Florida passes bill asking students to disclose political affiliation

[s_bushido]

Damnit, skimmed too quickly. Thanks for catching.

heh
Understandable. All this culture war nonsense the GOP is pushing (in place of anything resembling actual policy) does blur together.

[Mayhem]

Oh yeah, I forgot you were ostensibly a teacher at one point and you were in fact vehemently opposed to parental interference in education right up until the point you had your own kids.

Funny, that. Naked self-interest is naked.

We need a like button.

[Theodarzna]

Which history? Which grade level? Do primary school children need a "total summation of history" rather than a focus on key period of history that will be most applicable and relevant to their education, with a greater focus placed on history if they choose to pursue it as a profession or for further study?

Okay, Clearly you are stubborn and I am going to have to hold your hand here. If we are talking about strictly teaching facts, just a series of facts without offering any narration or prioritizing one event over another, you could not teach anything except a string of names and dates and data points on a graph, of which there would be legions even if you decided for 7th Grade Social Studies you were only going to talk about 1778, in Pennsylvania, or even just one town in Pennsylvania in 1778, there would be an overwhelming volume of random things and one would be right to ask "Why am I learning this?"

Sure, it's not going to cover "literally every part of US history"

You are so close to figuring it out. OKAY! So, you have to, for the sake of time and making anything coherent out of history, you have to pick and choose what events matter and what events don't. THAT! That right there! RIGHT GOD DAMN THERE! is the whole contention because to different people different events matter. And here is a big shocker, what events matter changes over time. You can say "We should teach the lows and the highs!" but that is nothing but an empty nostrum, a nice slogan that doesn't mean anything since precisely these debates over the contents of a Social Studies class are just that contention over what is a high and low, and what is the meaning of any specific event.

That's what college and advanced education is for.

Colleges also cannot do that, that is functionally impossible to do.

Nothing so high and mighty, but discussions do happen which is why the curriculum has, and will continue to change and evolve over time. Which is a good thing, because it leads to a better quality of education usually.

Cool, and you know what, the parents of said children are going to have a say and have a right to lobby in that arena, it is after all theirs, not your children.

anti-CRT folks and conservative states/counties like Texas have pushed to limit, if not completely erase, addressing the absolutely monstrous history of the US when it comes to slavery.

I would call this some serious Motte-and-Bailey nonsense, what people disagree with about CRT, and the ancillary theories is essentially having Robin DiAngelo/Ibram Kendi style struggle sessions in classrooms, ultimately I don't think anyone objects to teaching any specific event in history but what is objected to is the interpretation of said events.

No. Does that mean it has no value? Also no.

Who gets to decide if something is without educational merit? Childless Liberals and some NGO's or the actual parents of children?

[ScipioMoroder]

I dunno I've had political leanings since I was pretty young. Didnt really know the words for things, but I was definitely somewhat aware.

I can explain them better now but I've always been concerned about things being equitable.

These days kids seem way more switched on than I was so I wouldn't be surprised if they did have "real" political beliefs.

Regardless the whole thing seems a bit off

Belonging to the youngest generation capable of being adults at this point, I'd say growing up, the people who were into politics seemed to start to become broadly interested in it at around 13-15. My introduction to politics happened at around 14 as an indirect result of me getting into a lot of atheist content in late middle school.

[Endus]

I would call this some serious Motte-and-Bailey nonsense, what people disagree with about CRT, and the ancillary theories is essentially having Robin DiAngelo/Ibram Kendi style struggle sessions in classrooms, ultimately I don't think anyone objects to teaching any specific event in history but what is objected to is the interpretation of said events.

And the "disagreement" basically boils down to white supremacists throwing hissy fits because white culture and people aren't automatically considered the most important and righteous solely based on that whiteness. Which is the history people were mostly taught 40+ years ago. Which, y'know, led to the current boom of white supremacists.

[Elegiac]

I would call this some serious Motte-and-Bailey nonsense, what people disagree with about CRT, and the ancillary theories is essentially having Robin DiAngelo/Ibram Kendi style struggle sessions in classrooms

Which isn't a thing that happens or that anyone is pushing for, speaking of dishonest arguments.

But thanks for letting us know what your actual "concern" is when it comes to parents not being able to curate their kids' worldviews.

[Ripster42]

For K-12 students? Probably not, as they're not adults, and don't have full freedoms. Also, who the fuck thinks kids have real political leanings? Maybe the grade 12s if there's an election the year they're turning 18.

For college students? Questionably, and they'd certainly have the ability to respond with stuff like "Jedi" or "post-libertocialist conservibal" if it were.

The US just had a case where they asserted that underage students still had free speech rights (the case about the cheerleader telling her administration to fuck off). They found in favor of the student. Political speech is also generally afforded much broader protections. That being said, this specifically targets universities themselves, and you don't have to take it from me that the case is pretty strong. When you've got people lining up to defend cases pro bono, who win cases in front of SCOTUS, it's just a matter of time before it's struck.

[Endus]

The US just had a case where they asserted that underage students still had free speech rights (the case about the cheerleader telling her administration to fuck off). They found in favor of the student. Political speech is also generally afforded much broader protections. That being said, this specifically targets universities themselves, and you don't have to take it from me that the case is pretty strong. When you've got people lining up to defend cases pro bono, who win cases in front of SCOTUS, it's just a matter of time before it's struck.

In general, yes, but there's still limits; school dress codes are the obvious one in the case of speech. Schools can ban certain kinds of messaging on shirts and the like (usually the offensive stuff, but often more than that).

You'd never be able to legally prevent someone wearing a shirt saying "FUCK THIS SHIT" down the public street, but a school administration can generally make that student not wear that shirt to school.

[tehealadin]

And the "disagreement" basically boils down to white supremacists throwing hissy fits because white culture and people aren't automatically considered the most important and righteous solely based on that whiteness. Which is the history people were mostly taught 40+ years ago. Which, y'know, led to the current boom of white supremacists.

I can find you a tonne of black people who take issue with CRT and some of the acolytes, I know you wouldn't accept these two are true black people, despite them being black, however I won't accept any labeling of these two are white supremacists, their criticisms do not come from a hatred of blacks and a desire to elevate whites.. Even the Guardian has had articles criticising White Fragility, the graun for god sake . Conflating disagreement with CRT as being the same as white supremacy, and uncritical acceptance of CRT as a pre-requisite for not being a racist, do you actually believe this? I know you are a true believer, but I can never tell if this is being used as a rhetorical device to shut people up, or a true expression of opinion (the latter genuinely worries me if so).


Some CRT proponents make some very good points, that should be listened to. Some are mad. Some buy into it and do stupid stuff like this. I could have missed it, but on the main, the people I saw who were critical of this kind of thing were people against CRT. Those for it seemed to be true believers, therefore could not tolerate any criticism. I can't say for sure why they backed down, if true believers got them to do it, then fair enough, a quick scan didn't have that jump out to me though.

I know you cannot see this, or accept this, but there are many people who look at this stuff and see something akin to a cult in the way it carries itself, including a refusal for self reflection. True, some people do have a problem with CRT, or any kind of racial activism, because they are white supremacists, I can't deny that and won't claim these people don't exist, but to suggest that any and all criticisms must be a sign of this, only someone who has been radicalised can actually believe that, I suspect (and hope) that this is more a rhetorical device.

There are valid criticisms to be made of any theory, never mind this, also groups and certain prophets aligned to this theory.

[Elegiac]

I can find you a tonne of black people who take issue with CRT and some of the acolytes

We're aware people like Candace Owens and Diamond & Silk exist, thanks.

Some CRT proponents make some very good points, that should be listened to. Some are mad. Some buy into it and do stupid stuff like this. I could have missed it, but on the main, the people I saw who were critical of this kind of thing were people against CRT. Those for it seemed to be true believers, therefore could not tolerate any criticism. I can't say for sure why they backed down, if true believers got them to do it, then fair enough, a quick scan didn't have that jump out to me though.

And here's how we can tell your criticisms aren't sourced in any good faith discussion about CRT or it being taught in an educational setting.

You're spending the entirety of your time talking about the people who are ostensibly its advocates rather than actually addressing whether what it asserts is the case. I.e. saying shit like:

There are valid criticisms to be made of any theory, never mind this

While in no way having actually made any valid criticisms of the theory, just accused its advocates of cultish behavior.

[Levelfive]

I can find you a tonne of black people who take issue with CRT and some of the acolytes, I know you wouldn't accept these two are true black people, despite them being black, however I won't accept any labeling of these two are white supremacists, their criticisms do not come from a hatred of blacks and a desire to elevate whites.. Even the Guardian has had articles criticising White Fragility, the graun for god sake . Conflating disagreement with CRT as being the same as white supremacy, and uncritical acceptance of CRT as a pre-requisite for not being a racist, do you actually believe this? I know you are a true believer, but I can never tell if this is being used as a rhetorical device to shut people up, or a true expression of opinion (the latter genuinely worries me if so).


Some CRT proponents make some very good points, that should be listened to. Some are mad. Some buy into it and do stupid stuff like this. I could have missed it, but on the main, the people I saw who were critical of this kind of thing were people against CRT. Those for it seemed to be true believers, therefore could not tolerate any criticism. I can't say for sure why they backed down, if true believers got them to do it, then fair enough, a quick scan didn't have that jump out to me though.

I know you cannot see this, or accept this, but there are many people who look at this stuff and see something akin to a cult in the way it carries itself, including a refusal for self reflection. True, some people do have a problem with CRT, or any kind of racial activism, because they are white supremacists, I can't deny that and won't claim these people don't exist, but to suggest that any and all criticisms must be a sign of this, only someone who has been radicalised can actually believe that, I suspect (and hope) that this is more a rhetorical device.

There are valid criticisms to be made of any theory, never mind this, also groups and certain prophets aligned to this theory.

It's such a shallow and embarrassing self-own when conservatives fall over themselves to point to black people who share their shitty views as some kind of "checkmate, liberal!" not only because it betrays gross ignorance of what the left's positions actually are, it's a dead giveaway that conservatives operate almost exclusively on the identity politics they ostensibly find so offensive--let's say problematic, just for fun. So to get a couple things out of the way: the left is willing to criticize bad ideas irrespective of race or gender or political affiliation (when we do that, the right accuses us simultaneously of tribalism and "eating our own" without noticing the contradiction). There are always--always--people in the out-group who are on board with the prevailing hierarchy (race, religion, sex, etc.,) of the in-group--that doesn't make them "not true black people" or not Jewish or not female, and it certainly doesn't make their positions beyond reproach. The fact that you think it's Democratic kryptonite to trot out videos of black people agreeing with Republicans as if that by itself is an argument of some kind just really reinforces that conservatives generally have shallow, unexamined assumptions about race and politics.

The first 8 minutes of the video is mostly complaining about "cancel culture" and then finally Loury starts encapsulating CRT--he was somewhat disparaging but he's free to do that, but I was hoping and expecting he would then explain or even outline his objections, which he did not. At that point, McWhorter recounts an anecdote about talking with a reporter 15 years ago, who said, "For example, in my neighborhood, you can just see the racism" and he explained that she was referring to the elite school in her "depressed neighborhood" that was filled with white and Asian kids from outside the neighborhood. And here's what he goes on to say--speaking of a refusal for self-reflection, see if you can spot, amid the inadvertent irony, why this would be a good candidate for /SelfAwarewolves:

"I thought at the time, I don't find that very insightful. I thought, I'm not sure she is inclined to think about this a little harder, and I don't think she's dumb, I think she had just learned to think that way about race and just kind of kept going, because the reason that the black kids aren't going to that school is so many things; the reason is, the reasons are so many things--it has to do with the history, the racist history of the United States, definitely, but it also has to do with, I hate to say, because of that racist history, certain cultural attitudes that black people often don't have that get you into schools like that, there's a whole notion that high class nerdiness is something other than being black, and it's been authoritatively documented that's a factor in the culture, it's not a matter of blame, it's just something that happened as a result of the racist past for reasons that we can get into, but there are all sorts of reasons why the people in that neighborhood aren't going to that particular school."

CRT is an analytical framework for examining the role of race in judicial institutions in particular, taught at the graduate level, mostly in law schools, as it is primarily for the purpose of legal analysis. It has been distorted beyond recognition and turned into a racial bogeyman ! overtaking our children ! by the usual highly-agenda'd right wing and right wing evangelical suspects who benefit culturally and politically from manufactured race hysteria. I would, however, genuinely like to hear thoughtful, coherent, good faith criticisms of it, if anyone has found any.

[tehealadin]

It's such a shallow and embarrassing self-own when conservatives fall over themselves to point to black people who share their shitty views as some kind of "checkmate, liberal!.

You seem to be suggesting that I am a conservative, based solely on thinking there are valid criticisms of CRT, and that to take issue with any aspect of it doesn't necessitate white supremacy. That in and of itself highlights a huge problem. Your insistence also that to not be all in on a particular view of racial issues is "shitty", e.g. there is only one way to view racial issues and it must be through this lens, also highlights a huge issue. This is why people on the centre left look at people like yourself and think "cult".

You talk about CRT as if it is reported as simply a boogey man, which to some extent is true, the Fox news mob will certainly be all over it like that, however just because conservatives might try to create a moral panic over something doesn't mean there is nothing to see. However look at what the Smithsonian did (to take one example), in trying to promote this way of anti racism, whether it fits your definition of CRT is irrelevant, there are groups wanting to buy into it then acting in insanely stupid and racist ways. You can shift goalposts and invoke the no true CRT argument, insisting on very narrow technical definitions in order to reduce the scope of criticism, conveniently ignoring real world examples, the fact is there are some who want to act in an anti racist way, at least inspired by CRT ideas, who are acting in ways that are insane, and possibly counter productive. It is not shitty, it is not right wing, it is not racist to be concerned by some of this. And being critical of aspects doesn't mean people can't be in favour of others. The way dichotomous thinking has been supercharged in the internet era is truly frightening. The world has never been black and white.

Your closing sentence just sums up so much of what is wrong. Implying there are no good faith criticisms. There are plenty, you simply are incapable of hearing them because clearly by default you think any criticism is bad faith, unthoughtful and incoherent. I fail to see the distinction between your reaction and the reaction of religious zealots to the words of blasphemers.

[Elegiac]

You seem to be suggesting that I am a conservative, based solely on thinking there are valid criticisms of CRT

Which is odd considering, again, you've not actually offered any criticisms beyond ad hominem attacks against its proponents.

[Krakan]

I would rather politics not be in the class room barring courses about them of course.

I get that in the arts there are times the topic must be touched upon but at the end of the day if my professor is ranting about his political views in a stem class he would likely be better off replaced and left to his research.

[Elegiac]

I would rather politics not be in the class room barring courses about them of course.

Which is convenient since anything that challenges your ideology gets classed as "political" while shit that buttresses the status quo is totally not political.

I get that in the arts there are times the topic must be touched upon but at the end of the day if my professor is ranting about his political views

More strawmen. No one's arguing in favor of this and there's no evidence there's a trend of this happening, stop being so lazy when you post.

[Krakan]

Which is convenient since anything that challenges your ideology gets classed as "political" while shit that buttresses the status quo is totally not political.



More strawmen. No one's arguing in favor of this and there's no evidence there's a trend of this happening, stop being so lazy when you post.

Wouldn't that only apply to the ideology that currently has favor?

I don't think my views are back in style yet. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet. I don't really see a benefit to injecting political ideology into classes it just seems irrelevant.

[Elegiac]

Wouldn't that only apply to the ideology that currently has favor?

I don't think my views are back in style yet.

Reconstruction failed to adequately excise that particular cancer so no, it remains the fundamental ideological basis for the current system.

I don't really see a benefit to injecting political ideology into classes it just seems irrelevant.

Again with the strawmen.

Exactly what makes something political.

[Krakan]

Reconstruction failed to adequately excise that particular cancer so no, it remains the fundamental ideological basis for the current system.



Again with the strawmen.

Exactly what makes something political.

Thinking back on my university days and the required arts courses I had to take for me degree usually it was adding liberal meanings behind classical works were the connect felt extremely forced and vague and then was harped on repeatedly. It's been a decade so I admit most of it is a blur now but I distinctly recall two entire weeks of Shakespeare being taught from the angle a woman likely wrote his works for him.

I just shrugged wrote a easy about how that was likely the case got an A then focused on my actually pursuits.

[Elegiac]

Thinking back on my university days and the required arts courses I had to take for me degree usually it was adding liberal meanings behind classical works were the connect felt extremely forced and vague and then was harped on repeatedly. It's been a decade so I admit most of it is a blur now but I distinctly recall two entire weeks of Shakespeare being taught from the angle a woman likely wrote his works for him.

I just shrugged wrote a easy about how that was likely the case got an A then focused on my actually pursuits.

r/thathappened

And anyway, it's still a strawman since no one is arguing in favor of instructors being able to baselessly speculate on their subject matter, is not a demonstration that CRT or anything of that sort is "political", or that what isn't taught already isn't inherently political itself.

[Levelfive]

You seem to be suggesting that I am a conservative, based solely on thinking there are valid criticisms of CRT, and that to take issue with any aspect of it doesn't necessitate white supremacy. That in and of itself highlights a huge problem. Your insistence also that to not be all in on a particular view of racial issues is "shitty", e.g. there is only one way to view racial issues and it must be through this lens, also highlights a huge issue. This is why people on the centre left look at people like yourself and think "cult".

You talk about CRT as if it is reported as simply a boogey man, which to some extent is true, the Fox news mob will certainly be all over it like that, however just because conservatives might try to create a moral panic over something doesn't mean there is nothing to see. However look at what the Smithsonian did (to take one example), in trying to promote this way of anti racism, whether it fits your definition of CRT is irrelevant, there are groups wanting to buy into it then acting in insanely stupid and racist ways. You can shift goalposts and invoke the no true CRT argument, insisting on very narrow technical definitions in order to reduce the scope of criticism, conveniently ignoring real world examples, the fact is there are some who want to act in an anti racist way, at least inspired by CRT ideas, who are acting in ways that are insane, and possibly counter productive. It is not shitty, it is not right wing, it is not racist to be concerned by some of this. And being critical of aspects doesn't mean people can't be in favour of others. The way dichotomous thinking has been supercharged in the internet era is truly frightening. The world has never been black and white.

Your closing sentence just sums up so much of what is wrong. Implying there are no good faith criticisms. There are plenty, you simply are incapable of hearing them because clearly by default you think any criticism is bad faith, unthoughtful and incoherent. I fail to see the distinction between your reaction and the reaction of religious zealots to the words of blasphemers.

I'm pretty sure you and I have had political disagreements before from different ends of the political spectrum, but if I misremembering, my apologies. But don't mistake me--I think the entirety of conservative views, which hardly comprise policy positions these days and are fueled solely by nakedly authoritarian aims predicated largely on racial animus, are shitty, not just their views on race. Your insistence that the poster from the Smithsonian is somehow CRT is just wrong (and of course what the thing actually IS matters), but that's entirely by design--there's a highly organized, well funded movement to deliberately shift the meaning of CRT to *anything at all* that is anti-racism / pro-equality, which is how they get away with pretending it's being taught in Kindergarten with Be Nice to Your Buddy tea parties or w/e, and you don't even have to take my word for it, here's one of the first people to bring it to national attention (and by national, I mean Trump's) saying the quiet part out loud:

"O’Brien later joined a coalition of attorneys focused on this cause, organized by Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Rufo, who said he was in touch with then-President Donald Trump’s staff before he issued an executive order last September banning critical race theory’s use by federal agencies, promised in a March tweet to make critical race theory “toxic” in the public imagination. Rufo declined an interview request.

“The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory,’” he wrote. “We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...roups-n1270794

It turns out, anti-CRT hysteria actually began here, with white evangelicals: https://religiondispatches.org/where...-really-begin/

In case you're curious to hear: What An Actual Expert On Critical Race Theory Makes Of The GOP Freakout

I have yet to see any coherent, good faith criticisms against CRT, but if there are any, again, I'd like to see them.