Georgia State Board of Education bans discussion of racism and white supremacy from all classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn’t white children be educated about their own culpability in systemic racism, all their unearned white privilege, and made to sit with their discomfort?

Why shouldn’t public schools be the ones to advance this effort?

Georgia is clearly trying to fight against teaching critical race theory in public schools.

Explain to me how a third grader is culpable in systemic racism.

Give me some examples of a third grader's unearned white privilege.

One of the emerging beliefs of CRT is that people are either racist or antiracist. There is no middle ground.

White kids are racist by their inaction if they do not actively seek to be antiracist.

Which is never enough if everyone isn't actively working to dismantling all existing institutions and laws, why by definition, are racist. It is in impossible burden, and not an appropriate burden to place on young learners who don't even understand the world yet.

[Anonymous]

Time to leave Georgia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does it say it banned the discussion of racism and white supremacy in the classroom?

It doesn't actually say that, but it's hard to see how you could have an acceptable discussion of racism in the classroom. The whole reason CRT became a bugaboo of the right was because they were exceedingly uncomfortable with how much support racial justice got after George Floyd. They latched on to CRT and certain excesses/bad examples of diversity training to tar all discussion of race and racism. Now any white student who feels "uncomfortable" talking about facts like, say, that the white-black wealth gap today is due to a legacy of discriminatory policies such as restrictive covenants and racist lending policies, can claim that this discussion violates the policy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/

No, republicans don’t have a problem with racial justice. Republicans and others have a problem with CRT. CRT is not the only way to teach about racism and our history. It’s a lens, a way of looking at race and history. We can agree that we need to teach history without glossing over our racist past and that we need to provide diversity training, etc. But it can be done without using CRT as the underlying philosophy.

Guys have absolutely no idea what CRT is. I'm pretty sure most conservatives could not adequately explain it if they had a gun to their head they just want to use it as the bad Boogeyman!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does it say it banned the discussion of racism and white supremacy in the classroom?

It doesn't actually say that, but it's hard to see how you could have an acceptable discussion of racism in the classroom. The whole reason CRT became a bugaboo of the right was because they were exceedingly uncomfortable with how much support racial justice got after George Floyd. They latched on to CRT and certain excesses/bad examples of diversity training to tar all discussion of race and racism. Now any white student who feels "uncomfortable" talking about facts like, say, that the white-black wealth gap today is due to a legacy of discriminatory policies such as restrictive covenants and racist lending policies, can claim that this discussion violates the policy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/

No, republicans don’t have a problem with racial justice. Republicans and others have a problem with CRT. CRT is not the only way to teach about racism and our history. It’s a lens, a way of looking at race and history. We can agree that we need to teach history without glossing over our racist past and that we need to provide diversity training, etc. But it can be done without using CRT as the underlying philosophy.

Guys have absolutely no idea what CRT is. I'm pretty sure most conservatives could not adequately explain it if they had a gun to their head they just want to use it as the bad Boogeyman!

All right then, what are the top three things conservatives get wrong about their understanding of CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this country is on the precipice of slipping back into Jim Crow. My parents are Boomers and they told me a number of their long-time friends and colleagues have absolutely become radicalized by what they are reading on Facebook and seeing on Fox News. To the point where these people are OK expressing that they think certain populations - based on race - shouldn't be allowed to vote. And, of course, they get offended when my parents say "Hey, that's racist."

The seed has been planted and it's germinating.

This country is about to go through some things and it won't be pleasant.

-White Guy

It also won’t be peaceful. And now the rabbits have more resources. I believe America’s old guard is sorely overplaying their hand.

[Anonymous]

CRT has nothing to do with teaching about historical injustices. It is a THEORY of systemic power that insists white supremacy is both foundational to, and perpetuated through, every system and institution in our society. Hence the tenet that one cannot be non-racist, one must be anti racist (or one is racist), because there is no existing “outside” this system of white supremacy, one is either complicit with it (therefore racist) or actively opposing it (anti racist).

Furthermore, this body of theoretical arguments tends to dismiss the import of the individual qua individual, because it is primarily concerned with questions of SYSTEMIC power. The only relevant aspects of a person (in this body of theory) are the marginalizations (or lack thereof) that work to mark imdividuals’ belonging within hierarchically arranged groups.

The vast majority of CR theorists are sloppy and imprecise. So they pay lip service to Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality but largely subordinate all other markers of difference to that of (a rude, gross, inelegant, typically American definition of) race.

So, your poor white kid getting beaten up by his peers for being white at a majority non-white school cannot and ever will be a victim of racism, because his individual experience matters not at all: within his society, his whiteness is invested with power.

Anyone with common sense can see that this body of work, while fascinating, is useful largely for philosophical exercises and theoretical excursions. But in a country where individuals have rights, this theory cannot be instrumentalized as a guide to action.

Anyway. I dislike very much any kind of government legislation telling us what we can and cannot teach. But I wince when I see school districts recommend DiAngelo’s or Kendi’s work to high schoolers. It is beyond idiotic. CRT is a complex body of theory even for grad students, and these books’ bastardization and distortion of CRT’s key concepts do not teach students how to think critically. How could they? Critical thought depends on debate, and students aren’t stupid: they know that to question or challenge anything in these texts is to risk being labeled a racist and possibly be doxxed online for it. As do their teachers. As do many of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn’t white children be educated about their own culpability in systemic racism, all their unearned white privilege, and made to sit with their discomfort?

Why shouldn’t public schools be the ones to advance this effort?

Georgia is clearly trying to fight against teaching critical race theory in public schools.

Explain to me how a third grader is culpable in systemic racism.

Give me some examples of a third grader's unearned white privilege.

One of the emerging beliefs of CRT is that people are either racist or antiracist. There is no middle ground.

White kids are racist by their inaction if they do not actively seek to be antiracist.

Which is never enough if everyone isn't actively working to dismantling all existing institutions and laws, why by definition, are racist. It is in impossible burden, and not an appropriate burden to place on young learners who don't even understand the world yet.

x1000

[Anonymous]

Well, it's Georgia. I had to sign a "loyalty oath" to the State of Georgia just to work in the University System. The only reason you live there is to find a job and save money.

[Anonymous]

I think the Georgia State Board of Education made the correct decision. I wish VDOE would do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CRT has nothing to do with teaching about historical injustices. It is a THEORY of systemic power that insists white supremacy is both foundational to, and perpetuated through, every system and institution in our society. Hence the tenet that one cannot be non-racist, one must be anti racist (or one is racist), because there is no existing “outside” this system of white supremacy, one is either complicit with it (therefore racist) or actively opposing it (anti racist).

Furthermore, this body of theoretical arguments tends to dismiss the import of the individual qua individual, because it is primarily concerned with questions of SYSTEMIC power. The only relevant aspects of a person (in this body of theory) are the marginalizations (or lack thereof) that work to mark imdividuals’ belonging within hierarchically arranged groups.

The vast majority of CR theorists are sloppy and imprecise. So they pay lip service to Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality but largely subordinate all other markers of difference to that of (a rude, gross, inelegant, typically American definition of) race.

So, your poor white kid getting beaten up by his peers for being white at a majority non-white school cannot and ever will be a victim of racism, because his individual experience matters not at all: within his society, his whiteness is invested with power.

Anyone with common sense can see that this body of work, while fascinating, is useful largely for philosophical exercises and theoretical excursions. But in a country where individuals have rights, this theory cannot be instrumentalized as a guide to action.

Anyway. I dislike very much any kind of government legislation telling us what we can and cannot teach. But I wince when I see school districts recommend DiAngelo’s or Kendi’s work to high schoolers. It is beyond idiotic. CRT is a complex body of theory even for grad students, and these books’ bastardization and distortion of CRT’s key concepts do not teach students how to think critically. How could they? Critical thought depends on debate, and students aren’t stupid: they know that to question or challenge anything in these texts is to risk being labeled a racist and possibly be doxxed online for it. As do their teachers. As do many of you.

Great post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT has nothing to do with teaching about historical injustices. It is a THEORY of systemic power that insists white supremacy is both foundational to, and perpetuated through, every system and institution in our society. Hence the tenet that one cannot be non-racist, one must be anti racist (or one is racist), because there is no existing “outside” this system of white supremacy, one is either complicit with it (therefore racist) or actively opposing it (anti racist).

Furthermore, this body of theoretical arguments tends to dismiss the import of the individual qua individual, because it is primarily concerned with questions of SYSTEMIC power. The only relevant aspects of a person (in this body of theory) are the marginalizations (or lack thereof) that work to mark imdividuals’ belonging within hierarchically arranged groups.

The vast majority of CR theorists are sloppy and imprecise. So they pay lip service to Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality but largely subordinate all other markers of difference to that of (a rude, gross, inelegant, typically American definition of) race.

So, your poor white kid getting beaten up by his peers for being white at a majority non-white school cannot and ever will be a victim of racism, because his individual experience matters not at all: within his society, his whiteness is invested with power.

Anyone with common sense can see that this body of work, while fascinating, is useful largely for philosophical exercises and theoretical excursions. But in a country where individuals have rights, this theory cannot be instrumentalized as a guide to action.

Anyway. I dislike very much any kind of government legislation telling us what we can and cannot teach. But I wince when I see school districts recommend DiAngelo’s or Kendi’s work to high schoolers. It is beyond idiotic. CRT is a complex body of theory even for grad students, and these books’ bastardization and distortion of CRT’s key concepts do not teach students how to think critically. How could they? Critical thought depends on debate, and students aren’t stupid: they know that to question or challenge anything in these texts is to risk being labeled a racist and possibly be doxxed online for it. As do their teachers. As do many of you.

Great post.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Good. Sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT has nothing to do with teaching about historical injustices. It is a THEORY of systemic power that insists white supremacy is both foundational to, and perpetuated through, every system and institution in our society. Hence the tenet that one cannot be non-racist, one must be anti racist (or one is racist), because there is no existing “outside” this system of white supremacy, one is either complicit with it (therefore racist) or actively opposing it (anti racist).

Furthermore, this body of theoretical arguments tends to dismiss the import of the individual qua individual, because it is primarily concerned with questions of SYSTEMIC power. The only relevant aspects of a person (in this body of theory) are the marginalizations (or lack thereof) that work to mark imdividuals’ belonging within hierarchically arranged groups.

The vast majority of CR theorists are sloppy and imprecise. So they pay lip service to Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality but largely subordinate all other markers of difference to that of (a rude, gross, inelegant, typically American definition of) race.

So, your poor white kid getting beaten up by his peers for being white at a majority non-white school cannot and ever will be a victim of racism, because his individual experience matters not at all: within his society, his whiteness is invested with power.

Anyone with common sense can see that this body of work, while fascinating, is useful largely for philosophical exercises and theoretical excursions. But in a country where individuals have rights, this theory cannot be instrumentalized as a guide to action.

Anyway. I dislike very much any kind of government legislation telling us what we can and cannot teach. But I wince when I see school districts recommend DiAngelo’s or Kendi’s work to high schoolers. It is beyond idiotic. CRT is a complex body of theory even for grad students, and these books’ bastardization and distortion of CRT’s key concepts do not teach students how to think critically. How could they? Critical thought depends on debate, and students aren’t stupid: they know that to question or challenge anything in these texts is to risk being labeled a racist and possibly be doxxed online for it. As do their teachers. As do many of you.

Great post.

Agreed.

Another +1!!

[Anonymous]

Well super liberal Hollywood loves filming in GA and all the liberals love Hollywood… so I guess you can just stop watching all movies and shows filmed in GA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who day CRT is bad - read this

Teaching about the Tulsa massacre is not CRT. That's teaching history. It's good to know what happened in the past, so we don't repeat it.

CRT is about teaching kids they are inherently racist or oppressors simply because they are white. That has no place in the classroom.

+1 Exactly this. No one is saying we shouldn’t teach about our history. I don’t think people understand what critical race theory is. We need to teach about our past and deal with uncomfortable issues like racism and how to move forward from it. But CRT is not a good way to go about it.

I'm a 4th grade teacher, we are regularly having historically based conversations in the classroom. I consider my my job to teach kids how to think, not what to think. We can have a lesson covering the Tulsa Race Massacre, my students are old enough to draw their own conclusions and about why this event happened, building on their prior knowledge and using their critical thinking skills. I can lead a conversation and ask "why" without extending it to have an intentional conversation about systemic and institutional racism and white supremacy - my students are not dummies, they know exactly what's going on. I can ask the question "Why do you think what happened in Tulsa was originally called a riot?" If there is a natural extension (lead by my students) to have that further conversation, we will. We can have a lesson about Juneteenth the day the legislation is signed and students can continue to connect the dots with a lot of "why" questions. We can talk about the voting rights act and I can lead a fact based discussion about who got the right to vote when and then ask the question "Why do you think black women got the right to vote last?'