Reply to For those of you who were so scared of the CRT bogeyman

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "For those of you who were so scared of the CRT bogeyman"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The CRT debate ignores the bonehead factor.

I think the whole debate over what CRT is/isn’t and whether or not it’s taught in a school is beside the point. I think people are defining CRT differently, and the conversation would be a lot more productive if both sides stopped using the term Critical Race Theory and its acronym altogether.

I don’t claim to be an expert on CRT, and I ‘m not going to debate its pros and cons. What I do know is that human beings all along the political spectrum are fallible creatures and we all have our bonehead moments. Long before CRT was first developed, parents have had problems from time to time about what their children were being taught, especially when it concerned sensitive/controversial topics, including, but not limited to, race. Sometimes, it was because the teachers were being good teachers and the parents were being hypersensitive, sometimes it was because the teacher was teaching something that everyone else agreed was way out of line, and other times it was a well-meaning teacher earnestly trying to teach an important lesson, but being a bonehead and doing it in an extremely ill-advised manner.

I have a lot of respect for teachers. I think they play a vital role with inadequate support and often in the face of opposition from their administrations, the parents, and the kids. Most of them do remarkably well considering the scald of their challenge. That being said, as human beings, they are probe to the bonehead factor. Even if you suppose that CRT is the most perfect theory, and that no K-12 curriculum would officially include it, leaving it for higher education, that doesn’t mean that a teacher somewhere, sometime, isn’t a bonehead and teaches their class something egregious and either incorrectly calls it CRT, or parents trying to complain about an awful lesson decide it must be that awful CRT stuff that people are complaining about.  Debating whether it was CRT is completely beside the point, inhibits resolution of the actual problem (whether a specific lesson was objectionable and needs to be changed or if it was great and parents need to understand why the school backs that particular lesson), and leaves all sides feeling aggrieved.

Let’s stop arguing about CRT in the classroom.  Official policies and curriculum are also beside the point. In life, what should happen isn’t always what actually takes place.  In each case where a concern is raised, we should focus on the actual content, which is the only thing that really matters. Is the material a specific teacher teaches appropriate, and is it taught in an appropriate manner?  If a review affirms it, then we can move on. If a review finds there was a problem, let’s fix it and move on. Either way, labels are an unnecessary distraction.   [/quote]

I think CRT was used as an effort to dodge the linguistic pitfalls of criticizing "anti-racism." "Anti-racism" as articulated by Prof. Kendi, above, is problematic in some respects -- or at least open to some good faith criticism. But it's name is designed to paint any critics as, pretty much by definition, racists. So, to level criticisms at "anti-racism" it's easier to just call it "Critical Race Theory" and let anti-racist advocates get bogged down in ineffectual complaints about how it's "not really CRT." [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics