Is this CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

That's just it, they HAVEN'T had access to the same opportunities. To the degree that the country has tried to correct that, that's only only been happening a relatively short while in the history of our country and those efforts have faced staunch opposition at every turn.

As for it's not the government's job to guaranty equality, I direct you to the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and would suggest that you are mistaken. What you either don't seem to understand, or are choosing to willfully ignore, is that discrimination remains systemic, resulting in these unequal outcomes. It's like baseball -- year, everyone has the opportunity to score a run. It's just that white people were born on third base and think they hit a triple while everyone else is starting from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

And if they didn’t have access the same opportunities, we should fix it, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

To bring this back to the original question at hand vis a vis what should be taught in schools, do you agree that children should be taught about redlining? And then shown housing statistics today? I mean, those are just facts, right? They can draw their own conclusions...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

Yes, guess some people think it’s fine to ignore the people living with significant, real-world impacts of government discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

So communism? When in history has their been a perfect equilibrium between all people in all things? Haven’t their always been rich and poor? Remedial learners and advanced learners? I don’t understand “equality of outcomes”, because it just seems like an unachievable platitude being used to end things like race neutral testing for advanced public schools like TJ, to end ap classes, to end gifted and talented, and essentially to water down academic vigor and promote grade inflation merely for the sake of getting better graduation statistics for certain populations. I mean who needs the most qualified engineers, right? And then heaven forbid anyone dare discuss “equity” efforts with any objectivity. No. No you can’t do that. You’ll be branded an outcast for even questioning things and possible counterintuitive impacts.

I mean, as another example, don’t discuss the fact that teachers are getting increasingly burnt out because traditional means of discipline is less enforced (less suspension and expulsion) and day a kid who punches another, or repeatedly disrupts learning in a classroom wil be kept there, or face some “restorative justice” but allowed to remain in the class or their victim in perpetuity. No we can’t talk about the treble effects of that progressive policy.

No, we’re all in this grand experiment together.

No, not communism. No one is suggesting government own the means of production. Jesus. Were you born stupid or are you just poorly educated?

You’re the one who can’t see the parallels between “equality of outcomes” and communism, which to me indicates lack of critical thinking and idiocy.

Show me one society in history that has equality of outcomes. How about the NBA? Wall Street? Are the Dalits in India getting equality of outcome? There are too many platitudes these days. I’m glad the Supreme Court is going to end affirmative action. Let everyone get a fair shot using traditional means like race neutral testing. It’s not cool to be bigoted against Asian college admission.

Toots, don't talk to me about critical thinking. It's so patently obvious you lack that ability. You don't even know what "communism" is. You're also using a pedantic definition of "equality." The context is not "every individual should be equal." The context is "there are wildly divergent outcomes on average between people of different races. We need to correct that."

As for your weird whataboutisms about professional basketball and India (?!!?), we're talking about basic human needs: Income, housing, health care.

Your refusal to admit that the deck is stacked against certain people to meet these basic needs indicates you like the rigged game very much and want to keep it that way. We see you. Just stop pretending like you're a good person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

That's just it, they HAVEN'T had access to the same opportunities. To the degree that the country has tried to correct that, that's only only been happening a relatively short while in the history of our country and those efforts have faced staunch opposition at every turn.

As for it's not the government's job to guaranty equality, I direct you to the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and would suggest that you are mistaken. What you either don't seem to understand, or are choosing to willfully ignore, is that discrimination remains systemic, resulting in these unequal outcomes. It's like baseball -- year, everyone has the opportunity to score a run. It's just that white people were born on third base and think they hit a triple while everyone else is starting from home.

The bolded might be the belief of you and your fellow progressives, but it's not the gospel truth just because you believe it.

Lots of people disagree with you, and we're going to push back against policies you espouse that we don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

And if they didn’t have access the same opportunities, we should fix it, right?

Discrimination based on race is already illegal, so we've done all we should in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

To bring this back to the original question at hand vis a vis what should be taught in schools, do you agree that children should be taught about redlining? And then shown housing statistics today? I mean, those are just facts, right? They can draw their own conclusions...

No, allowing that in schools is just progressive divisiveness. Housing policy isn't something that K-12 schools should be wasting time on, given that they're having a tough time just teaching the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

That's just it, they HAVEN'T had access to the same opportunities. To the degree that the country has tried to correct that, that's only only been happening a relatively short while in the history of our country and those efforts have faced staunch opposition at every turn.

As for it's not the government's job to guaranty equality, I direct you to the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and would suggest that you are mistaken. What you either don't seem to understand, or are choosing to willfully ignore, is that discrimination remains systemic, resulting in these unequal outcomes. It's like baseball -- year, everyone has the opportunity to score a run. It's just that white people were born on third base and think they hit a triple while everyone else is starting from home.

The bolded might be the belief of you and your fellow progressives, but it's not the gospel truth just because you believe it.

Lots of people disagree with you, and we're going to push back against policies you espouse that we don't like.

Yes, we get that. It's useful for us to see racists like you self-identifying. We collect that information. Someday we'll use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

Yes, guess some people think it’s fine to ignore the people living with significant, real-world impacts of government discrimination.

As I've said several times, if you've been discriminated against by the government, you should of course sue for legal redress.

The statute of limitations has long passed for your dead ancestors, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

To bring this back to the original question at hand vis a vis what should be taught in schools, do you agree that children should be taught about redlining? And then shown housing statistics today? I mean, those are just facts, right? They can draw their own conclusions...

No, allowing that in schools is just progressive divisiveness. Housing policy isn't something that K-12 schools should be wasting time on, given that they're having a tough time just teaching the basics.

That's a lot of words to basically admit you don't want to put the idea in children's heads that were some unfair things done in the past to people of color that continue to have an effect today. Because that's just fact.

Gotta protect your white privilege at all costs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

That's just it, they HAVEN'T had access to the same opportunities. To the degree that the country has tried to correct that, that's only only been happening a relatively short while in the history of our country and those efforts have faced staunch opposition at every turn.

As for it's not the government's job to guaranty equality, I direct you to the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and would suggest that you are mistaken. What you either don't seem to understand, or are choosing to willfully ignore, is that discrimination remains systemic, resulting in these unequal outcomes. It's like baseball -- year, everyone has the opportunity to score a run. It's just that white people were born on third base and think they hit a triple while everyone else is starting from home.

The bolded might be the belief of you and your fellow progressives, but it's not the gospel truth just because you believe it.

Lots of people disagree with you, and we're going to push back against policies you espouse that we don't like.

Yes, we get that. It's useful for us to see racists like you self-identifying. We collect that information. Someday we'll use it.

Given that your definition of "racist" is "anyone who doesn't agree with me", you're going to need to compile a long list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

We don't all agree on that point.

To bring this back to the original question at hand vis a vis what should be taught in schools, do you agree that children should be taught about redlining? And then shown housing statistics today? I mean, those are just facts, right? They can draw their own conclusions...

No, allowing that in schools is just progressive divisiveness. Housing policy isn't something that K-12 schools should be wasting time on, given that they're having a tough time just teaching the basics.

DP. It's funny how far we've moved from "just teach facts." Now it's "don't teach facts that I claim are divisive" or "don't teach anything other than 'the basics' (undefined of course)." Redlining is a basic fact about American history that's totally appropriate for a high school class. I learned about it in my very much not progressive high school history class in rural NC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

That's just it, they HAVEN'T had access to the same opportunities. To the degree that the country has tried to correct that, that's only only been happening a relatively short while in the history of our country and those efforts have faced staunch opposition at every turn.

As for it's not the government's job to guaranty equality, I direct you to the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and would suggest that you are mistaken. What you either don't seem to understand, or are choosing to willfully ignore, is that discrimination remains systemic, resulting in these unequal outcomes. It's like baseball -- year, everyone has the opportunity to score a run. It's just that white people were born on third base and think they hit a triple while everyone else is starting from home.

The bolded might be the belief of you and your fellow progressives, but it's not the gospel truth just because you believe it.

Lots of people disagree with you, and we're going to push back against policies you espouse that we don't like.

Yes, we get that. It's useful for us to see racists like you self-identifying. We collect that information. Someday we'll use it.

Given that your definition of "racist" is "anyone who doesn't agree with me", you're going to need to compile a long list.

It's a fairly long list, but not nearly as long as you seem to think.

And that's not my lens for calling you a racist. My lens is that you're dug in on opposing policies that are inclusive and correct past wrongs because you either believe that somehow takes something from you or that you think others should abide by your standards for success, which, of course, systemically inaccessible to them. Furthermore, your continued intransigence in this matter has led me to conclude that your opposition is, in fact, driven by a desire to preserve white supremacy, whether or not you can accept that about yourself.

BTW, if may surprise you to know that I'm a 51-yo white man who's very well to do. Unlike you, I recognize that improving economic opportunity for all doesn't hurt me -- in fact, it benefits me. I really don't know why you're so threatened. The kindest thing I can think of is you are incapable to doing the hard work of cognitive dissonance to understand you don't have to react to these policies so personally.