing the subject whenever this is mentioned.
But the truth is that you either believe Eva Moskowitz’ justification of her high suspension rates for 5 and 6 year olds or you don’t. Given that you always attack me when I challenge them as being absurd AND implicitly racist, (or maybe Bob would say explicitly racist), I assume you believe her. Because you have no implicit biases regarding race.
LikeLike
NYCPSP, over the years you have insulted me so many times l—regularly calling me a liar and a racist (either directly or through snide insinuation) and almost constantly mischaracterizing everything I write—that I couldn’t even begin to count. We’ve had this discussion before so don’t pretend like you’re some innocent. I’m actually a very forgiving person because I don’t have the constitution or discipline to hold grudges without fresh offenses to reignite things. But over the years it’s become clear that you’ll never stop what you do. So I don’t respect you as a commenter or a person. Harsh words, perhaps, but I don’t say them lightly or without due consideration.
Having said all that, I am always ready to make up and stop the nastiness. But it has to go both ways. If you want me to respect you, you need to change your style of interacting with me. And I would do the same.
But rest assured that what I will NEVER do is threaten you or anyone else harm. No amount of unkind words in heated debate would justify such an insane response. It is sad that Greg is allowed to continue commenting here after the way he’s acted. I literally have never seen anything like it, here or elsewhere online.
This thread has gotten too long to continue contributing to, so I will give you the last word if you want it.
LikeLike
Now I feel bad about my last comment.
Let’s just agree to try to be a little less combative. OK?
NOW I will give you the last word if you want it.
LikeLike
A good idea all around. I agree.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
You spent all your time attacking me (spewing the falsehood that I am always calling you names) and once again presenting yourself as a person who has done nothing but post kind, thoughtful comments that NEVER intend to provoke or insult. Is it possible for you to be anything but disingenuous?
I am not surprised you don’t want to discuss the implicit racism evidenced by the people who believed Eva Moskowitz when she invoked the violent actions of the very youngest elementary school students to justify giving an extraordinarily high percentage of them out of school suspensions.
But I hope that you consider why implicit racism might explain why so many people (perhaps even you) knew that Success Academy was suspending high percentages of very young children at schools with virtually no white students, but it never once occurred to those people that something was wrong. They (and perhaps you) just accepted an unbelievable explanation – that an extraordinarily high percentage of very young children who randomly won the lottery did something violent to deserve their suspensions.
And (since you like to do this) if you asked the folks who believed Eva Moskowitz’ justification for high suspension rates to give an example of times when they were implicitly racist, it’s doubtful they would cite that time they believed Eva Moskowitz. Implicit bias caused them to be unaware that they held a negative attitude toward children of a certain race that would make them believe that an unusually high percentage of Kindergarten and first graders would be so violent in their classrooms that the school had no choice but to suspend them to protect the other students and teacher.
I don’t know how you would “measure” the amount of implicit racism present when a person accepts without question that an extraordinarily high percentage of students would act out violently in their Kindergarten or first grade classroom. Maybe you have some ideas. Does the “measurement” matter?
I hope that helps you understand implicit racism better.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Accept flerp’s apology and move on.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Thank you very much for your apology!
LikeLike
Bob So I misinterpreted your whole set of notes on this. You really don’t think the idea is BOGUS, and (regardless of what that wiseman Pope says) you don’t think these blogs are mostly for idiots and amateurs.
ORRRRR maybe you are trying to back pedal on the trashy stuff you wrote earlier by saying that I see things that are not there. I hope Diane deletes that “go screw” note to you from me, but I also hope you read it. CBK
LikeLike
Again, you did not read my posts carefully enough to catch what I actually said. I did not say that the idea of implicit bias was bogus. I NEVER SAID THAT.
I said,
“This implicit bias stuff really sets off alarm bells.” [Then I went on to explain the similar phenomenon that happened in Russia under Statlin and China under Mao, where people were made to confess their implicit Bourgeois biases.]
and
“I am already familiar with the so-called research on this topic and think it mostly bogus, like a lot of so-called social ‘science’–the claims that Libet’s Delay negates free will, for example”
And I stand by those statements. Popular accounts of implicit bias like those appearing here set off alarm bells,a and much of the research on the topic is dubious.
Neither of these ideas that I did say is that
“the idea [of implicit bias] is [itself] BOGUS,”
which is YOUR mischaracterization of what I said.
So, again. You have a tendency to mischaracterize something i said, and then to get furious that I made that statement, which I did not make.
LikeLike
And I explained that a proper treatment of what is wrong with the current conceptualizations of implicit bias would require a book and that for that reason, among others, I’m not interested in further discussion of the topic here.
LikeLike
Which you mischaracterized as not wanting to talk to you. LOL.
LikeLike
So I misinterpreted your whole set of notes on this.
That is a quite accurate summary.
LikeLike
This guy reminds me of Mike Myers’ Linda Richmond character (although she was far & away more intelligent than this definitely NOT ok Oklahoman) who, when getting “ferklempt”* would say something like, “Why was the Roman Empire neither Roman nor an Empire? Discuss amongst yourselves!”
Ryan Walters is, clearly, an ignoramus of the nth degree.
*”Ferklempt”~ Yiddish for teary-eyed, all choked up & unable to speak.
BTW, RW is as stupid as the GMC Denali commercial (it happens to be on now) w/the “hands free” driving “feature” that one of the drivers uses to pass…a truck. & this while music, Queen’s “We Shall Rock You” is playing in the background. Doesn’t the sheer idiocy of this commercial make you furious, knowing that one or more of our young drivers is going to actually pull this for-no-reason-at-all stunt, only to be killed, along w/others? & why would Queen underwrite this nonsense (Brian May has a PhD. in Astrophysics or some such: he returned to school to finish it after Queen retired.) Someone reading this care to start a petition? (Does this bother anyone as much as it does me?)
LikeLike
https://www.change.org/start-a-petition?utm_source=google_paid_g&utm_medium=twigeo&utm_campaign=us_web_gs_ua_sap_20220830_brand_conversions-sap&utm_content=us_web_gs_kw_change.org-sapready_x_xx_exact&utm_term=gclickid.CjwKCAjwh8mlBhB_EiwAsztdBHWzkcurCJjkSTcXtv9z0cFXhmyfNHAk9I4MNbG9eDb0gDOiYE7YrhoC26sQAvD_BwE_change%20org%20create&gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwh8mlBhB_EiwAsztdBHWzkcurCJjkSTcXtv9z0cFXhmyfNHAk9I4MNbG9eDb0gDOiYE7YrhoC26sQAvD_BwE&started_flow=true
LikeLike
Thx, Bob. Sorry it took so long to reply. I still don’t trust Change.org, after they took our names (remember, Diane?) & added us as members of Michelle Rhee’s organization–TWICE! After that, I NEVER signed any Change.petitions.
MoveOn.org is a legit, trustworthy petition-starter, so if someone wants to do any…
Funny…I don’t even remember the name of Wonder Woman’s org. & that’s a very GOOD thing, right?
LikeLike
Students First
LikeLike
Makes sense, Retired! And thanks for your posts. I so appreciate them!!
LikeLike