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.
You have a very rich fantasy life, if you're reading all of this into my comments.
Just say that you think everyone who disagrees with you is racist.
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.
I'm not reacting to these proposed policies personally. They're divisive, discriminatory, and generally a bad idea. That's why I oppose them.
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.
And there you have it.
Wants to ignore major inequalities AND cover it up.
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 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.
But what if the current legal system isn’t sufficient?
Should everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of race?
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.
If the current laws and legal system don’t result in justice then maybe something has to change.
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.
But what if the current legal system isn’t sufficient?
Should everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of race?
No one has shown any evidence that the current system isn't sufficient to redress discrimination against living people.
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.
But what if the current legal system isn’t sufficient?
Should everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of race?
No one has shown any evidence that the current system isn't sufficient to redress discrimination against living people.
If you ignore all data ever collected, sure. Which you are doing in this thread, every time it is presented.
Sounds like you’ll have to preach about how eager you are about “creating opps for young students to learn about oppression, intersectionality, bias, multiples genders, etc. theories.”
That’s disappointing to see that controversial stuff pushed on public school teachers and on k-8 young children.
Was there a few town halls for the community and board and “curricula writers” to discuss this all? Or was that disallowed like in Fairfax and Loudoun?
Anonymous wrote:Minnesota's changes to teacher licensing requirements includes
"Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about:
power,
privilege,
intersectionality, and
systemic oppression…
…in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity."
Yes, Absolutely.
Equity of outcomes instead of equality of opportunities is the ultimate giveaway. It’s CRT.
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.
CRT IS the new k-8 social studies curriculum in MCPS, now looks like Minnie is slipping it in fast too.
Anonymous wrote:Minnesota's changes to teacher licensing requirements includes
"Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity."
Whoever wrote that or supports it should spend a couple of years living in Mexico or Haiti or Congo and come back to the US with a better grasp of power, privilege and yadayada.
Anonymous wrote:Minnesota's changes to teacher licensing requirements includes
"Consistent with the local curriculum and state and local academic standards, the teacher creates demonstrates the ability to create opportunities for students to learn about power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity."
Yes. Obvious ideologized nonsense.
Fight or Flight.
Families have been leaving Minneapolis city public schools for years now. Just go to lake country and stay sane.
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.
But what if the current legal system isn’t sufficient?
Should everyone have access to the same opportunities, regardless of race?
No one has shown any evidence that the current system isn't sufficient to redress discrimination against living people.
Look around. We don't all have access to the same opportunities.
You may choose not to see it, but it's everywhere.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.
I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.
It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.
Contradict much?
No. White people don’t experience discrimination.
You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?
Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.
The thing about the US is that poor white people living in West Virginia have a lot more in common with poor non-white people than they do with white people living in Arlington or Bethesda. But, progressives start bleating on about how someone living in a trailer in Appalachia has "white privilege", and working class and poor white people look at them (justifiably) like they're a bunch of morons.
It's kind of funny- the people in power in the US have used race to divide lower-income people for decades, which has prevented the creation of strong unions or anything akin to a European-style labor party in the US. Now, progressives seem determined to continue the practice. And they don't even understand how they're hurting their own cause.
Now do household income distributed by race in West Virginia. And report back.
Exactly.
The US’s racist policies caused this massive wealth gap. We need to take steps to fix it.
Anonymous wrote:It’s not CRT based on the definition the politicians and administrators saying CRT doesn’t exist outside of graduate school use. It is CRT based on the definition that everyone else uses
It's not taught at any schools but just mentioning CRT gets the RWJWs worked into a heavy lather.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
