Guess the (CRT) Syllabus?

[icehorse]

It's national--conservatives on school boards are watching what is happening in Florida, and trying to emulate them. Why Temecula? Dunno. Probably a particular school board member has a bee in their bonnet.

Well if you glanced at the article, there appeared to be pro-CRT protestors decrying the school board's proposal.

It seems to me that all the evidence we have described in this thread would lead us to believe that there have been some attempts to introduce some flavor of CRT into the K-12 curriculum in Temecula. I don't think it's a "tempest in a teacup" situation, given people in Temecula lining up on both sides of the issue.

 

[Orbit]

Well if you glanced at the article, there appeared to be pro-CRT protestors decrying the school board's proposal.

It seems to me that all the evidence we have described in this thread would lead us to believe that there have been some attempts to introduce some flavor of CRT into the K-12 curriculum in Temecula. I don't think it's a "tempest in a teacup" situation, given people in Temecula lining up on both sides of the issue.

Note who is absent here: the teachers. Why is no one asking them what they are teaching, or allowing them to have a say in this. I see it as a Fox News-fueled moral panic.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

When I teach CRT...er, I mean, American History, I make sure all my white students feel guilty. I teach them that all white Christian folks should feel guilty until they either support a drag queen event or view naked Renaissance art.

But seriously...

History needs to be taught through a process of teaching kids critical thinking skills, helping them source accurate material about history, and looking at diverse interpretations in order to understand how to contextualize events and make it meaningful to their modern world.

You could use CRT as one of the many paradigms of understanding history without "teaching CRT."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

- Teaching history as honestly as possible is a fine idea. But how do establish context? Take the topic of slavery: when do you start, and how broadly across the world should you look? E.g., slavery was common in Africa before Europeans arrived.

I often discuss with my students how while slavery was a feature in MANY cultures worldwide, slavery in America was very unique and continues to have an impact on modern America. The retort, "But Africans were also enslaving Africans" doesn't mean much when one considers that American slavery is the reason that many black Americans are here and (unless DNA testing is done) are unable to trace their own African roots.

I mean, just look at the history of Haiti and the current situation there. Citibank certainly can thank American slavery for their success.

 

[Soandso]

Isn't CRT like a higher education class, like something that would be taught in Yale or Harvard?

 

[Orbit]

Isn't CRT like a higher education class, like something that would be taught in Yale or Harvard?

It's taught in graduate school and law school.

 

[icehorse]

Hey @Orbit and @Guitar's Cry and @Soandso -

I'm all about teaching history honestly. I'm all about teaching critical thinking skills. I'm onboard with diverse perspectives, all the approaches you mentioned. Thumbs up, so far, we're of a mind.

BUT, there are still going to be a collection of ideas and claims and theories that get taught. Some of those ideas are probably fine, some might not be. Again, it seems more than fair to know what ideas are they proposing to teach. That way we can get past all the arm waving

 

[Stevicus]

I often discuss with my students how while slavery was a feature in MANY cultures worldwide, slavery in America was very unique and continues to have an impact on modern America. The retort, "But Africans were also enslaving Africans" doesn't mean much when one considers that American slavery is the reason that many black Americans are here and (unless DNA testing is done) are unable to trace their own African roots.

I mean, just look at the history of Haiti and the current situation there. Citibank certainly can thank American slavery for their success.

I think it would probably be helpful to explain why and how it happened, particularly race-based, generational slavery which came into being. It seems that the commonly presented view on history (not saying it has anything to do with CRT) is about making it excessively racialized to the point where it waters down and whitewashes the capitalistic elements - the motivation of greed and profit motive behind most of our historical atrocities. I think it's structured in such a way as to get the wealthy capitalists off the hook.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From what I can tell, most people don't agree with the notion that "racism is racial prejudice plus power." I'm not even sure that CRT teaches this view. The standard mainstream view is that racism is racism, and that anyone can be considered racist by expressing negative or hostile views towards people of another race.

The core idea of CRT is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

And do you know what? I think that's actually quite correct.

You know, I've been thinking lately that we humans are faced with yet another crisis (in addition to killing the planet we live on, which we might come to regret). That crisis is that our world has also become far, far too small for our ability to modify our social constructs so that we can get along. And a large part of that -- though this will be a reason for many to hate my thought -- is because we made it that way. We built the ships and paid the costs to enslave people and bring them across the seas to make our lives more comfortable. This is simply the truth, and it is irrefutable.

Throughout human history, we seem to have divided ourselves up into people who are "liberal," "conservative" or "independent." The latter being those who don't know themselves well are can go where the crowd goes (maybe they're the ones that can tip the balance between a vengeful throng lynching somebody, or disbanding).

But this "liberal" and "conservative" thing is the conundrum. Forget party names -- in Lincoln's day, the Republicans were the more liberal and the Democrats the more conservative. Names, like all human words, change their meaning with time. "It's why so many people hate trying to read Shakespeare!) In my view, a "liberal" is someone who is not unduly uncomfortable with diversity, who doesn't cringe when someone has a different view of social norms, or different food preferences, or a different skin colour or physiognomy.

(It's interesting to note that studies have shown that liberals are significantly more likely to enjoy (real) ethnic food than conservatives. Conservatives and Liberals Make Different Food Choices)

In sum, a think that CRT is correct, that racism is a social construct -- and that it is primarily the construct of those who have much more difficulty dealing with diversity, who are more comfortable with conformity, who are less amenable to being open to new experience -- that is, conservatives.

Edited to add:

That seems to mean, to me, that the problem is truly intractable -- if some people accept diverse experience, culture, food, ideas more easily than others, how are you going to fix that? The truth is that people -- individuals -- don't actually change very much. That leaves making any useful change the challenge of not one, but more generations.

 

[Stevicus]

The core idea of CRT is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

And do you know what? I think that's actually quite correct.

You know, I've been thinking lately that we humans are faced with yet another crisis (in addition to killing the planet we live on, which we might come to regret). That crisis is that our world has also become far, far too small for our ability to modify our social constructs so that we can get along. And a large part of that -- though this will be a reason for many to hate my thought -- is because we made it that way. We built the ships and paid the costs to enslave people and bring them across the seas to make our lives more comfortable. This is simply the truth, and it is irrefutable.

Throughout human history, we seem to have divided ourselves up into people who are "liberal," "conservative" or "independent." The latter being those who don't know themselves well are can go where the crowd goes (maybe they're the ones that can tip the balance between a vengeful throng lynching somebody, or disbanding).

But this "liberal" and "conservative" thing is the conundrum. Forget party names -- in Lincoln's day, the Republicans were the more liberal and the Democrats the more conservative. Names, like all human words, change their meaning with time. "It's why so many people hate trying to read Shakespeare!) In my view, a "liberal" is someone who is not unduly uncomfortable with diversity, who doesn't cringe when someone has a different view of social norms, or different food preferences, or a different skin colour or physiognomy.

(It's interesting to note that studies have shown that liberals are significantly more likely to enjoy (real) ethnic food than conservatives. Conservatives and Liberals Make Different Food Choices)

In sum, a think that CRT is correct, that racism is a social construct -- and that it is primarily the construct of those who have much more difficulty dealing with diversity, who are more comfortable with conformity, who are less amenable to being open to new experience -- that is, conservatives.

I agree that race is a social construct, and there is a historical etymology as to how many of the racist perspectives were formulated in the United States. As for it being embedded in legal systems and policies, that should have been done away with once the Civil Rights Act and other important laws and landmark decisions came down. If it hasn't been, then the people have the right to ask why - and if CRT is asking that question, too, then I have no real issue with it. I'm not really an expert on CRT, but I have seen some of the arguments raised in the resolution cited above.

In terms of systemic racism, that's related to the system itself - the laws, policies, and structures which comprise the system, along with the politicians and bureaucrats, such as they are. If they have the power to fix the system, then why don't they just do it? It doesn't seem to need any deep psychoanalysis, especially if the problem is systemic and not an individual issue.

As for the history of the Republicans and Democrats and how it relates to understanding of terms like "liberal" and "conservative," I don't think either party in the Civil War era could be considered "liberal" by any standard used today. The Abolitionist movement was very religiously-oriented, which is how the religious right formed a cornerstone in the GOP from the very beginning. Likewise, the industrialists had their own selfish motives for ending slavery (but not white supremacy, which still continued unabated). As the decades wore on, the Republicans became more and more the party of big business and corporate interests, as they still remain to this day. Besides, one could be a liberal and still be a racist (or vice versa). Andrew Jackson might be an example, as well as Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

It's a version mirroring White Replacement Theory, and isn't much better through its vilification of Caucasian people that makes this disgusting 'theory' a piece of garbage.

 

[Soandso]

Hey @Orbit and @Guitar's Cry and @Soandso -

I'm all about teaching history honestly. I'm all about teaching critical thinking skills. I'm onboard with diverse perspectives, all the approaches you mentioned. Thumbs up, so far, we're of a mind.

BUT, there are still going to be a collection of ideas and claims and theories that get taught. Some of those ideas are probably fine, some might not be. Again, it seems more than fair to know what ideas are they proposing to teach. That way we can get past all the arm waving

Yahhh... I'm in favor of teaching what we have the best evidence for right now, and to teach what is taught globally. Things change in light of better evidence, but until then we should teach what is widelely accepted now, IMO

I learned creationist and religiously spun views on topics via religious (Southern Baptist) schooling while I was growing up, and that put me at a disadvantage vs. my peers. I had to reeducate myself on my own time and even now I notice gaps in my knowledge that I have to constantly try to mend

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a version mirroring White Replacement Theory, and isn't much better through its vilification of Caucasian people that makes this disgusting 'theory' a piece of garbage.

It doesnt vilify white people. Did you not read the thread or ignore posts clarifying that?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It doesnt vilify white people. Did you not read the thread or ignore posts clarifying that?

Yes it does and no amount of pathetic excuses will change that.

 

[Viker]

its vilification of Caucasian people

How so? I'm just curious as to how it works like that. Please, illuminate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes it does and no amount of pathetic excuses will change that.

No, it doesn't. Not sorry, but if your get that from it you need to grow some thicker skin.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Isn't CRT like a higher education class, like something that would be taught in Yale or Harvard?

At a college level CRT is fine as long as it stays elective and not compulsary to graduate.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it doesn't. Not sorry, but if your get that from it you need to grow some thicker skin.

I could care less about CRT no more than WRT.

 

[The Hammer]

It's a version mirroring White Replacement Theory, and isn't much better through its vilification of Caucasian people that makes this disgusting 'theory' a piece of garbage.

Got any support for this steaming pile?

 

[Augustus]

Isn't CRT like a higher education class, like something that would be taught in Yale or Harvard?

Many concepts can be taught at multiple levels.

Just as a hypothetical, you can teach people Marxism without going into the nuances of historical and dialectical materialism.

You can also use a Marxist/Marxian inspired pedagogy.

At a higher level you can teach a theory as an analytical tool, at a lower level you can teach conclusions derived from using the analytical tool as facts.

As a result I think any argument that is based on “Theory X is a graduate level subject so it can’t be taught in K-12” is a bit misleading.