Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm totally fine with it. I guess I really don't get the uproar? I'm not saying that to be obtuse, I truly don't understand why it's so controversial to teach kids about redlining, racial covenants, three strikes you're out, etc. I learned about redlining and disproportionality in high school (in not particularly liberal part of Wisconsin, mind you) in the late 90s, it's not that new. Somehow we all survived.

Yep.

Dems/Libs/Progressives are just terrible with communication and Republicans seized on how scary “CRT” sounds like a disease and I really can’t fathom what they think it is. It’s just American history. We have things we should be proud of (founding of country based on religious freedoms! Opportunities for immigrants and refugees!) and things we should know and learn from (taking land from native Americans caused harm and suffering; much of our country’s wealth was bc we used free slave labor) so we can be better people in the future. What’s more American than that? I was raised by parents who were socially conscious and taught me basically the themes of CRT without label long it as such and I was/am:

1) not traumatized or harmed
2) did/do not feel shame or guilt bc I am white
3) did/do not love America any less and feel fortunate and proud to be American
4) excited for our multiethnic future

What does concern me? The fact that there is a recent poll out showing Donald Trump is up 14% over Biden in Michigan, there is a Republican Representative who created and circulated a cartoon killing another Representative and his party did not throw him out but merely slapped him on wrist, and that Gerrymandering and the Electoral college has made it pretty likely Republicans will gain control of House in a clear circumvention of the will of the majority.

And to continue my rant, the NYT piece on why Blue States are to Blame also resonates. The NIMBY Dems also need to recognize their role.

You two are taking about something - something that's not CRT. You are like two 12 year olds bragging to each other about how much you know about sex.

[Anonymous]

I am ok with CRT as long as it's truthful. The truth will set us free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely teach it for anyone who wants to take it. History is continually changing based on views and perspectives.

I was a WWII history buff for many years. And - pretty much every book written on the European theater prior to about 1995 is just pure crap. No one knew about Enigma and with that knowledge now out, just about everything with all decision making changed.

WWII history buffs never called for a revolution and overthrow of the government. Those who want CR - or CRT - taught aren't in it to make an academic point. They want a revolution, a reparation - and communism. How do you think NKorea got their way? You ok with that?

Academics who write about and teach CRT… want communism? Do you even realize how utterly delusional you are?

Critical theory is a branch of Marxist ideology. Communism and CRT are parallel frameworks - one deals with class, one deals with race. To not understand this is to demonstrate ignorance.

[Anonymous]

There are too many idiots (here and elsewhere) talking about CRT that don’t know a single thing about CRT.

That includes a lot of the DCUM community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying that CRT will only be taught in college.. why do college kids have to learn about CRT?
Are you okay with it? I have opinion I just want to know what other people think.

My kids know about CRT. They know it is an evil racist ideology, but they know what it is. They use this knowledge to spot racist teachers so that they can be careful not to trigger them.

[Anonymous]

Unless your kid is a sociology major, or maybe going into Pre-Law, they won't have any CRT in grade school, high school or college.

[Anonymous]

But think about how we need to look at WWII history. With the knowledge that leaders were are aware of German high command decisions from early on. Did “we” make decisions based on who would be hurt/killed so as to protect the code break that were racist based?

[Anonymous]

Of course I am okay with it. Only complete ignoramuses would object to seeing the ways in which systemic racism has been built into our system of government. It’s absolutely astonishing that anyone capable of forming a sentence could object to it. (I am a white woman.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But think about how we need to look at WWII history. With the knowledge that leaders were are aware of German high command decisions from early on. Did “we” make decisions based on who would be hurt/killed so as to protect the code break that were racist based?

I mean in middle school I learned that my best friend would have been put in an internment camp during WWII based on her ethnicity. She talked also about how her grandparents had lost everything when they were interred. It's something that's stayed with me since then, rather powerfully. Had we not discussed internment in WWII in class, it maybe wouldn't have, we'd been friends since elementary school and her grandparents being interred never came up.

I think those are very valuable teaching moments for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am ok with CRT as long as it's truthful. The truth will set us free.

I’m a teacher and my principal was going to require us to read White Fragility, which I thought was wildly inappropriate. Teaching about Ruby Bridges isn’t CRT and is not what the complaint is about. Schools operating under the assumption that all white people are latent racists is CRT and is an incredibly divisive framework to operate under.
As a teacher, I don’t see that the ideology of CRT has made it Into the classroom, but it has definitely made it into teacher training and just the overall ideology that school divisions are operating. Examples of this include as I stated previously, requiring teachers to read White Fragility, the movement (in Virginia) to remove advanced math classes and the advanced diploma, TJ watering down their admissions standards, school districts hiring full time equity officers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ok with CRT as long as it's truthful. The truth will set us free.

I’m a teacher and my principal was going to require us to read White Fragility, which I thought was wildly inappropriate. Teaching about Ruby Bridges isn’t CRT and is not what the complaint is about. Schools operating under the assumption that all white people are latent racists is CRT and is an incredibly divisive framework to operate under.
As a teacher, I don’t see that the ideology of CRT has made it Into the classroom, but it has definitely made it into teacher training and just the overall ideology that school divisions are operating. Examples of this include as I stated previously, requiring teachers to read White Fragility, the movement (in Virginia) to remove advanced math classes and the advanced diploma, TJ watering down their admissions standards, school districts hiring full time equity officers, etc.

As an educator, I strongly encourage you to read White Fragility. You don’t have to agree with it, but it may increase your ability to empathize with the lived experience of POC students. You can’t imagine the harm done by unconscious bias and micro aggressions, particularly those that occur in elementary and middle school. To dedicate your life to students is admirable. Please consider exploring this area, just as a means to understand your students a bit better.

[Anonymous]

I'm totally fine with schools teaching about the role race has played in American history and continues to play in our social structures. And teachers should be trained to be aware of the role implicit bias can play in their interaction with students of color. I mentor 1st gen students in college applications and it's frustrating to see that talented kids who go to the same school as my kids have not been encouraged to take the more rigorous classes and so once I meet with them, their college options are already somewhat limited. Why are my white UMC kids automatically put on one path and these kids are not?

OTOH, I've been exposed to a common "anti-racist" training at work that Black colleagues have said they find offensive - that "white supremacist values" include a sense of urgency, valuing the written word, perfectionism, objectivity. This suggests that people of color should not be expected to meet deadlines, aspire to excellence in writing and other work, etc. That, of course, is ridiculous but this idea seems to get a lot of play in corporate and education training.

https://www.nextgenlearning.org/articles/what-happened-when-my-school-started-to-dismantle-white-supremacy-culture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally fine with schools teaching about the role race has played in American history and continues to play in our social structures. And teachers should be trained to be aware of the role implicit bias can play in their interaction with students of color. I mentor 1st gen students in college applications and it's frustrating to see that talented kids who go to the same school as my kids have not been encouraged to take the more rigorous classes and so once I meet with them, their college options are already somewhat limited. Why are my white UMC kids automatically put on one path and these kids are not?

OTOH, I've been exposed to a common "anti-racist" training at work that Black colleagues have said they find offensive - that "white supremacist values" include a sense of urgency, valuing the written word, perfectionism, objectivity. This suggests that people of color should not be expected to meet deadlines, aspire to excellence in writing and other work, etc. That, of course, is ridiculous but this idea seems to get a lot of play in corporate and education training.

https://www.nextgenlearning.org/articles/what-happened-when-my-school-started-to-dismantle-white-supremacy-culture

The citation of those values is from 2001 and the article from 2019. It may be helpful to explore more current writing on this issue. In having this conversation, I think it's important to not get suck on ideas that are triggering and keep the conversation going. For example, it is not that other cultures don't value the written word and objectivity, it is just that some value relationships, context, tradition etc. which are by nature subjective. This speaks to the impact of worldview on lived experience. Neither is inherently right or wrong, it becomes problematic when one is considered the "norm". I hope I stated this in a way that means sense. Bottom line is to keep talking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally fine with schools teaching about the role race has played in American history and continues to play in our social structures. And teachers should be trained to be aware of the role implicit bias can play in their interaction with students of color. I mentor 1st gen students in college applications and it's frustrating to see that talented kids who go to the same school as my kids have not been encouraged to take the more rigorous classes and so once I meet with them, their college options are already somewhat limited. Why are my white UMC kids automatically put on one path and these kids are not?

OTOH, I've been exposed to a common "anti-racist" training at work that Black colleagues have said they find offensive - that "white supremacist values" include a sense of urgency, valuing the written word, perfectionism, objectivity. This suggests that people of color should not be expected to meet deadlines, aspire to excellence in writing and other work, etc. That, of course, is ridiculous but this idea seems to get a lot of play in corporate and education training.

https://www.nextgenlearning.org/articles/what-happened-when-my-school-started-to-dismantle-white-supremacy-culture

The citation of those values is from 2001 and the article from 2019. It may be helpful to explore more current writing on this issue. In having this conversation, I think it's important to not get suck on ideas that are triggering and keep the conversation going. For example, it is not that other cultures don't value the written word and objectivity, it is just that some value relationships, context, tradition etc. which are by nature subjective. This speaks to the impact of worldview on lived experience. Neither is inherently right or wrong, it becomes problematic when one is considered the "norm". I hope I stated this in a way that means sense. Bottom line is to keep talking.

Can you post something more up to date then? These are the type of ideas that concern many parents, not teaching about racism and its legacy. How do you teach children to engage in a learning environment if there aren't any agreed-upon values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally fine with schools teaching about the role race has played in American history and continues to play in our social structures. And teachers should be trained to be aware of the role implicit bias can play in their interaction with students of color. I mentor 1st gen students in college applications and it's frustrating to see that talented kids who go to the same school as my kids have not been encouraged to take the more rigorous classes and so once I meet with them, their college options are already somewhat limited. Why are my white UMC kids automatically put on one path and these kids are not?

OTOH, I've been exposed to a common "anti-racist" training at work that Black colleagues have said they find offensive - that "white supremacist values" include a sense of urgency, valuing the written word, perfectionism, objectivity. This suggests that people of color should not be expected to meet deadlines, aspire to excellence in writing and other work, etc. That, of course, is ridiculous but this idea seems to get a lot of play in corporate and education training.

https://www.nextgenlearning.org/articles/what-happened-when-my-school-started-to-dismantle-white-supremacy-culture

The citation of those values is from 2001 and the article from 2019. It may be helpful to explore more current writing on this issue. In having this conversation, I think it's important to not get suck on ideas that are triggering and keep the conversation going. For example, it is not that other cultures don't value the written word and objectivity, it is just that some value relationships, context, tradition etc. which are by nature subjective. This speaks to the impact of worldview on lived experience. Neither is inherently right or wrong, it becomes problematic when one is considered the "norm". I hope I stated this in a way that means sense. Bottom line is to keep talking.

Can you post something more up to date then? These are the type of ideas that concern many parents, not teaching about racism and its legacy. How do you teach children to engage in a learning environment if there aren't any agreed-upon values?

Oh, I have no idea about how to teach these lessons to children. I love teachers and I trust them by and large. I think teaching about racism and its legacy is a developmentally appropriate would reduce some the strong negative reaction to these discussions as college students and adults. If I am not mistaken, CRT is actually not being taught in schools at all? I was referring to the post about educator trainings. I think that adults are more than capable of understanding the nuances of this issue, if we take the time to hear one another. As these trainings have been rolled out, I think there is greater empathy about how some of these ideas can be received by white people. I recently saw an talk by Kendi that I found very hopeful. I'll see if I can find it to post.