CRT – Teacher: "We Were Not Allowed to Question the School's Ideological Programming" - Stack of Stuff Part 12 - Granite Grok

CRT – Teacher: “We Were Not Allowed to Question the School’s Ideological Programming” – Stack of Stuff Part 12

Dana Strangel CRT - Indoctrinaton

The latest installment in this series of post from around the blogosphere dealing with the dangers of Critical Race Theory. As always, most abstracted posts will be reformatted and the emphasis (generally) is mine.

 “Today, I am resigning from a job I love,” she said in a video that alarmed parents everywhere. “Last fall, administrators told [the faculty] we were not allowed to question the school’s ideological programming.” If it were possible, the headmaster said, he would fire the staff “and replace them with people of color.”

And there ARE School Boards out there that are willing to NOT engage with their voters upset that their elected Representatives are shoving this down their throat – to the point of using the Force of Government if anyone dissents from their ideology:

Parents were arrested while protesting against Critical Race Theory (CRT) and a transgender policy at a Virginia school board meeting Tuesday.

The meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia abruptly ended after the crowd became too rowdy and was later declared an unlawful assembly, footage posted to Twitter showed. Two arrests were reportedly made for trespassing after some parents refused to leave.

More than 200 people signed up to speak at the public comment section during the meeting, which was focused on a new school district policy regarding restroom accommodations and the use of pronouns for transgender students. Fireworks also erupted in the meeting when the mother of a transgender student in the district was booed after saying that “hate” was “dripping from the followers of Jesus in this room,” Fox News reported.

Despite not being on the official agenda, CRT became a hot button issue during the meeting, which included former Republican Virginia state Sen. Dick Black speaking out against the teaching of it in Loudoun schools. Parents also began singing the Star-Spangled Banner when the board abruptly ended public comment due to the eruptions from the crowd in the room.

Yeah, that’s another way that School Boards are shutting down debate – these micro-Totalitarians make it a Policy that only certain things can be said to them during “Public Input” – used to control dissent.

I keep using that image of “Ashleigh The Lion”(a Critical Race Theory teacher”) as the Featured Image for many of the posts in this series. Imagine my surprise when I ran upon another post using the same image:

On Tuesday, Kurt Schlichter tweeted a photo of a classroom scene headlined “CRT in one perfect photo.” It promptly disappeared, so he tweeted again, under the headline “she’s just teaching about slavery,” and that too promptly vanished. The rapid takedowns are puzzling, given the photo’s content. Consider the subjects on the left side of the board, starting at the top.

Diversity is a reality of the human condition but in critical race theory (CRT) it is code for proportionality. Under the proportionality doctrine, everything in society must represent the racial and ethnic proportions of the population. If proportionality does not exist, that can only be due to deliberate racial prejudice, and must be remedied by government action in the form of racial quotas, passed off as affirmative action, diversity and so forth.

As Thomas Sowell has often noted, it’s hard to find any place or time when any institution represented the ethnic proportions of the population. CRT ignores personal differences, effort and choice, which account for different outcomes, even among family members of the same race and ethnicity. Since proportionality is not a matter of law, “diversity” is a CRT dogma, at odds with reality, that must be imposed.

You should go read the entire post.

In the debate over the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in America’s classrooms, the left seems to be relying on two arguments: Critics of the theory don’t know what it is, and teachers are not teaching the theory to their students. The former is debatable, but this story demonstrates that the latter is not.

See Steve’s post: Here is a List of NH Teachers “Willing to Go To Jail” for Teaching CRT” as far as NOT teaching YOUR children about Critical Race Theory. And, oh YES!, we now do know what it is – using a word salad and the Marxist mantra of Power to reimpose discrimination.

The group claims that states seeking to ban the teachings of CRT “aim to prohibit teachers from teaching the truth about this country: It was founded on dispossession of Native Americans, slavery, structural racism and oppressions; and structural racism is a defining characteristic of our society today.”

The group contends that refusal to teach about police violence, the prison system, the wealth gap, and other issues is designed to “deceive them – not educate them.” It argues that “this history helps students understand the roots of inequality today and gives them the tools to shape a just future.”

The arguments that the Zinn Project brought up are part of the hard left’s contention that people who criticize CRT don’t know what it is. Because of this presumption, they seem to believe they can convince the public that Critical Race Theory is nothing more than teaching history. Thus, many have argued that the bills that would ban the theory would prevent teachers from teaching about America’s history of racism, especially as it pertains to slavery, Jim Crow, and other topics.

However, this claim is not entirely accurate – at least in most cases. Those wishing to teach this form of woke theology borrow concepts from CRT and other schools of thought and inject them into their teaching. To put it simply, they are not teaching CRT per se, but they are taking components of the theory and infusing it into their lessons. An example would be teachers who are giving their students lessons in which they are grouped into categories of “privileged,” “oppressors,” and “oppressed.” It is a blatant attempt to demean both white and black students due to the color of their skin.

And the only way to find out if your childrens’ teachers are doing that last bit is to demand, via a Right To Know issuance, to review your child’s curriculum.

And who is teaching your childrens’ teachers? Here’s one way (Did Janice Starkey take this class???):

Early in the recording, Assistant Teaching Professor Kelli Pyron Alvarez told the audience, which was limited to instructors and grad students, that they can effectively shut down viewpoints that they don’t agree with — in the classroom and on assignments. “One of the fears is that we’re going to get in trouble for this, right? Like we can’t tell students that they can’t say something in class. But we can! And let me tell you how,” Alvarez said.

…The workshop in question trains instructors on how to eliminate disfavored but constitutionally protected expression from the classroom and guide assignments and discussion into preferred areas — all for unambiguously ideological and viewpoint-based reasons.

To enforce this regime, Alvarez laid out a two-step plan that we might label “call out and report”:

1. “If they use any of those things, if any of those come through in their writing or in their comments, I will call them out on it.”
2. And if it happens again, “report them.”

To justify limiting the free speech of students, Alvarez cited an interesting source: the United States Supreme Court.

Read the post to see the absolutely gobsmacking idea that SCOTUS allows her to both Silence and Coerce Speech from others. Here’s video:

And you don’t think that CRT is being imposed on your children????

Like a lot of parents, Marlene didn’t plan to drive halfway across town and wade through crowds ten-people deep just to speak her mind. But when her seventh-grade daughter came home and told her she “didn’t want to be white,” something inside her snapped. “This is an immutable characteristic that I cannot change. She cannot change,” the Missouri mom said indignantly. “This is culturally-sanctioned discrimination…” she argued. “[It’s] child abuse.” But if you ask the Left, critical race theory is none of those things. It isn’t even real.

…Tell that to the thousands of parents streaming into local school board meetings — every one of them with an eerily similar story about a school that’s teaching their children to hate their country, judge others by their skin, and join their woke, social justice army. These are real people from real communities, who are now fully aware of what has been happening in public school classrooms: leftist indoctrination. Indoctrination, Republicans like Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) point out, funded by your tax dollars. Under a new Department of Education’s proposed rule, any projects that “peddle critical race theory,” she warns, “will be prioritized for specialized grant funding from the federal government.”

And of course, Marxist politicians are all in by trying to gaslight us all – again, the dismissiveness and denial that CRT is a “thing”:

As Republicans across the country look to ban critical race theory, a controversial doctrine that highlights systemic racism as defining framework of U.S. history, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea that it is even being taught to public school students.

Isn’t her “Moral Superiority” just dripping from her lips? This is her modus operandi when anyone challenges her beliefs.

And before I forget, let me remind you what Critical Race Theory is:

(1) Centrality of Race and Racism in Society: CRT asserts that racism is a central component of American life.
(2) Challenge to Dominant Ideology: CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.
(3) Centrality of Experiential Knowledge: CRT asserts that the experiential knowledge of people of color is appropriate, legitimate, and an integral part to analyzing and understanding racial inequality.
(4) Interdisciplinary Perspective: CRT challenges ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary focuses of most analyses and insists that race and racism be placed in both a contemporary and historical context using interdisciplinary methods.
(5) Commitment to Social Justice: CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.

Actually, that’s what the proponents of CRT say. Really, its all about who has Power and who wields it (Marxist theology) and uses Race to frame “the struggle” in that if you are white, you are the Oppressor, you’re Racist, and everyone else is Oppressed. Then, by any means necessary, rise up and fight the Power! Fortunately, the link takes the above apart but if you hear someone talking like those 5 points above, you’re looking at CRT right in your face.

So get right back into their faces – a bit off topic but you have start learning how to debate these folks on ANY of their Leftist agenda (including the Cultural Clubs known CRT, Transgender, Wealth Inequality, Voting “Rights”, et al):

The Rules are as follows:

I. Challenge every premise. Do not let the assumptions of liberals frame the issue. Restate all questions from liberals in the correct conservative context.

II. Use conservative terms vice words/phrases concocted by liberals. For example, use “homosexual” vice “gay.” “Gay” was a term invented in the ’70s to help legitimize homosexuality. Avoid repetition of Marxist-inspired lingo, e.g., pandemic refugees (they’re illegal aliens!), our democracy (we live in a constitutional republic!), reproductive freedom (abortion kills human beings), etc. In short, use terms not colloquialized by the Left that convey conservative values and principles while correcting the Left’s verbiage in real-time when used by their spokesmen.

III. Parse every sentence spoken by a liberal. Don’t let a single false statement or presumption slide by without a counter-point. Don’t let anything said by a Democrat escape immediate repudiation when warranted, particularly their unfounded and unsupported claims.

IV. Define any and all ambiguities from a conservative point of view. If there is any doubt, make sure to convey the conservative interpretation of the issue at hand, including the underlying moral principles linked to history and proven doctrine (e.g., the Bible).

V. Use humorous anecdotes that convey commonsense answers that all can understand whenever possible. The Left are humorless in general, as noted here. I mean, when is the last time the lunatic Nancy Pelosi, the deranged Rachel Maddow, or The Hologram himself pulled off a joke that (a) made sense and (b) was actually funny? And they STILL can’t figure out Donald Trump’s joke during the 2016 campaign when he suggested that the Russians hack and release Hillary Clinton’s emails. These clowns have ZERO sense of humor.

VI. Cite historical evidence that proves conservative points. The flip side is to demand historical evidence that the Left’s cockamamie schemes have ever worked in human history. Nine times out of ten, they can’t do it.

VII. Do not accept any strawman (false) arguments. The Left constantly makes false claims to justify their policies and intentions. Here is the definition of a strawman:

A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.

VIII. Compare and contrast how liberal positions and issues typically run contrary to human nature. A good treatise on the subject can be found here. Refer in particular to paragraph 4, “Socialism insists that human nature is malleable, not constant.”

IX. Use the law of unintended consequences to debunk the more extreme and reckless liberal ideas. An example is “gun-free zones”, which the Democrats pushed for years (some still do). Gun-free zones, in reality, become magnets for crazed shooters, exposing that Democrat lie that such zones make people safer and more secure.

X. Define what a right is and differentiate a right from a privilege. Here is a good definition of a right:

The word “right,” standing alone, along with the word “freedom” and the phrase “right of the people,” is used in the Constitution to designate a right that one may assert affirmatively and which the government is precluded from invading. Among these are natural rights, which antedate the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Another category of constitutional rights comprises procedural rights, both civil and criminal.
A right is something that does not infringe on someone else, i.e., require loss of someone else’s rights and freedoms in order to fulfill. Democrats frequently seek to legislate privileges for classes and categories of people that infringe on the rights of others.

XI. Compare and contrast the definitions of “tolerate” versus “condone.” Conservatives practice toleration of human failings but can never be forced to condone immorality that goes against Judeo-Christian beliefs. Democrats seek to use the force of the government to make us condone that which we intuitively understand to be evil.

XII. Finally, do not under any circumstances endorse or vote for anybody unwilling to comply with the above rules in public discourse, as that person is gutless, craven, and not worthy of your endorsement! We desperately need to sort the sheep from the goats, including in the Republican Party. And that involves actually engaging in real debates, not simply knuckling under to the Democrat-media onslaught.

 

>