Letter to Brearly Parents Decrying CRT Indoctrination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The only true systemic racism today is the DOJ ruling that colleges are allowed to discriminate against Asian applicants despite being more qualified. Everything else is just individual bias that is not consistent with the law. Systemic racism is Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, Nazi laws against Jews, educational exclusion of Jews, Chinese Exclusionary Act...all pre-1960's. In America today, anyone with the determination to get ahead can do so without a law getting in the way. Even so, in my opinion, although not true systemic racism, the closest thing to it today is the dumbing down of American public education and the welfare system that encourages single-parent households. While these two things affect both Blacks and Whites, it disproportionately affects Blacks and makes it very difficult to get ahead. However, with enough determination, ability and luck, it's possible for these people to get ahead because there are no laws prohibiting it. This cannot be said for many other countries. That is why immigrants come to America and tend to do better here than their American-born counterparts because they don't internalize the hurt caused by individual bias and allow it to make them a victim. Victim mentality is a sort of internal prison.

This is a common tactic by the right against the left: to attack the words. Defund the police. Black lives matter. Systemic racism. You poke holes in the words. Fine. Words matter, and the left is picky about language, too. But what lefties (like me) often hear is that those on the right dismiss the words and reject the conversation in whole.

So how do we have this conversation about what many call systemic racism and you and many others call a collection of individual biases? This bias plays out against people of color in multiple venues. In schools. When dealing with police. In courts. In housing. In the professional world. While walking. While birdwatching.

So it's not codified in law, but it sure is pervasive. How do we talk about it and how do we make our society more just?[/quote]

This might be the best exchange I've read on CRT on DCUM. Wish we could have more nuanced discussion like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this interesting or newsworthy?

The author states: "We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country's history and adds no understanding to any of today's societal issues."

I think that's a pretty fringe viewpoint, and certainly not one worthy of a new thread discussion.

The real issue here is one arising out of people not using terms in the same way. The letter writer uses the term “systemic racism” in the way that term would have been understood in the past, a structure of overtly discriminatory acts against Black people. That term is being used quite differently by the anti-racist movement now: it means any detectable difference in outcome in which Black people do worse than others, regardless of mechanism. This is really what all the fighting is about.

Racial preferences in education are a good example. The letter-writer suggests that admission to colleges is biased in favor of Blacks because they tend to get admitted with much lower objective criteria; the anti-racist looks at the same system, sees Blacks are admitted in lower proportions than their presence in the population, and concludes the system is by definition racist. So too with the crack issue. It is a matter of history that the penalties for crack were enhanced relative to cocaine because it was perceived to have a uniquely destructive effect on people and communities, largely Black ones. This may or may not have been right, but it was a policy choice that wasn’t crazy, and it was not intended to increase incarceration of Blacks relative to others. But, it led to detectable differences across racial groups that were worse for Black people, thus racist as many currently use that term. People may come down on different sides of these issues, but there is a lot of wasted energy and pointless discussion because people are talking past each other by using words differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The letter is full of cliches, hyperbole, and Fox News talking points.

I’m sure how Brearly is reckoning with its legacy and reputation leaves much to be desired, but this is a rather simplistic letter. No new ideas here. Little nuance.

And he doesn’t use the Oxford comma.

ITA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This person actually thinks Donald Trump won the election so I am not wasting more time on them. Not reachable and not worth it. Brain fried by Fox, OAN, and Q conspiracies.

If you would have watched the hours of evidentiary hearings in the state legislatures in MI, PA, GA, AZ & NV, you would have seen the evidence for yourself. But, no, it is you who was brain fried by main stream media who led you to believe otherwise. Just because you let the media form your opinions doesn't mean everyone does.

Thank you for saying this. Liberals seem to think anyone who doesn't think like them gets fed their beliefs from media when, in actuality, that's what's happening to them. Also, I watched two of the hearings and agree with you.

DP. Oh please. I watched these hearings directly, I am politically centrist, and I can say anyone who actually believes this "stop the steal" nonsense is in fact braindead Qanon. That's not debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this interesting or newsworthy?

The author states: "We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country's history and adds no understanding to any of today's societal issues."

I think that's a pretty fringe viewpoint, and certainly not one worthy of a new thread discussion.

The real issue here is one arising out of people not using terms in the same way. The letter writer uses the term “systemic racism” in the way that term would have been understood in the past, a structure of overtly discriminatory acts against Black people. That term is being used quite differently by the anti-racist movement now: it means any detectable difference in outcome in which Black people do worse than others, regardless of mechanism. This is really what all the fighting is about.

Racial preferences in education are a good example. The letter-writer suggests that admission to colleges is biased in favor of Blacks because they tend to get admitted with much lower objective criteria; the anti-racist looks at the same system, sees Blacks are admitted in lower proportions than their presence in the population, and concludes the system is by definition racist. So too with the crack issue. It is a matter of history that the penalties for crack were enhanced relative to cocaine because it was perceived to have a uniquely destructive effect on people and communities, largely Black ones. This may or may not have been right, but it was a policy choice that wasn’t crazy, and it was not intended to increase incarceration of Blacks relative to others. But, it led to detectable differences across racial groups that were worse for Black people, thus racist as many currently use that term. People may come down on different sides of these issues, but there is a lot of wasted energy and pointless discussion because people are talking past each other by using words differently.

DP. Not only it was a policy choice that wasn’t crazy, it was actively supported by the black community leaders, politicians and so on at the time. This choice was based, in part, on some medical “facts” that apparently turned out to be untrue, but black doctors and black judges believed them. There is a book about it “Locking up our own”. I lived in NYC, and I remember leaders of tenants associations in the projects very much supporting zero tolerance on drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only true systemic racism today is the DOJ ruling that colleges are allowed to discriminate against Asian applicants despite being more qualified. Everything else is just individual bias that is not consistent with the law. Systemic racism is Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, Nazi laws against Jews, educational exclusion of Jews, Chinese Exclusionary Act...all pre-1960's. In America today, anyone with the determination to get ahead can do so without a law getting in the way. Even so, in my opinion, although not true systemic racism, the closest thing to it today is the dumbing down of American public education and the welfare system that encourages single-parent households. While these two things affect both Blacks and Whites, it disproportionately affects Blacks and makes it very difficult to get ahead. However, with enough determination, ability and luck, it's possible for these people to get ahead because there are no laws prohibiting it. This cannot be said for many other countries. That is why immigrants come to America and tend to do better here than their American-born counterparts because they don't internalize the hurt caused by individual bias and allow it to make them a victim. Victim mentality is a sort of internal prison.

This is a common tactic by the right against the left: to attack the words. Defund the police. Black lives matter. Systemic racism. You poke holes in the words. Fine. Words matter, and the left is picky about language, too. But what lefties (like me) often hear is that those on the right dismiss the words and reject the conversation in whole.

So how do we have this conversation about what many call systemic racism and you and many others call a collection of individual biases? This bias plays out against people of color in multiple venues. In schools. When dealing with police. In courts. In housing. In the professional world. While walking. While birdwatching.

So it's not codified in law, but it sure is pervasive. How do we talk about it and how do we make our society more just?

I know how! Let’s teach only one viewpoint and political ideology to kids age 5-18 while they’re at school each day!

We don't teach the "other side" of the holocaust or other atrocities. If something is wrong, it's wrong. Racism is wrong. Allowing people like you to persist under the illusion that you simply posses a different viewpoint, than the reality that you do not believe in doing what is necessary to make the equality of races possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Brearley will be better off without this dad and his daughter. The letter uses all the buzz words of the far-right political community: comparing the school to the Chinese Communist Revolution, claiming that Black Lives Matter is a "Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization," claiming the school is "trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality," and, of course, lamenting "cancel culture." He also does not share one example of what he laments that the school is doing. And to say that there has been no systemic racism in the United States since the civil rights movement in the 1960's is just laughable.

The best part of the letter is this: "I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist." he has absolutely no idea if the admissions department has lowered their standards - he just assumes so since they have tried to admit a more diverse student body. But, of course, he could never be accused of being racist for thinking so.

The letter is getting tons of praise in conservative circles and is all over conservative media. I'm not so sure its such a great lettertthat they all think it is.

BLM is CCR, Marxist and antisemitic. Testing standards have been lowered for the sake of racial and ethnic diversity of the “right kind” (the data speaks for itself here). The systemic racism part of the letter I can do without.. while I agree in theory that systemic racism is BS, I wouldn’t have included it in the letter because it gives the left fodder.

[Anonymous]

Good point but it was a great letter that I would not have had the courage to write in the current cancel culture world. Best thing to do it not donate. If every parent who is concerned about how their kids are treated stopped donating, there would be change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vomit. Rich people seeing themselves as some kind of victims and not seeing the racism right in front of them. Utter horseshit.

It's easy to see this as a clueless white person thing when it's coming from a white guy at a 60k per year private school, but I wholeheartedly agree with every word he says, and I'm a non-white, relatively poor, public school parent; and I know many others just like me who feel the same way. CRT doesn't belong in schools. It is child abuse and dangerous for the future of our country.

Thank you for posting this.

[Anonymous]

Also wanted to add that education on how our country was formed-the truth-makes sense. The ongoing narrative of every White person is entitled is not accurate or positive for moving our country in an include manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also wanted to add that education on how our country was formed-the truth-makes sense. The ongoing narrative of every White person is entitled is not accurate or positive for moving our country in an include manner.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also wanted to add that education on how our country was formed-the truth-makes sense. The ongoing narrative of every White person is entitled is not accurate or positive for moving our country in an include manner.

Is that the narrative? I thought the narrative was to understand how our country was formed- the truth as you say- and understand how that history continues to shape the world we live in today and speak up about it. That’s it. It’s not personal. It’s not about you. No one says every white person is entitled. This is classic white defensiveness and centering yourself. It’s asking white people to recognize we continue to benefit from the systems that were intentionally put in place for white people to benefit, even if the laws are no longer explicitly racist.

Further, this part of the letter kills me - systemic racism is over. You’re going to rig the system for 350 years and then say whoops never mind, our bad, sorry...and then it’s just a level playing field and everyone should shut up about it and go do their best because now it’s all fixed? It might be more complicated than that. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter is full of cliches, hyperbole, and Fox News talking points.

I’m sure how Brearly is reckoning with its legacy and reputation leaves much to be desired, but this is a rather simplistic letter. No new ideas here. Little nuance.

And he doesn’t use the Oxford comma.

ITA

Actually, it is full of specific examples of the author's point. Did you even read it? It is the HOS response that is laughable - some vague reference to students being "afraid" because someone dared to send out a letter questioning their sacred-held POV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also wanted to add that education on how our country was formed-the truth-makes sense. The ongoing narrative of every White person is entitled is not accurate or positive for moving our country in an include manner.

How is that an "ongoing narrative?" You are just making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

I am a very liberal person, but I actually agree with some of his points. Mainly, why does everything have to be about race? We have so much common ground among us as human beings, why do we have to constantly talk about race?

I've got kids at 2 independent schools. My DS (senior this year) has done countless projects this year on white fragility and systemic racism. He's been taught that anyone who is older, or who lived in the past was racist. He made some comment about how "all baby boomers are racist." I said that's absurd and asked if he thinks his grandmother is a racist (as she is a baby boomer)?