Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

it's obvious that some people who are vehemently against it don't know what it is.

Time spent replacing something else.... I guess they shouldn't bother teaching about slavery or segregation in this country's history. It's time spent away from teaching how the US single handedly won WWII (that was sarcasm btw).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

What do you think CRT is?

I have not seen anyone who opposes CRT on here define what about CRT that they find so objectionable.

If you are ok with everyone studying Black history, then what exactly is so objectionable about CRT? Don't you realize that you probably learned some CRT when you were studying black history?

IMO, people are just triggered by the CRT label. If you called it "black history in America and the impacts of that history today", there would probably be less objections.

I don't understand why people don't make more of an effort to understand the basis for concerns before spouting off. Is it really ignorance, or is it a belief that the best way to accomplish one's objectives is to obfuscate.

At its core, CRT reflects the belief that race is a social construct (no basis in science) but that, once constructed by Whites to serve their economic interest, racism is an overarching prism through which to engage in academic study, analyze current conditions, and make decisions about future policy.

While some of it is political theory, it also reflects legal concepts, such as the idea of torts (intentional wrongs) that result in damages to certain groups (just like a class in a class-action lawsuit), and warrant remedies (damages and other forms of court or government-ordered relief to place victims in the position they theoretically would have enjoyed but for the wrongdoing).

The part that very few object to in 2021 is studying historical events and acknowledging their racial foundation or impact. No one can study slavery, immigration laws, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, or resistance to school integration without acknowledging the systemic racism at play.

Where more people start to get concerned is when every disparity that currently exists in society is somehow attributed to past, systemic racism, when people argue that past racism justifies ongoing and future discrimination against Whites and "White-adjacent" cohorts, or when academics suggest that race is the prism through which everything should be evaluated. That's the case for a host of reasons, including the further down the road one goes the more difficult it becomes to quantify the present-day effects of racism, the fact that it promotes looking at people not as individuals but as members of particular racial groups, and it ultimately envisions coercive measures by the Federal Government to effect a transfer of wealth, resources, and societal opportunities from Whites and White-adjacent groups (presumed to have been unjustly enriched by past racism) to Blacks (presumed to have been damaged by past racism). If you think that's hyperbole, read a bit of Ibram Kendi, who has called for both a Constitutional amendment that would make "racist ideas" by public officials unconstitutional and the creation of a Department of Anti-Racism, which would evaluate all "local, state, and federal" policies to determine whether they would promote greater equity or not contribute to greater inequity (in which case they would be OK) or have the opposite effect (in which case they would be struck down).

So, personally, I'd have no problem with students learning about CRT in college, but I'd hope that my kid had a strong enough foundation to be able to appreciate its foundation and its shortcomings. At the end of the day, an awful lot of it feels like a giant bluff designed simply to pressure officials to provide additional government benefits to historically disadvantaged communities. Relatedly, what worries people in K-12 education isn't that students in elementary or middle school are going to be tutored in CRT, so much as the ongoing training of teachers and development of K-12 pedagogy that starts to spoon-feed tenets of CRT (racism is systemic and pervasive, the group is more important than the individual, and that discrimination against some groups is necessarily to improve the standing of other groups) without providing any larger framework for that content.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I'm in favor of saying "sorry we've continued to F you over. Now we're even, right?". Definitely don't want to talk about repairing harms that have been done.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

it's obvious that some people who are vehemently against it don't know what it is.

Time spent replacing something else.... I guess they shouldn't bother teaching about slavery or segregation in this country's history. It's time spent away from teaching how the US single handedly won WWII (that was sarcasm btw).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

What do you think CRT is?

I have not seen anyone who opposes CRT on here define what about CRT that they find so objectionable.

If you are ok with everyone studying Black history, then what exactly is so objectionable about CRT? Don't you realize that you probably learned some CRT when you were studying black history?

IMO, people are just triggered by the CRT label. If you called it "black history in America and the impacts of that history today", there would probably be less objections.

I don't understand why people don't make more of an effort to understand the basis for concerns before spouting off. Is it really ignorance, or is it a belief that the best way to accomplish one's objectives is to obfuscate.

At its core, CRT reflects the belief that race is a social construct (no basis in science) but that, once constructed by Whites to serve their economic interest, racism is an overarching prism through which to engage in academic study, analyze current conditions, and make decisions about future policy.

While some of it is political theory, it also reflects legal concepts, such as the idea of torts (intentional wrongs) that result in damages to certain groups (just like a class in a class-action lawsuit), and warrant remedies (damages and other forms of court or government-ordered relief to place victims in the position they theoretically would have enjoyed but for the wrongdoing).

The part that very few object to in 2021 is studying historical events and acknowledging their racial foundation or impact. No one can study slavery, immigration laws, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, or resistance to school integration without acknowledging the systemic racism at play.

Where more people start to get concerned is when every disparity that currently exists in society is somehow attributed to past, systemic racism, when people argue that past racism justifies ongoing and future discrimination against Whites and "White-adjacent" cohorts, or when academics suggest that race is the prism through which everything should be evaluated. That's the case for a host of reasons, including the further down the road one goes the more difficult it becomes to quantify the present-day effects of racism, the fact that it promotes looking at people not as individuals but as members of particular racial groups, and it ultimately envisions coercive measures by the Federal Government to effect a transfer of wealth, resources, and societal opportunities from Whites and White-adjacent groups (presumed to have been unjustly enriched by past racism) to Blacks (presumed to have been damaged by past racism). If you think that's hyperbole, read a bit of Ibram Kendi, who has called for both a Constitutional amendment that would make "racist ideas" by public officials unconstitutional and the creation of a Department of Anti-Racism, which would evaluate all "local, state, and federal" policies to determine whether they would promote greater equity or not contribute to greater inequity (in which case they would be OK) or have the opposite effect (in which case they would be struck down).

So, personally, I'd have no problem with students learning about CRT in college, but I'd hope that my kid had a strong enough foundation to be able to appreciate its foundation and its shortcomings. At the end of the day, an awful lot of it feels like a giant bluff designed simply to pressure officials to provide additional government benefits to historically disadvantaged communities. Relatedly, what worries people in K-12 education isn't that students in elementary or middle school are going to be tutored in CRT, so much as the ongoing training of teachers and development of K-12 pedagogy that starts to spoon-feed tenets of CRT (racism is systemic and pervasive, the group is more important than the individual, and that discrimination against some groups is necessarily to improve the standing of other groups) without providing any larger framework for that content.

You’ve said a lot. So let me start with a small question : What data do you have to support your assertion that “very few object to studying historical events and acknowledging their racial foundation or impact”? Are you basing this on some sort of national assessment?
For a bonus question: Could you explain how racism has NOT been systemic and pervasive throughout this country since it’s founding?

The Kendi summary is cute, and might well be what some are objecting to. Others are trying to be clear that CRT is something specific — and anyone choosing to talk about it should at least be willing to provide their working definition of what it is they’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for learning history accurately. I was an FCPS grad in the 70s and we barely talked about slavery. The civil war was about states rights. Not okay with that.

Yes, me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would any educated person want to be ignorant of a major theory like CRT.? You can't even agree or disagree if you haven't been educated about what the theory says.

It's not even a "major theory" - it is a theoretical construct used in very discreet law or graduate classes. The whole thing is way overblown by the right wing bogeyman machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any educated person want to be ignorant of a major theory like CRT.? You can't even agree or disagree if you haven't been educated about what the theory says.

It's not even a "major theory" - it is a theoretical construct used in very discreet law or graduate classes. The whole thing is way overblown by the right wing bogeyman machine.

Well, it fundamentally undermines racist constructs that help them stay in power, so it's not so unreasonable that they're mad about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely! I want to learn it myself. I grew up in the south and the whitewashing was so prevalent that I'm not sure anything I learned about history was real. As an adult, I've made it a priority to relearn as much as possible.

How can we make things better in the future if we aren't willing to learn/teach the truth about the past?

Yes I grew up in America also. Lots of rewriting of history happening. Not accurate either.

[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.

That's not CRT.

+1
Some people seem to want to equate CRT with simply teaching history. I don't know anyone who is against teaching history! CRT is an entirely different animal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you wonder who these folks who are constantly bringing up CRT are?

That's circular reasoning from Fox News hosts, whipping up these poor sad, sorry wives into a frenzy so they have something to do and don't realize what sorry, sad lives they have and go vote for the GOP status quo.

They lock themselves in their McMansions scared that Black people are coming to ask for reparations or something. I feel sorry for them, Karens!

And you wonder why normal people - without a chip on their shoulder - are running, not walking away from the Democratic party. Keep it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's not CRT.

+1
Some people seem to want to equate CRT with simply teaching history. I don't know anyone who is against teaching history! CRT is an entirely different animal.

so what's your definition of it?

Do you think our judicial system is not biased against POC?

[Anonymous]

Bo one is teaching CRT in college or high folks.

Step away from FOX news or whatever the heck you are paying attention to. You sound like idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you wonder who these folks who are constantly bringing up CRT are?

That's circular reasoning from Fox News hosts, whipping up these poor sad, sorry wives into a frenzy so they have something to do and don't realize what sorry, sad lives they have and go vote for the GOP status quo.

They lock themselves in their McMansions scared that Black people are coming to ask for reparations or something. I feel sorry for them, Karens!

And you wonder why normal people - without a chip on their shoulder - are running, not walking away from the Democratic party. Keep it up!

The poster makes a point, albeit rudely. If people chose to vote "against" Dems by voting for Younkin over scary CRT - which only like two people in this thread have close to accurately described - as parents we've exposed ourselves to curriculum decisions by people who want to ban books and now have a Governor who might write an excutive order banning something that isn't even being taught in schools. This could lead to a whole new host of problems in education which is chopping off your nose despite your face. I'm just hopeful Youngkin doesn't take pages from the Abbott or DeSantis playbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's not CRT.

+1
Some people seem to want to equate CRT with simply teaching history. I don't know anyone who is against teaching history! CRT is an entirely different animal.

so what's your definition of it?

Do you think our judicial system is not biased against POC?

You’re the type of drone that Batya Ungar-Sargon has described so well - engaging in a constant effort to suggest others aren’t equipped to critique CRT because they can’t describe it in quite the terms that conform to your ever-shifting definition. It’s not a bad Twitter strategy but it is politically inept.

[Anonymous]

Of course. No one can learn about modern history or understand our country now without recognizing systemic racism. Just the fact that this is even a question shows how ignorant many are. Willfully.