Loudoun School Board meeting

[Anonymous]

Gen. Milley is OK on studying it. Bravo!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not just the school board. Principals are getting phone calls from people who don't even live in the state, over critical race theory. Which they don't teach. Because a bunch of crazies have watched Faux News and think that CRT is a thing in Loudoun. (spoiler: it isn't.)

Then if it's not CRT, why are both sides so upset? I think you're wrong.

The Right is upset because the usual suspects are whipping them into a frenzy. “The evil socialist government school wants to make your kids anti-white and turn them trans unless you keep watching my show!”

The non-right is upset because they’re tired of dealing with the above.

x1 million

We are tired of your sh1t, MAGA trash.

Go home. Sit TF down. We are still cleaning up your mess from your POS POTUS.

There's the tolerant left again....showing how much they love and care about everyone (as long as you follow their doctrine, of course).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

This made me LOL. It encapsulates a back & forth that I've definitely seen.

Is that what is called gaslighting?

The PP is doing their own gaslighting. This clause distorts the perspective--"all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down." PP makes a shift from the systemic racism (participating in racist institutions can make us unwittingly part of racism and it is important to think about ways in which your participation reifies the oppressor/oppressed roles) to a more personal level of active racism--and as a doctrine rather than a lens. This is not what CRT/antiracist approaches suggest.
This kind of shorthand is always distorting--which is why CRT is an approach you work with, reflect with, examine experiences with--it's not a doctrine, it's a theoretical perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last gasp of privileged mostly white parents, apparently, as they feel their grip on power and privilege eroding.

Just stop. Those speaking out are from all races..... not "privileged mostly white."
It has nothing to do with their "grip on power."
It has everything to do with the crap their children are being taught.

which part of crt is "crap"? What exactly about crt is so off putting?

-DP

DP - race essentialism is off putting.

Different DP:

To be more direct, CRT teaches children to hate each other based on their skin color.

Should we ignore this country's racist past, and not each our kids about things like the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Japanese American Internment camps, segregation and redlining?

My kids (not white) have learned all this, but it doesn't make them hate white people. They recognize that their white friends aren't the ones who developed those systemic racist policies.

It's like saying we shouldn't teach American children about Pearl Harbor in case that makes them all hate Japanese people.

I was taught about all of those things 30 years ago. I wasn't taught enough about Reconstruction or the ways in which white Southerners used terrorism to re-subjugate black people after Reconstruction. But I don't think teaching about these things has too many people in an uproar. It's more the idea that existing as a white person in a country with institutions rooted in a past that included these events necessarily makes the person racist if he or she is not actively trying to alter these institutions.

Of course you were. I was taught these things in high school also, 20 years ago. They're using a motte-and-bailey argument.

1) Open with the bailey: "all institutions which are not explicitly antiracist are participating in white supremacist culture, and all people by virtue of their skin color are either oppressor or oppressed. If you disagree you are a racist who should be shouted down."
2) People object.
3) Retreat to the motte: "All I'm saying is people should learn about Jim Crow!"

Do you believe that institutions that have a documented history of racist practices are likely to be racist unless they are explicitly striving to be anti-racist?

NP. Nope. Because I don't accept your definition of "racist" or "anti-racist."

Ok, if studies showed that school systems in the US were more likely to punish black kids and give more serious punishments than white kids for the same offenses, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in our educational system?

If studies of employment hiring agencies/housing authorities etc. are shown to rate the exact same application lower if the name on the resume is black or hispanic sounding versus white sounding, would you consider that to be evidence of systemic racism in employment and housing practices?

DP. I have seen the studies the show that, yes. That doesn't mean that the curriculum needs to change. That's apples and oranges.

The result, btw, is that schools variously come down harder on white students and/or treat brown and black students with kid gloves and look the other way. Since these responses could be considered anti-racist, maybe this is appropriate.

Show me that the studies that support that finding. That's not a "btw" to throw out there.
ALso, the question was, "If true, do you accept those studies as examples of systemic racism in school systems?" which you evaded.

[Anonymous]

Progressives invite confusion by referring to systemic racism instead of systemic inequality. They want to capitalize on the emotional impact of “racism” to promote change but then disclaim responsibility when anyone reacts negatively to being labeled racist (one is either racist or antiracist- there is no in between) for merely existing as a white person in a system that’s unequal.

[jsteele]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/982447.page