Youch! And you wonder why the younger generations are turned off of America’s traditional values and the freedom that the Capitalistic economic system brings? Here’s one Law Professor’s pronouncement of what he thinks should be our model to strive for:
As always, reformatting and emphasis mine.
I want to draw attention to Aaron Sibarium’s superb Washington Free Beacon column “How Critical Race Theory Led to Kendi.” It actually illuminates the phenomenon of CRT as we find it manifested everywhere in our institutions.
That’s the “title bit”. Now for the ghastly bit:
…Judge Bright asked me to take the course in federal civil rights law because civil rights cases were to be among my primary responsibility in my work for him. Professor Freeman was an early proponent of Critical Legal Studies and its CRT variant. He was a frank Marxist and persistent critic of Supreme Court jurisprudence that he asserted gave with one hand what it took away with the other. He taught all the leading cases interpreting 42 U.S.C section 1983 and the related Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence — the Supreme Court had just decided the Monell case — but this was perhaps the leading theme of the course.
His remarks in class prompted my interest in his utopia. One morning after class I asked him if he would join me for coffee in the Riverbend Cafeteria then adjacent to the law school. In the course of our somewhat stilted conversation I asked him what country he would hold out as his real-world model. He said with only slight hesitation:
“North Korea.”
Think about that for a minute. His model for a successful nation is one that is a Monarchical Communist country with little freedoms but plenty of starvation except for those at the top. 1984 doesn’t even hold a candle to the Norks – yet, this is a guy teaching our future lawyers what our civil rights are to be vis-a-vis the Government. It doesn’t take a skull full of brain cells to figure out how that teeter-totter, with you on one side and Government on the other, would end up.
And for the question of the Day (in which in asking the question, you already know the answer):
It’s no surprise that teachers unions and the Democratic Party oppose efforts to provide school choice to America’s children and their families. Liberal politicians and their union allies in Washington, D.C., have for years stood in the way of educational opportunities for students. What may come as a shock to many is that at least one major, typically left-wing newspaper in the nation’s capital is asking anti-school choice politicians and their education bureaucracy pals to explain exactly why they don’t want to give poor children the opportunity to get into better schools.
The Washington Post published a staff editorial Thursday asking “Why are unions and Democrats so opposed to giving poor children a choice in schooling?”
The answer, obviously, is that teacher unions are money-grubbing entitled entities seeking to grow their memberships. The education of students is important inasmuch more union members means more dues:
…The program, the Post added, “takes nothing away from public schools,” but killing the program would likely cost the district the federal monies sent to traditional and charter schools…The editorial concluded by noting the hypocrisy of the anti-school choice crowd who “see no inconsistency in their opposition to this program and their support for the $40 million DC Tuition Assistance Grant program, which provides funds for college” — and is available to wealthy families.
Because it isn’t about the kids, especially the poor ones. And the unions know what a crappy product they turn out as well. Just another version of the Democrat plantation…
So when is the NH chapter of the American Federation of Teachers going to sue NH Gov. Chris Sununu?
It appears that the left might be striking back against attempts to prohibit the teaching of certain elements of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the classroom. After at least three states have passed legislation outlawing the theory’s teaching and more poised to impose similar measures, the hard left is planning to push back using the legal system. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, recently declared that the organization would take legal action to shield any educator who “gets in trouble for teaching honest history.”
The Washington Post reported that Weingarten’s group is “preparing for litigation [to counter these laws] as we speak.” Andrew Crook, her spokesman, indicated that they have not yet honed in on specific targets but that the organization has “a legal-defense fund ready to go” and that they have about $12.5 million in its coffers specifically allocated for combating anti-CRT laws. The conflict over CRT largely centers on conservatives’ contentions that teachers are using elements of the theory to indoctrinate students into a belief system that causes them to view themselves as “oppressor” or “oppressed.” Many different cases of this type of teaching have come to light as parents view the curriculum or respond to complaints from their children.
These are YOUR tax monies, laundered through union dues, being used AGAINST you and your children. Both the NEA and AFT have decided that Parents will not have a role in deciding your child’s curriculum. Is this how your local school system is supposed to work? Is it the way you are going to let it? There’s more at the link, read it.
And the hard Left is looking to dismiss, ridicule, deny, and make you think you have lying ears and eyes – they want to believe that CRT is just a figment of your imagination and it’s wrong:
Proponents of Critical Race Theory are resorting to semantic gaslighting to defend a dogma that most Americans instinctively abhor. Some pundits claim that CRT is exclusively a school of thought taught in legal academia. On her MSNBC show, Joy Reid claimed that “law school is really the only place it is taught. NBC has looked into everywhere.” Former Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway tweeted: “I don’t think critical legal studies should be taught in elementary schools, and I am ready to die on that hill[.]” Some journalists, informed by other “experts,” contend that CRT is synonymous with “talking about racism.” NPR defined CRT as “teaching about the effects of racism”; the New York Times called it “classroom discussion of race, racism.” NBC News labeled it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.”
These definitions are, of course, mutually exclusive. But they both serve to paint parents into a corner. If CRT is defined just as talking about racism, then parental objections to it must be rooted in racism. If CRT is defined just as a thesis discussed in law schools, then parental objections to it must be rooted in ignorance.
There’s no doubt that CRT has become a politicized term. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo forthrightly explained his strategy on this issue as follows: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
Liberal writer Freddie DeBoer has argued that CRT is now a “completely floating signifier.” Conservatives label a host of things they don’t like as CRT. Liberals, then, “feel compelled to defend CRT because conservatives attack it,” and defend it by claiming that it has nothing to do with any of the bad things conservatives say.
But words have meaning. Parents and policymakers should understand CRT not as conservatives or liberals define it, but as it defines itself. Here’s a definition from a 2001 book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, widely credited as key architects of CRT:
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power….Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it. (Emphases added.)
Several points here deserve restatement: CRT defines itself in opposition to traditional civil rights and even Enlightenment rationalism. It defines itself not simply as a “Theory,” but also as movement of activists who seek to transform society.
…By contrast, parent intuitions about CRT are spot on. Given that CRT informs so many aspects of education policy and pedagogy, the real crux of the issue for parents is, as Andrew Sullivan adroitly put it, “not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory.” (Emphases in original.)
Public schools …have embraced a host of policies and practices that are rooted in Critical Race Theory. When parents hear terms like: “Equity,” “Anti-Racism,” “Cultural Competence,” “Culturally Responsive Education,” “Restorative Justice,” “Ethnic Studies,” “Equitable Math,” “Whiteness,” they would be fundamentally correct to go to a school board meeting and complain about Critical Race Theory. All of these practices are influenced by and have the same politicized purpose as CRT, which – to reiterate – defines itself not merely as a “theory” but also as an activist practice.
School boards that are implementing CRT-infused programming should not follow the media’s lead and gaslight parents by claiming that they are “not teaching CRT” on the grounds that they are not assigning academic journal articles by self-avowed Critical Race Theorists.
And that last part is EXACTLY what Superintendent David Ryan of Exeter’s SAU16 is doing – and other Superintendents around NH. They refuse to tell the truth – and are gaslighting you.
And of course, all of us not of the Left are always called these epithets – CRT just gives them another way to do it:
WELL, I DON’T THINK SO HIGHLY OF THE ATF, EITHER: Internal ATF Document: Americans Who Build Their Own Guns Are Terrorists, Criminals and Violent Extremists.
They’re not, but you could make them those things.
Glenn is not wrong – if you constantly call people what they really aren’t (sexist, homophobic, racist, Christianists, anti-Government, et al), they may well start thinking “well, perhaps I should live up to what they think of me”. It works both ways, you see. Just like the Leftist media keeps complaining that Whites are starting to act like other Minority Identity Groups – who the heck got them to start thinking that way????
And one last one – if your school system even REMOTELY is using the word EQUITY, they’re all about CRT:
In a clever move to utilize the existing modicum of “cultural competency” training, educators bent on revising American history and pushing equal outcomes have found a place to embed the elements of critical race theory. States are running it up the flagpole and out to local school boards in cleverly packaged messaging that demands equity.
Equal outcomes – a result that is impossible unless government mandates that everyone MUST be equal in all things; American sense of meritocracy be damned. Regardless of capability, motivation, drive, persistence, attention to detail, and differing work ethics, everyone must have the exact same result to the Nth degree. This is the classic “use of “euphemism” to disquise the actual intent.
Go read the article – it has nothing to do with equality as we have understood it for centuries. It’s race-baiting.