CRT clubs in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

Either you are ok with status quo or worse. Or you’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

Either you are ok with status quo or worse. Or you’re not.

This is obscuring the truth of the matter bolded above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

Either you are ok with status quo or worse. Or you’re not.

Now we're talking. Now we're haggling over whether proposed changes will improve the status quo or not. And sometimes it's hard telling.

[Anonymous]

I'm not even sure they make CRT monitors anymore. LCD or even OLED is the future. If your kid wants to start a club for PC gaming enthusiasts CRT is like from 30 years ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

Either you are ok with status quo or worse. Or you’re not.

This is obscuring the truth of the matter bolded above.

Are you stuck on the words? What language would you like to use for people who are OK with the status quo (or worse)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not a club for being an anti-racist instead?

I like that idea.

Me too.

But the important factor to remember is: if you are not actively an anti-racist, you are a racist by default.

So I think the club would require membership, at least by every white student.

Yeah the "Anti-Racist (tm)" marketing where there is no middle ground between anti-racist and racist has a certain George W. Bush "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" feel to it.

Either you are ok with status quo. Or you’re not.

This is entirely too glib. There are an infinite number of possibilities in the "not status quo" circle. Some of the potential alternatives are better. Many are worse -- much, much worse in fact. People on the far ends of both the Left and the Right are desperately unhappy with the status quo.

Either you are ok with status quo or worse. Or you’re not.

Now we're talking. Now we're haggling over whether proposed changes will improve the status quo or not. And sometimes it's hard telling.

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

[Anonymous]

In my city, students have organized to have ethnic studies classes in high school and they have been pretty successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one with >2 brain cells cares about CRT because it isn’t happening here.

This is just obfuscation. You can use any term you want, but you know that people are objecting to Kendi type "anti-racist" teachings about privilege, oppression, systemic anything, "centering" BIPOC, equity over equality, faux statistics about police brutality, reparations, etc. Go to teacherspayteachers and start searching on any of these terms. There is no denying that these ideas are now incorporated into every aspect of American education.

https://ecdn.teacherspayteachers.com/thumbitem/Equality-vs-Equity-Poster-3820714-1640554037/original-3820714-1.jpg

I think Republicans are cynically distorting everything about CRT/Anti-racism whatever you want to call it. But I also think the argument on the left that "CRT" isn't taught anywhere is either very disingenuous or detached from reality. In any case, "CRT isn't taught anywhere" isn't at all persuasive because folks do recognize what the PP here says about privilege, oppression, systemic racism, centering BIPOC, equity over equality, etc. If folks on the left want to argue "that's good, actually," then it would be more persuasive than "never mind your lying eyes, there's nothing to see here." It just adds insult to injury when, in response to the bad legislation on the right, folks on the left start hollering that "they don't want schools to teach about slavery!" Where I sit on the center-left, my reaction is that advocates on the right and left are all a bunch of dishonest liars. The right wants me to believe that the left wants to subject my kids to Maoist struggle sessions while the left wants me to believe that all the talk about white privilege, white fragility, and systemic racism is nothing more than a simple effort to make sure kids learn about slavery in school and isn't an effort to shift power away from whites and toward black people. (Which, again, maybe a valid policy goal -- but don't tell me it's not one of the goals.)

Hush. You are not supposed to be THINKING, just picking a side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

Yes, you are correct. I guess after the last few years I've lowered my expectations. Seems like just getting everyone to acknowledge there is an issue with status quo would be progress at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

Yes, you are correct. I guess after the last few years I've lowered my expectations. Seems like just getting everyone to acknowledge there is an issue with status quo would be progress at this point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think saying that "we just want you to acknowledge the issue" makes people more wary than proposing a concrete change would. Because people don't trust that this is or will be the only request. "Acknowledging the problem" feels like signing a blank check because there's an expectation that, after the acknowledgment, there will be a request for something more tangible -- otherwise what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

Yes, you are correct. I guess after the last few years I've lowered my expectations. Seems like just getting everyone to acknowledge there is an issue with status quo would be progress at this point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think saying that "we just want you to acknowledge the issue" makes people more wary than proposing a concrete change would. Because people don't trust that this is or will be the only request. "Acknowledging the problem" feels like signing a blank check because there's an expectation that, after the acknowledgment, there will be a request for something more tangible -- otherwise what's the point?

Yup. It's tough to have a conversation about anything when people are so distrustful and aren't even open to acknowledging issues. Some people just DGAF about others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

Yes, you are correct. I guess after the last few years I've lowered my expectations. Seems like just getting everyone to acknowledge there is an issue with status quo would be progress at this point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think saying that "we just want you to acknowledge the issue" makes people more wary than proposing a concrete change would. Because people don't trust that this is or will be the only request. "Acknowledging the problem" feels like signing a blank check because there's an expectation that, after the acknowledgment, there will be a request for something more tangible -- otherwise what's the point?

Yup. It's tough to have a conversation about anything when people are so distrustful and aren't even open to acknowledging issues. Some people just DGAF about others.

There is some distance between "distrustful" and "DGAF." Like, I think there are serious issues with structural inequality caused by racism (not to mention racism itself). But sometimes I don't entirely trust the motivations of people who raise racism and structural inequality as issues. With some people, it feels like they can be using those issues for personal gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's the entire point - to start a discussion. To say that status quo isn't OK.

If that's the entire point, then it's just a kind of verbal masturbation. The point should be to improve on the status quo. And to do that, you can't just point to problems with the status quo, you have to propose actions that will cause an improvement upon the status quo. To do that, you have to articulate what the future will look like, how it will be better than what we have now, and how the proposed actions will cause that improvement.

Yes, you are correct. I guess after the last few years I've lowered my expectations. Seems like just getting everyone to acknowledge there is an issue with status quo would be progress at this point.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think saying that "we just want you to acknowledge the issue" makes people more wary than proposing a concrete change would. Because people don't trust that this is or will be the only request. "Acknowledging the problem" feels like signing a blank check because there's an expectation that, after the acknowledgment, there will be a request for something more tangible -- otherwise what's the point?

Yup. It's tough to have a conversation about anything when people are so distrustful and aren't even open to acknowledging issues. Some people just DGAF about others.

There is some distance between "distrustful" and "DGAF." Like, I think there are serious issues with structural inequality caused by racism (not to mention racism itself). But sometimes I don't entirely trust the motivations of people who raise racism and structural inequality as issues. With some people, it feels like they can be using those issues for personal gain.

So? That doesn't mean we have to shut down the conversation.

After centuries of people personally benefitting from doing the wrong thing, I'm OK with some people personally benefitting from doing the right thing if the effort has a net benefit.