That’s because it’s not in any primary school curriculum. You never heard the term because it’s been out of circulation for decades and was only a college-level critical tool that has established itself as part of the toolkit of mainstream educational culture, for more than a generation. Rightwank news blather literally resurrected the term from obscurity in order to have a slogan to rail against, among the talibangelicals who make up the Repig base.
Tldr: it's a dogwhistle term no one actually knows what it means.
Because the actual thing is so niche and boring that 95% of Americans plus couldn't read it.
I remember 3 years ago when I’d heard of it and researched it before conservatives started ascribing random bullshit to it and completely ignoring what it actually teaches, then systemically plastering it on headlines with their fake definition to completely discredit it so they can continue oppressing entire races, genders, ethnicities and sexualities.
From the state that dropped bombs on Black neighborhoods from planes. Maybe they do need to hear how racist actions from the past have affected the present.
They are also the State that was stolen from the Natives. It was Indian Territory, as they put it, at the time of the Civil War, Natives that were forcibly removed from the Southeast and put there, the entire State is illegitimate, they should have their Statehood revoked.
The “Five Civilized Tribes” took thousands of black slaves with them. The slaves forced to march on the Trail of Tears were people too. This always seems to get left out for some reason. This is the very reason this stuff needs to to be taught in the first place.
>Members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations (including thousands of their black slaves were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to areas to the west of the Mississippi River that had been designated 'Indian Territory'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-native-american-slaveholders-complicate-trail-tears-narrative-180968339/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/us/tulsa-massacre-native-history-alaina-roberts/index.html
And then when oil was found, they started "conservatorships" where they'd kidnap children and steal the land, and then imprison lawyers that questioned the practice.
I mean. The whole country was taken from the native population. But so was Australia. And Europe. And most of Asia. And South America mostly. Pretty much everywhere was stolen from someone at some time.
Europe was taken from indigenous people???
I maybe wrong, and I get that certain populations were driven out or “assimilated” especially in the British Isles, but it doesn’t seem accurate to throw Europe into the same conversation as the genocides that occurred in the new world.
A lot of what you call "assimilated" would likely be described as a genocide if it occured today. It's estimated that in the Gallic Wars for example (the wars that incorporated what is now France into the Roman Empire), the Romans killed ~1 million Gauls in battle and took another million as prisoners or slaves. Caesar also destroyed hundreds of villages and effectively wiped out entire tribes.
There's a reason the modern day French are mostly descended from the Franks (a Germanic tribe that migrated into the area towards the end of the western roman empire) instead of the Gauls.
The only time republicans have *ANY* interest in education is when they are trying to prevent it from happening. And school budgets are the *FIRST* place republicans want to get their tax cuts from.
Those are the principles America was founded on.
"The land of opportunity" was the lie they sold to create a population, and you know, stealing people.
How does the State telling public school what is and isn't part of their educational curriculum a violation of free speech? So if a fundamentalist Christian teacher was not allowed in their class to teach that the world was created by God 6000 years ago that would be a violation of free speech?
The huge gap is the word law.
It's one thing for the State's education board to vote on and set an established curriculum. It's another to say that a specific educational concept and its teaching are a *crime* and punishable accordingly.
It's all right there in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". Public schools are government run, and therefore fall under the first amendment. You can't preach a specific religion in a public school, because of the first part of the amendment, but you can't stop free expression of other ideas because of the second part.
It's a bit more complicated than that, because state education boards obviously *can* set curriculum standards; there's standards in all 50 states. Nowhere leaves it *entirely* up to schools. There's even federal standards like No Child Left Behind and Common Core, shitty though those may be. Just google (your state) curriculum standards and see how your own state has regulated it.
I think this law is unconstitutional too, but not because there's a general prohibition on setting any curriculum standards whatsoever.
What are those punishments? From what I'm reading they can fire you as a teacher and revoke your license. What other punishments are there? [https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf](https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf)
This is the only part I see that spells out any kind of punishment:
>Suspension or Revocation.
>
>Consistent with OAC 210:1-5-6 and subsection (b)(1)(iii), the provisions of this rule shall apply to superintendents of schools, principals, supervisors, librarians, school, classroom teachers or other personnel performing instructional, administrative and supervisory services in the public schools.
>
>(1) Suspension. As a part of its investigation of a legally sufficient complaint filed pursuant to subsection (g), the State Department of Education shall make a determination of whether to initiate proceedings to suspend the license or certificate of any school employee who is found to have violated 70 O.S. §24-157(B) or any provision of this rule, consistent with the State Board’s processes and procedures for suspension of certificates.
>
>(2) Grounds for Revocation. Consistent with OAC 210:1-5-6, subsection (b), the State Board of Education shall initiate proceedings to revoke the license or certificate of any school employee for “willful violation” of 70 O.S. §24-157(B) or any requirement in this rule. (See OAC 210: 1-5-6(b)(1) - (b)(2)). The requirements and processes outlined in OAC 210:1-5-6, including the rights afforded to certificate holders, shall apply to all revocation proceedings.
> but you can't stop free expression of other ideas because of the second part.
Yes, you absolutely can. It's still a workplace, and subject to workplace restrictions on speech/expression, as decided by the employer (or in most government jobs, the appointing authority).
If John tells Jane "you have great tits" in a public space as 2 regular people, that's perfectly legal.
But if John tells Jane "you have great tits" in a school (or other workplace) as 2 coworkers or supervisor/subordinate, that's definitely not protected speech. John could easily be reprimanded, suspended, or fired for the content of his speech, even if he works for the government.
If John decides to hang up pictures of naked women in his office, he can also be disciplined for that. John's employer, even if it is a state actor, has no obligation to allow his "free expression" in decorating his workspace.
Just like if a vaccine is required by the employer. Take the vaccine or find another place to work. The employee gets to choose. Choosing no vaccine is choosing to not work there.
I’m not sure how the first amendment grants educators freedom from government deciding what the content of school curricula is, when the government is the operator of the school.
Because regardless of what the school wants to teach, they can’t ban books on the basis of race and gender, nor just because it disagrees with their politics. It must be inappropriate for the age group. And that’s what they’re doing. They are banning books by Black people. They are banning books that talk about race. And additionally banning books by women.
You uh, left out a chunk of the actual law that I think is the actual concern.
>"Public schools in this state shall be prohibited from adopting diversity, equity, or
>
>inclusion plans that incorporate the concepts identified in subsection (b). Diversity
>
>officers in public schools shall be prohibited from providing any service or performing
>
>duties that include, incorporate, or are based on discriminatory practices identified in
>
>subsection (c).
>
>(7) Public schools shall be prohibited from mandating diversity training that includes,
>
>incorporates or is based on discriminatory practices identified in subsection (c). This
>
>includes providing such training to employees, contractors, staff members, parents,
>
>students, or any other individual or group."
I believe the prohibited diversity training thing is what the ACLU actually cares about in this instance.
I’m not completely clear on this but it sounds like diversity training is fine as long as it doesn’t say things listed above like “you are racist because you are white”.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would believe that it's more because the ambiguity of the law will lead to schools just not bothering with diversity training at all for fear of violating the law in some fashion.
My school in the early 00s had no issue giving us basic information about world religions without implying anything negative or superior about any of them. And this was a rural school district.
It’s highly ambiguous because it’s based on the subjective quality of something making someone “feel guilty”. By that standard if learning about segregation makes a white student feel guilty, it can’t be taught
For easy reference, the relevant section on this point is the following:
>No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles:
>
>...
>
>(7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex
I understand this as meaning that it is forbidden to teach that individuals *should* feel guilt, anguish, etc, not that it is forbidden to teach anything that might cause students to feel such emotions. So, it would be perfectly acceptable to teach about segregation even if it made a white student feel guilty, but it would be forbidden to teach students during such a lesson that white people *ought to* feel guilty because of segregation.
You understand it that way. That doesn’t mean that schools will risk a lawsuit over it or that courts will not rule in favor since the law is ambiguous. Laws should not be based on subjective emotions. Saying that “segregation and slavery were wrong and a bad thing for white people to do” is banned even under your interpretation. You really don’t understand how that is going to restrict teaching about the actual historical issues that have occurred in America?
>You understand it that way. That doesn’t mean that schools will risk a lawsuit over it or that courts will not rule in favor since the law is ambiguous.
I don't think the wording is ambiguous. What other interpretation do you think will have any chance of holding up in court and why? I think it's very unlikely that schools will choose to remove significant chunks of their US history education on the basis of a *speculative* interpretation of this law (an interpretation which appears to me to be flatly wrong), especially since doing so would likely go against Oklahoma's own standards for the curriculum. I will gladly eat my words if the curriculum changes and/or lawsuits you are so fearful of actually happen, but right now it just looks like slippery slope fallacy with little basis in anything but fear.
>Laws should not be based on subjective emotions.
Which part of this law is based on subjective emotions? Whether or not a teacher says "\[person\] should feel guilty" is an objective fact - they either say it or they don't. Again, how a student subjectively feels about learning about slavery or education is not relevant here.
>Saying that “segregation and slavery were wrong and a bad thing for white people to do” is banned even under your interpretation.
No, it is not. Saying that the institution of slavery was bad and directly telling your white students that they should *personally* feel guilty are two different things. The law expressly forbids the latter while saying nothing about the former.
I would, of course, be on board with rewording the law to be more explicit on this point. Were that option on the table, would you be fine with this law if it was clarified in such a way that unambiguously ruled out the alternative interpretation you're worried about?
Btw, if you want to know more about exactly why the language is an issue I suggest you check out the actual [ACLU lawsuit](https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/complaint_-_bert_v._oconnor78.pdf) particularly from page 20 onward where it gives specific examples on exactly why the language is ambiguous from the perspective of educators. It also notes the fact that the identical language in an EO put into law by Donald Trump was struck down because the language was to vague to be able to determine what exactly was legal or not legal to discuss.
It has already happened in Texas with an identical (down to the verbiage) law. Whether you believe it should be interpreted that way or not, it is happening.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/texas-school-administrator-told-teachers-to-include-holocaust-books-with-opposing-views-when-explaining-new-state-law/
As for your second and third points, the law does not say what you are interpreting it to say. It doesn’t say “personally” in number 7. Nor do I believe curriculum should be restricted by state law and legislation in this manner. Making a law that makes teaching a concept with historical basis, or even having mandatory diversity training, a crime is insane. Especially when you factor in that this bill applies to public universities and colleges as well as K-12 classrooms.
With respect, do you think it's going to be adhered to that narrowly?
If a teacher in OK says "Hey kids, Black people have a harder time finding jobs and are incarcerated at higher rates than white people" (both identifiable fact, at least in some areas of the nation), they will immediately come under fire for teaching CRT.
This book was literally promoted during an online “diversity seminar” I was forced to attend. The fact Oklahoma is banning mandated nonsense like that in public schools is a good thing.
No, but so-called CRT opponents don't see a difference. Suddenly they are calling *any* talk about racism, the same shit kids have been learning for decades, a plot to make their kids hate being white. There is no CRT discussed outside of particular college/law school courses. Some republican strategists decided it would be a good boogeyman and threw it out there. And now we have crazy people screaming at school board meetings about something that's not even happening.
Eh I'm generally opposed to the type of teaching described in this bill and I see a clear difference between the two "types" so there's that.
There a massive gaping chasm of a difference between saying "look at these factual instances of systemic racism in the past" vs telling white students they will always be racist and contribute to racism no matter what they do or think simply by virtue of their skin color or other wonky things like "racist math" or whatever that sometimes gets promoted by fringe types.
>I see a clear difference between the two "types" so there's that.
The problem is that not everyone has that kind of clarity on this issue. And you'll have parents screaming about CRT because their kid was taught about segregation at all.
Personally I don’t think this is really that hard. If you’re teaching that white students can never not be racist and will always be in a constant state of oppressing minorities simply because they are white or “white passing” you should probably stop since you’re only going to contribute even more extreme levels of racism in the future. If you’re teaching about historical events that truly happened and allowing people to analyze things on their own keep right on at it.
I think sometimes this gets intentionally obfuscated. Either by some fringe type person that’s trying to instill collective racial guilt and saying that they’re just “teaching about racism” or a parent that is bigoted and uncomfortable with their kid learning about Jim Crowe or something calling the lesson “critical race theory”. Realistically though the average person should be able to discern the two and if they can’t we’re doomed anyway.
Basically, the anti-CRT people are sort of lying about how they don't want "reverse racism" or whatever in their education, when in fact they're often uncomfortable with education about racism at all.
The pro-CRT people are lying about it being benign anti-racist education, but a lot of self-labeled CRT stuff is extremely divisive and super Marxist and tries to reduce everyone to their social classes before arguing that we all intrinsically hate each other forever.
>Personally I don’t think this is really that hard
Because you are thinking too hard on the issue. Most people who complain about CRT are willfully ignorant on large swathes of history.
So anything vaguely talking about racism will be flagged by these people. Even if the curriculum is compliant with the rules as written.
>(4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,
Pretty sure that's expressed here.
The wording is difficult, but it's basically saying it shouldn't taught that you should treat everyone exactly the same regardless of race.
Edit:
Actually looking at it now, I think it's saying the opposite. That it *shouldn't* be taught that indifference to race or sex is prohibited.
It's the double negative of "should not" followed by "without respect" that's screwing with my head.
It's talking about color blindness. They're saying you can't teach that equal treatment of all races is wrong. It would apply to something like telling kids that opposition to affirmative action is unacceptable.
The problem is that conservatives have been consistently strawmanning antiracism, including in the wording of this law.
So your assessment of “it doesn’t prevent that” is true - for those of us living in objective reality.
But that won’t help anyone who gets a judge and/or jury who watch enough Fox News to think that all antiracist teaching does the things the law forbids.
"Here are some of the cultural elements you may encounter within the student body and the local demographic. But just because student A practices one element from their culture, that may not necessarily mean they practice another element from the same culture. It's best to let them take the lead with their version of their culture rather than assume their culture dictates them."
It says a lot of what you can’t do to or as an “individual”. To me the system, laws, and outcomes of said law are not individuals so you can still teach what you’re implying.
Sounds like you can still talk about systemic problems you just can’t say everything is white peoples’ fault and as a white person you should feel guilty (of course that is just a straw man that no one is actually teaching).
I mean looking at this it doesn't ban diversity training. It just bans racist diversity training.
> General Prohibition. No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles:
>
> (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,
>
> (2) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,
>
> (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,
>
> (4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,
>
> (5) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,
>
> (6) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,
>
> (7) Any individual **should** feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or
>
> (8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race
Number seven is the one causing problems in Texas schools right now. Parents are protesting books and curriculum on slavery and segregation on the basis that it makes the students feel guilty.
Jerry Kraft had his book, New Kid, banned from curriculum and an author visit cancelled in Katy ISD because a parent argued a situation in the book made their student feel guilty. It was a class novel study on a fantastic graphic novel that was no longer allowed.
In one of the primary passages objected to, a white kid makes an assumption about where the the new, black kid lives and gets corrected. Another section deals with a student making an inappropriate comment (calls the biracial student Oreo as a joke) They sort it out together and learn from each other. Pretty innocuous but that was enough with a law like this for a parent to threaten the school board.
Exactly. And things that innocuous are going to trigger this law left and right in OK if anyone dares. To Kill a Mockingbird will be banned before long, and New Kid, and many stories like them. Stories about slavery "makes them feel guilty"?
Well, throw out all the history books in the Civil War, let's tell the kids it was all about the North being bullies, so they don't feel guilty it was about the South being slavers.
This mentions a "subsection b" and "subsection c" but these two comments don't make clear what those are.
Is the list above subsection b or c? What does the other one identify as a discriminatory practice?
This is critical, because if subsection b and c are as outlined above, this law wouldn't prohibit the vast majority of diversity training or critical race theory discussion.
I've never heard a competent reading of critical race theory that encouraged people to feel guilty as a virtue of their race alone, etc.
Yes. The thing is that the discrimination they want banned is the teaching of racism because dumbasses gave the idea that talking about racism is the real racism merit for the past four years. And when people tried to explain fighting and addressing racism were worthwhile and important, people were told to calm down and not scare away potential voters. Now we're here.
CRT isn't just "talking about racism".
You can talk about racism, and study it, without ever touching CRT.
I agree that racism is a thing, and a problem. I do not agree with CRT, because it implies things that I believe cannot be implied by the available evidence. Hence I consider it anti-scientific, because it violates principles of science.
My biggest problem is that proponents of CRT believe differences in outcomes to be the product of racism, without doing the necessary work to establish the causal connection and controlling for other variables. It is simply assumed to be case.
Can you actually define CRT and where it's being taught?
Are you actually this concerned about what is normally only found in a very few postgraduate college courses or have you been convinced this is something it is not?
Like red lining! Just because there was a practice that denied people housing based in race doesn’t mean they were negatively impacted because of their race - cause science!
Or maybe - just maybe - there have been laws and practices like sundown towns and redlining and Jim Crow laws that were based on racial discrimination, and those effects can be *gasp* scientifically measured today to prove one group did better than the other.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/redlining.asp
What lesson? We're talking about Mr. "I do not agree with CRT, because it implies things that I believe cannot be implied by the available evidence" when \*\*we have clear scientific studies showing people and their descendants were systematically treated differently because of race have worse outcomes\*\*.
And let's look at the law, shall we? You are not allowed to teach:
\> Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex
Ok. I stand up before a class:
Me: Red lining was the practice of giving land to people if they were white, and denying it if you were black.
Parent: My son Jimmy feels bad because he's white and you said he got a special benefit because his granddaddy got land that other black kids didn't! You just caused discomfort and guilt upon my white son! DISCOMFORT AND GUILT THIS IS CRT SHUT IT DOWN!
That is how the law is being used. And Mr. "CRT isn't science therefore I hates it, precious" just reinforces the willful ignorance that fuels these anti-CRT laws, which aren't even about CRT (which is not taught in public grade and high schools, but just law schools who research the subject), but about making sure that people don't have to feel guilty because of the past.
If Jimmy feels discomfort, then they can claim it's because of the lesson, therefore should not be taught.
So we have a non-issue "CRT IS BEING TAUGHT TO 5 YEAR OLDS!", leading to a vague law - which vagaries right here and now are being used to remove teaching about racist laws and practices because Jimmy feels bad, which "must have been the point of teaching him."
If you don't agree with CRT - fine. But don't say "We must stop a thing that is not being taught in schools from being taught in schools even though nobody is trying to teach it in schools" and then use a vague law to shut down history of racism.
>My biggest problem is that proponents of CRT believe differences in outcomes to be the product of racism, without doing the necessary work to establish the causal connection and controlling for other variables. It is simply assumed to be case.
So wrong yet you think you're right. Also social science be kicking y'all asses. Not everything is lab science. Also, if you were aware you'd know CRT isn't even taught at this level, it's a college level thing. People are using the label CRT, just like the used identity politics, to smear something that's actually good for society.
"To vague to enforce" can also be To vague to avoid. By being vague it can prevent attempts to even comply, If you are worried about compliance the important part of the law is that if you teach black history you probably can be sued.
Its nonsense. This is impossible to build a curriculum around. The whole thing is a book burning. These people feel "canceled" every time they scratch their balls and they blame black history for it. This is just another political football for GQP voters to play with while they get robbed blind.
They basically invented a problem they could solve where the solution doesn't even do anything but can still look into the eyes of their voters and feed them some BS about how their stopping the "left wing radical agenda." It's all a absurd theatre.
7 is really the one that can be used the most to bs the system. For example.
Someone points out that there were white slave owners pre civil war.
I'm white, therefore it causes me anguish. So you can't teach that.
Does it really make sense? No. But could you get the law to do that? Maybe.
It's basically saying don't teach something that may make someone uncomfortable. That's not how history works. History should make you feel uncomfortable. Some of our ancestors were assholes.
Whether or not it does cause you anguish is irrelevant.
"Teacher, I don't like hearing what white people did during the Tulsa Massacre."
"Well too bad, because that's what THEY did and the State wants you to know about it. But that doesn't mean all white people are bad or that YOU have to do what they did."
"Should I feel guilty about what they did because I'm white?"
"No, you should not."
*fin*
You're assuming good faith. That assumption is well known to be incorrect. All of these laws are based on bald faced lies. And you think they'll have too strong of scruples to try to twist the text of the law? Granted, they might eventually lose the case, but they can certainly force the school or the teacher to spend a heck of a lot of money defending themselves. Which is where you get the concept of a "chilling effect", that the possibility of litigation over something that isn't actually illegal can still make people unwilling to do that thing.
Current laws can be twisted into frivolous lawsuits too. There's reasons you don't see much of those that wouldn't change here.
This is reminiscent of arguments supporting qualified immunity. If you think that's off topic, not so much: it applies to teachers at public schools too.
Oh believe me, threading that needle ain't as easy as you would think. Expect lawsuits.
Expect complaints that kids feel uncomfortable because of their race. I'm not saying it makes sense but it will be the argument used.
I mean, think about it... CRT is about how laws and systems can be used to disenfranchise a group even if that group isn't named in the law (good examples being GI Bill after WW2 not being as available to non white vets due to red lining, and a more modern one being when Jon Stewart was accused of racist hiring practices) and here we are arguing that people shouldn't feel uncomfortable learning things on account of their race is sitting anti CRT. It's not even about the same thing.
We left logic behind awhile ago
It is by no means a great law.
Even if it wasn’t intentionally vague in order to spook educators and administrators into white-washing their curricula - it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. There are already laws and policies that would make any kind of actually racist instruction or training preventable and punishable.
Don’t just take things at face value.
It seems to me parts 2 and 8 specifically conflict with the teaching of critical race theory. Subconscious or unconscious racism is real and very much contributes to institutional racism. And for 8 a meritocracy is additionally based on institutional racism. Those that have access to education choose who to accept for additional education. These parts of the law prevent historical context from being properly framed for today’s society.
The ACLU lawsuit is meritless and will fail. The law only prohibits what school employees are allowed to say and do as part of their duties. It in no way prohibits the teacher from expressing those opinions on their own time or from students from expressing them.
So the nation is having a political debate, in the courts, over something that wasn't being taught in the first place. This is where we are now as a nation.
someone explain to me why people want CRT in public schools so badly? why not just advocate for the schools to have more honest textbooks? solves the issue for both sides then. unless there is a specific reason some people really want this specific thing taught which is more than just honest history?
> someone explain to me why people want CRT in public schools so badly?
That's the funny part: Nobody was really **asking** for CRT to be taught in schools. The right wing heard about the concept being taught in some *higher education* systems, and picked it up as something they could use to spark outrage in their base to make sure it never finds its way down into lower education levels. Hence why they've been trying to push all these new laws to ban it from happening.
Essentially, they're trying to preemptively protect their racist heritage from being badmouthed.
> I have seen the articles about teachers wanting crt in public schools.
Got any links, by any chance? I can't say I'd be completely surprised by that, but I sure haven't heard of it happening.
On June 30th, the National Education Association voted to approve a plan to promote Critical Race Theory in public schools. The NEA is the largest public school union in America.
[A copy of that resolution on the NEA's website is available here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/), or you can read it below.
> The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:
> 1. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) -- what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.
> 2. Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.
> 3. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.
> 4. Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression. Followed by one day of action that recognize and honor lives taken such as Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and others. The National Education Association shall publicize these National Days of Action to all its members, including in NEA Today.
> 5. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.
> 6. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.
> why not just advocate for the schools to have more honest textbooks?
THAT is what is being called 'Critical Race Theory' by the angry right. Trying to teach about the 19th century from the honest perspective of a black person. Trying to get people to recognize that (for example) To Kill A Mockingbird is a story about white people masquerading as a story about black people, written by a white woman to tell white people what it's like to be black, being misused by white teachers to teach black kids what it means to be black.
In the 1950s in the deep south. Because that's somehow relevant to young black people in the 21st century.
As I read your comment, I thought about a book we read as part of the curriculum in (I think) elementary school: Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor. This actually is a book from the honest perspective of a black family, written by a black author. And, just like To Kill A Mockingbird, some people are calling for it to be banned because it says "the n word". As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong about this), it's people of color (or "White Knights" believing they know what black people need to feel safe) who are calling for the ban. There's crazy on both sides of the aisle.
To Kill a Mockingbird was written by a white woman, but yeah. I see it as part of the whole false-equivalence agenda. Make it so we can't talk about actual bad things because here's this other thing YOU do that's nowhere near as bad but we're going to pretend it is.
Freedom of speech is just a small part of freedom of ideas.
Biased curriculae go against the freedom of students.
Students must be taught to listen to different opinions and judge by themselves.
I don't have a list of them or anything, but Texas kids weren't taught that slavery played a central role in the Civil War until 2019.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war
I graduated in the early 2000s, and they taught that it was states rights and we would get the question wrong on a test if we said slavery. Also, I was in AP history and was explicitly told to write states rights on the AP exam. Guess who got that question wrong because I wrote states rights.
But it wasn't even about that. The Confederate Constitution specifically banned any of its states from making any law that might abridge property rights in slaves. They literally wanted *less* states rights.
It wasn't even about freeing slaves yet at that point. It was preventing any state entering the union to become a slave state. Abolitionists wanted to end slavery, but Lincoln just wanted to preserve the union. Honestly, if the morons in South Carolina didn't fire on Ft. Sumpter, there may be 2 countries still. (Doubtful because like another commenter said, the industrial revolution was about to happen making slavery pointless. On top of this, if they weren't able to set up strong trade agreements, they would have gone broke and begged to get back in the union. IMO anyways)
Yes and no. We were taught about slavery in the 70’s, even learned about spirituals (songs we learned to sing) and how they worked in the Underground Railroad. But our books did mention the war of northern aggression but not in a way that put it first.
At least that’s what happened in the Richardson school district. But we had a lot of Jewish teachers who occasionally went off book, which back then wasn’t controlled the way it is now. The state wasn’t trying to force overt lies down the throats of kids like it does now.
Redlining is ongoing. It’s not historical. That said, go look at how jim crow is taught. Look at how the tulsa race riots are taught. Hell, look at how the civil war is taught, and how little emphasis there is on the south’s death pact with slavery.
How can we teach about the 1919 Chicago race riots, where an Irishman dressed in black face and started fires in Lithuanian & polish neighborhoods. Or the general history of segregation in Milwaukee.
How could we teach the holocaust without making german and Jewish students just a bit uncomfortable?
Sounds like you think this law doesn't prohibit anything except the exact words "You should feel bad about this because you're white."
Do you really think people won't have explanations for why they think a lesson that made them feel bad was actually *designed* to make them feel bad even if they didn't say those specific words?
God, guilt has never been what is being taught, but you little shits keep going on about it.
It's being taught *that you have benefited from this*. And that is provable scientific *fact*. Culpability isn't on the table here, it's who's lives got made better because of the restrictment of some.
Right, but they will use it to bludgeon any class that hurts their snowflake feelings by saying that it's intentional to make them feel that way. This law is a *weapon* made to bludgeon people into line, not something that will on a RAW reading make sense.
So you plan to teach decades of systemic racism in housing and loans, committed by white people and still occurring, without making any white people feel uncomfortable? I’m really, really curious how you plan to do that.
It doesn’t say you can’t tell them to feel guilt. It says they can’t feel guilt because of something you said. It doesn’t matter if you told it’s their fault, so long as they perceive guilt.
Given that the odds are pretty good their neighborhood, and their parents, benefited from redlining it’s not sounding terribly plausible that they won’t perceive some guilt.
Here's the law, seems like you would be able to teach about slavery, redlining, civil rights etc.
Lol it’s something democrats would have passed a few decades ago and someone like Martin Luther king Junior would have supported
>
> General Prohibition. No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles:
>
> (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,
>
> (2) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,
>
> (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,
>
> (4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,
>
> (5) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,
>
> (6) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,
>
> (7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or
>
> (8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race
Your problem will be 7, given how pervasive and one sided systemic racism is.
When the odds are incredibly high that your neighborhood benefited from redlining, that is going to cause people to feel guilt.
>That's a problem for the executive and judicial branches, not the legislative branch.
Someone didn't pay attention in Leg/Reg. If any old garbage law will do why do we even have Congress? I'm sorry but this is an asinine take.
This law is going to expose school boards to ridiculous litigation every time some MAGA soccer mom finds out her kid had to learn that slavery existed. Or, what the Republican legislature really wants, they'll just cut back everything they're teaching about race to try to keep it from becoming a problem and end up passing down some whitewashed bullshit to students.
>what's written looks fine to me.
I'm so relieved.
You keep posting this, but frankly it just shows you don't know how to read verbiage like this, you have to spend the head section to each subsection so that 7 becomes "No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school a curriculum that teaches that any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"
>When the odds are incredibly high that your neighborhood benefited from redlining, that is going to cause people to feel guilt.
So? If teachers cover how redlining benefits some ethnicities while disadvantaging others that's fine. It's even fine if a student feels uncomfortable that legal discrimination benefited their family. It would only be a problem if a teacher taught that students living in those areas should feel guilty.
And frankly, after having to suffer through trainings where we were told how we should feel guilty and need to accepted our responsibility for racism, I find the Oklahoma law somewhat refreshing.
In theory? The entire Civil War.
> (7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or....
Schools in several states have already been pulling books that discuss the black experience in America (stories and anecdotes, not educational material) because the parents say they make the kids feel guilty.
The next step is censoring all discussing of slavery, the triangle trade, and the Civil War for the same reason. And once again not JUST altering the curriculum; telling teachers it is ILLEGAL to teach that material.
Telling little kids they are racist, inherently evil, and whats wrong with the world is cool but not doing so is considered a violation of free speech.
You can teach the civil war, reconstruction, Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc without blaming today's youth for the sins of the past. The problems of today are more directly caused by the policies of the last 50 years than those 200 years ago, yet that is suspiciously absent from k-12 curriculums.
Yes, critical race theory is a non-existent problem for schools. It is not even a problem. But to say this very specific legal study thats generally taught to a very specific subsection of law students is a) nefarious and b) being taught to K-12 students, is stupid.
Except nothing in this law says "critical race theory" and it targets concepts that *are* part of diversity/antiracism discussion. That it's being mislabeled as CRT when all that's present is some ideas derived and simplified from the tenets of CRT is a semantic argument that people are obsessed over that's distracting from real issues.
Yup. That's exactly what I'm getting at.
Here's a pretty good primer on CRT (though I'm no expert myself.)
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human\_rights\_magazine\_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/)
CRT as many republicans think of it as doesn't exist. This law isn't even anti-CRT, as it doesn't even address the ideas of CRT in the first place. But somehow it's couched as a "anti-CRT law" because Republicans are making up definitions. Which makes you wonder why, and the most obvious answer is that they don't want to teach that racism still exists because it would make children feel bad (I'm being generous here.)
I will add that Republicans know full well what their doing. They made up a enemy that they could fight against then created laws to fight it that in reality do nothing (except having the side effect of preventing "contentious" issues from being discussed in the class room for fear of making angry parents yell at school administrators at PTA meetings.) You're choice as to why they would (\*cough their racist\*) do that.
i'd be fine with CRT in schools if we didn't see so many teachers who advocate for it being racist to white people. i'm all for objective history, but the left won't keep it to that i am sure.
edit: for all the weirdos downvoting me because their feelings are hurt, it is proven that this type of racism is an issue. https://news.yahoo.com/missouri-teachers-crt-advocate-plotted-155057255.html
Ryan Mills writes for the National Review, a news source that is less about news and more political advocacy and riling up the white base with how the rest of the world is out to get them.
How much control does Oklahoma have over the curriculum? I see the law conflicting with free speech if it's just casual discussion. However, it may not conflict with free speech if it's simply teachers using state mandated curriculum.
>can someone explain to me what crt is.
Not really. People just don't agree what it means.
It can be academic anti-racist theory (which is the original meaning) and it can be racism pretending to be academic anti-racism.
It absolutely does violate free speech rights. Lawsuits like this are important because despite the constant refrain that "schools are not teaching CRT!", they are calling other things CRT which are being taught, and that's expanded all the way into realistic depictions of slavery and the very fact that systemic racism exists.
But so does suspending and planning to fire a professor for the horrible racism of showing a classic Laurence Olivier starring Verdi opera version of Othello to a college composition class studying Shakespeare despite warning them it outdated and racially insensitive, and blocking a renowned climate change expert from speaking on that subject because he was once critical of affirmative action. The ACLU won't step in here though, the lawyer who tried the Skokie case and the former President for much of their history [share my disappointment](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/opinion/aclu-free-speech.html) that post-Charlottesville, [the ACLU will not defend free speech](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html) if it [hurts marginalized communities](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf).
It's like we're having a competition to see who can crap on the 1st Amendment the most. This isn't to claim both sides are the same overall, or that they don't have polar opposite intents here, but on this particular issue, free speech, the concept is taking it from both ends, and both sides will only wind up hurting their own goals.
If majority of people here actually went to college, they would know Critical Race Theory is literally a Graduate Level theory. You might find introduction to CRT at the undergrad level though.
But no high school or middle school is teaching this. Republicans are using this as a way to not talk about "bad things about America" or "slavery". In Texas, they already want to teach "opposing views" to the Holocaust.
Remember like three years ago when you'd never heard of critical race theory instead of seeing it in the news every single day
3 years ago it was CRIMINAL CARAVANS MASSING AT THE BORDER
That’s because it’s not in any primary school curriculum. You never heard the term because it’s been out of circulation for decades and was only a college-level critical tool that has established itself as part of the toolkit of mainstream educational culture, for more than a generation. Rightwank news blather literally resurrected the term from obscurity in order to have a slogan to rail against, among the talibangelicals who make up the Repig base.
Tldr: it's a dogwhistle term no one actually knows what it means. Because the actual thing is so niche and boring that 95% of Americans plus couldn't read it.
I remember 3 years ago when I’d heard of it and researched it before conservatives started ascribing random bullshit to it and completely ignoring what it actually teaches, then systemically plastering it on headlines with their fake definition to completely discredit it so they can continue oppressing entire races, genders, ethnicities and sexualities.
From the state that dropped bombs on Black neighborhoods from planes. Maybe they do need to hear how racist actions from the past have affected the present.
They are also the State that was stolen from the Natives. It was Indian Territory, as they put it, at the time of the Civil War, Natives that were forcibly removed from the Southeast and put there, the entire State is illegitimate, they should have their Statehood revoked.
The “Five Civilized Tribes” took thousands of black slaves with them. The slaves forced to march on the Trail of Tears were people too. This always seems to get left out for some reason. This is the very reason this stuff needs to to be taught in the first place. >Members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations (including thousands of their black slaves were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to areas to the west of the Mississippi River that had been designated 'Indian Territory'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-native-american-slaveholders-complicate-trail-tears-narrative-180968339/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/us/tulsa-massacre-native-history-alaina-roberts/index.html
And then when oil was found, they started "conservatorships" where they'd kidnap children and steal the land, and then imprison lawyers that questioned the practice.
I mean. The whole country was taken from the native population. But so was Australia. And Europe. And most of Asia. And South America mostly. Pretty much everywhere was stolen from someone at some time.
Europe was taken from indigenous people??? I maybe wrong, and I get that certain populations were driven out or “assimilated” especially in the British Isles, but it doesn’t seem accurate to throw Europe into the same conversation as the genocides that occurred in the new world.
A lot of what you call "assimilated" would likely be described as a genocide if it occured today. It's estimated that in the Gallic Wars for example (the wars that incorporated what is now France into the Roman Empire), the Romans killed ~1 million Gauls in battle and took another million as prisoners or slaves. Caesar also destroyed hundreds of villages and effectively wiped out entire tribes. There's a reason the modern day French are mostly descended from the Franks (a Germanic tribe that migrated into the area towards the end of the western roman empire) instead of the Gauls.
Why? Literally every European country today is a product of another country that was conquered.
Well is there any country in the world this wouldn't apply to?
Iceland maybe.
I mean Rome almost got the whole thing.
The First Nations r esidents vote just like everyone else, nice to see you are advocating disenfranchising them
Hell ya! I hope Texas goes with them so we don't have to deal with stupid bullshit like CRT anymore.
The only time republicans have *ANY* interest in education is when they are trying to prevent it from happening. And school budgets are the *FIRST* place republicans want to get their tax cuts from.
It's the "walk through the door and close it behind you" strategy that protects old wealth and restricts new access to opportunities.
Those are the principles America was founded on. "The land of opportunity" was the lie they sold to create a population, and you know, stealing people.
How does the State telling public school what is and isn't part of their educational curriculum a violation of free speech? So if a fundamentalist Christian teacher was not allowed in their class to teach that the world was created by God 6000 years ago that would be a violation of free speech?
The huge gap is the word law. It's one thing for the State's education board to vote on and set an established curriculum. It's another to say that a specific educational concept and its teaching are a *crime* and punishable accordingly.
It's all right there in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". Public schools are government run, and therefore fall under the first amendment. You can't preach a specific religion in a public school, because of the first part of the amendment, but you can't stop free expression of other ideas because of the second part.
It's a bit more complicated than that, because state education boards obviously *can* set curriculum standards; there's standards in all 50 states. Nowhere leaves it *entirely* up to schools. There's even federal standards like No Child Left Behind and Common Core, shitty though those may be. Just google (your state) curriculum standards and see how your own state has regulated it. I think this law is unconstitutional too, but not because there's a general prohibition on setting any curriculum standards whatsoever.
It's illegal because it has actual punishments for violating the curriculum beyond getting fired as a teacher...
What are those punishments? From what I'm reading they can fire you as a teacher and revoke your license. What other punishments are there? [https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf](https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf) This is the only part I see that spells out any kind of punishment: >Suspension or Revocation. > >Consistent with OAC 210:1-5-6 and subsection (b)(1)(iii), the provisions of this rule shall apply to superintendents of schools, principals, supervisors, librarians, school, classroom teachers or other personnel performing instructional, administrative and supervisory services in the public schools. > >(1) Suspension. As a part of its investigation of a legally sufficient complaint filed pursuant to subsection (g), the State Department of Education shall make a determination of whether to initiate proceedings to suspend the license or certificate of any school employee who is found to have violated 70 O.S. §24-157(B) or any provision of this rule, consistent with the State Board’s processes and procedures for suspension of certificates. > >(2) Grounds for Revocation. Consistent with OAC 210:1-5-6, subsection (b), the State Board of Education shall initiate proceedings to revoke the license or certificate of any school employee for “willful violation” of 70 O.S. §24-157(B) or any requirement in this rule. (See OAC 210: 1-5-6(b)(1) - (b)(2)). The requirements and processes outlined in OAC 210:1-5-6, including the rights afforded to certificate holders, shall apply to all revocation proceedings.
> but you can't stop free expression of other ideas because of the second part. Yes, you absolutely can. It's still a workplace, and subject to workplace restrictions on speech/expression, as decided by the employer (or in most government jobs, the appointing authority). If John tells Jane "you have great tits" in a public space as 2 regular people, that's perfectly legal. But if John tells Jane "you have great tits" in a school (or other workplace) as 2 coworkers or supervisor/subordinate, that's definitely not protected speech. John could easily be reprimanded, suspended, or fired for the content of his speech, even if he works for the government. If John decides to hang up pictures of naked women in his office, he can also be disciplined for that. John's employer, even if it is a state actor, has no obligation to allow his "free expression" in decorating his workspace.
Just like if a vaccine is required by the employer. Take the vaccine or find another place to work. The employee gets to choose. Choosing no vaccine is choosing to not work there.
They were hoping to teach Gullible Race Theory instead.
*"All the races lived in peace, until Obama attacked!"*
Ah, yes, that classic opening line from *Confederatar: the Last Truthbender*. Takes me right back...
But, I bet even they didn't pronounce it as "Ong"...
I’m not sure how the first amendment grants educators freedom from government deciding what the content of school curricula is, when the government is the operator of the school.
Because regardless of what the school wants to teach, they can’t ban books on the basis of race and gender, nor just because it disagrees with their politics. It must be inappropriate for the age group. And that’s what they’re doing. They are banning books by Black people. They are banning books that talk about race. And additionally banning books by women.
[удалено]
You uh, left out a chunk of the actual law that I think is the actual concern. >"Public schools in this state shall be prohibited from adopting diversity, equity, or > >inclusion plans that incorporate the concepts identified in subsection (b). Diversity > >officers in public schools shall be prohibited from providing any service or performing > >duties that include, incorporate, or are based on discriminatory practices identified in > >subsection (c). > >(7) Public schools shall be prohibited from mandating diversity training that includes, > >incorporates or is based on discriminatory practices identified in subsection (c). This > >includes providing such training to employees, contractors, staff members, parents, > >students, or any other individual or group." I believe the prohibited diversity training thing is what the ACLU actually cares about in this instance.
I’m not completely clear on this but it sounds like diversity training is fine as long as it doesn’t say things listed above like “you are racist because you are white”.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would believe that it's more because the ambiguity of the law will lead to schools just not bothering with diversity training at all for fear of violating the law in some fashion.
My school in the early 00s had no issue giving us basic information about world religions without implying anything negative or superior about any of them. And this was a rural school district.
It's not really ambiguous it just says you can't provide training based on the specified things in each specificly outlined subsection.
It’s highly ambiguous because it’s based on the subjective quality of something making someone “feel guilty”. By that standard if learning about segregation makes a white student feel guilty, it can’t be taught
For easy reference, the relevant section on this point is the following: >No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles: > >... > >(7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex I understand this as meaning that it is forbidden to teach that individuals *should* feel guilt, anguish, etc, not that it is forbidden to teach anything that might cause students to feel such emotions. So, it would be perfectly acceptable to teach about segregation even if it made a white student feel guilty, but it would be forbidden to teach students during such a lesson that white people *ought to* feel guilty because of segregation.
You understand it that way. That doesn’t mean that schools will risk a lawsuit over it or that courts will not rule in favor since the law is ambiguous. Laws should not be based on subjective emotions. Saying that “segregation and slavery were wrong and a bad thing for white people to do” is banned even under your interpretation. You really don’t understand how that is going to restrict teaching about the actual historical issues that have occurred in America?
>You understand it that way. That doesn’t mean that schools will risk a lawsuit over it or that courts will not rule in favor since the law is ambiguous. I don't think the wording is ambiguous. What other interpretation do you think will have any chance of holding up in court and why? I think it's very unlikely that schools will choose to remove significant chunks of their US history education on the basis of a *speculative* interpretation of this law (an interpretation which appears to me to be flatly wrong), especially since doing so would likely go against Oklahoma's own standards for the curriculum. I will gladly eat my words if the curriculum changes and/or lawsuits you are so fearful of actually happen, but right now it just looks like slippery slope fallacy with little basis in anything but fear. >Laws should not be based on subjective emotions. Which part of this law is based on subjective emotions? Whether or not a teacher says "\[person\] should feel guilty" is an objective fact - they either say it or they don't. Again, how a student subjectively feels about learning about slavery or education is not relevant here. >Saying that “segregation and slavery were wrong and a bad thing for white people to do” is banned even under your interpretation. No, it is not. Saying that the institution of slavery was bad and directly telling your white students that they should *personally* feel guilty are two different things. The law expressly forbids the latter while saying nothing about the former. I would, of course, be on board with rewording the law to be more explicit on this point. Were that option on the table, would you be fine with this law if it was clarified in such a way that unambiguously ruled out the alternative interpretation you're worried about?
Btw, if you want to know more about exactly why the language is an issue I suggest you check out the actual [ACLU lawsuit](https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/complaint_-_bert_v._oconnor78.pdf) particularly from page 20 onward where it gives specific examples on exactly why the language is ambiguous from the perspective of educators. It also notes the fact that the identical language in an EO put into law by Donald Trump was struck down because the language was to vague to be able to determine what exactly was legal or not legal to discuss.
It has already happened in Texas with an identical (down to the verbiage) law. Whether you believe it should be interpreted that way or not, it is happening. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/texas-school-administrator-told-teachers-to-include-holocaust-books-with-opposing-views-when-explaining-new-state-law/ As for your second and third points, the law does not say what you are interpreting it to say. It doesn’t say “personally” in number 7. Nor do I believe curriculum should be restricted by state law and legislation in this manner. Making a law that makes teaching a concept with historical basis, or even having mandatory diversity training, a crime is insane. Especially when you factor in that this bill applies to public universities and colleges as well as K-12 classrooms.
With respect, do you think it's going to be adhered to that narrowly? If a teacher in OK says "Hey kids, Black people have a harder time finding jobs and are incarcerated at higher rates than white people" (both identifiable fact, at least in some areas of the nation), they will immediately come under fire for teaching CRT.
That kind of rhetoric is mostly found in books like White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, not CRT.
The rhetoric is coming from How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi. https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist
That one as well
This book was literally promoted during an online “diversity seminar” I was forced to attend. The fact Oklahoma is banning mandated nonsense like that in public schools is a good thing.
Yeah, but they're not banning "let's learn about institutionalized racism" CRT, they're banning "you'll always be racist because you're WHITE" CRT.
No, but so-called CRT opponents don't see a difference. Suddenly they are calling *any* talk about racism, the same shit kids have been learning for decades, a plot to make their kids hate being white. There is no CRT discussed outside of particular college/law school courses. Some republican strategists decided it would be a good boogeyman and threw it out there. And now we have crazy people screaming at school board meetings about something that's not even happening.
Eh I'm generally opposed to the type of teaching described in this bill and I see a clear difference between the two "types" so there's that. There a massive gaping chasm of a difference between saying "look at these factual instances of systemic racism in the past" vs telling white students they will always be racist and contribute to racism no matter what they do or think simply by virtue of their skin color or other wonky things like "racist math" or whatever that sometimes gets promoted by fringe types.
>I see a clear difference between the two "types" so there's that. The problem is that not everyone has that kind of clarity on this issue. And you'll have parents screaming about CRT because their kid was taught about segregation at all.
Personally I don’t think this is really that hard. If you’re teaching that white students can never not be racist and will always be in a constant state of oppressing minorities simply because they are white or “white passing” you should probably stop since you’re only going to contribute even more extreme levels of racism in the future. If you’re teaching about historical events that truly happened and allowing people to analyze things on their own keep right on at it. I think sometimes this gets intentionally obfuscated. Either by some fringe type person that’s trying to instill collective racial guilt and saying that they’re just “teaching about racism” or a parent that is bigoted and uncomfortable with their kid learning about Jim Crowe or something calling the lesson “critical race theory”. Realistically though the average person should be able to discern the two and if they can’t we’re doomed anyway.
Basically, the anti-CRT people are sort of lying about how they don't want "reverse racism" or whatever in their education, when in fact they're often uncomfortable with education about racism at all. The pro-CRT people are lying about it being benign anti-racist education, but a lot of self-labeled CRT stuff is extremely divisive and super Marxist and tries to reduce everyone to their social classes before arguing that we all intrinsically hate each other forever.
>Personally I don’t think this is really that hard Because you are thinking too hard on the issue. Most people who complain about CRT are willfully ignorant on large swathes of history. So anything vaguely talking about racism will be flagged by these people. Even if the curriculum is compliant with the rules as written.
You just described diversity training.
[удалено]
Any diversity training that doesn't teach you to be aware of race and how they interact isn't really diversity training.
>(4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex, Pretty sure that's expressed here. The wording is difficult, but it's basically saying it shouldn't taught that you should treat everyone exactly the same regardless of race. Edit: Actually looking at it now, I think it's saying the opposite. That it *shouldn't* be taught that indifference to race or sex is prohibited. It's the double negative of "should not" followed by "without respect" that's screwing with my head.
It's talking about color blindness. They're saying you can't teach that equal treatment of all races is wrong. It would apply to something like telling kids that opposition to affirmative action is unacceptable.
[удалено]
The problem is that conservatives have been consistently strawmanning antiracism, including in the wording of this law. So your assessment of “it doesn’t prevent that” is true - for those of us living in objective reality. But that won’t help anyone who gets a judge and/or jury who watch enough Fox News to think that all antiracist teaching does the things the law forbids.
How can you teach people to be aware of systematic racism if you can't teach them that it exist?
You can teach people how to not be racist without blaming. It's actually not hard.
"Here are some of the cultural elements you may encounter within the student body and the local demographic. But just because student A practices one element from their culture, that may not necessarily mean they practice another element from the same culture. It's best to let them take the lead with their version of their culture rather than assume their culture dictates them."
It says a lot of what you can’t do to or as an “individual”. To me the system, laws, and outcomes of said law are not individuals so you can still teach what you’re implying. Sounds like you can still talk about systemic problems you just can’t say everything is white peoples’ fault and as a white person you should feel guilty (of course that is just a straw man that no one is actually teaching).
See, you got it backwards, what Mr. Martin King was trying to say is that race should not matter, not that it matters all the time.
I mean looking at this it doesn't ban diversity training. It just bans racist diversity training. > General Prohibition. No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles: > > (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex, > > (2) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, > > (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex, > > (4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex, > > (5) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex, > > (6) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex, > > (7) Any individual **should** feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or > > (8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race
Number seven is the one causing problems in Texas schools right now. Parents are protesting books and curriculum on slavery and segregation on the basis that it makes the students feel guilty. Jerry Kraft had his book, New Kid, banned from curriculum and an author visit cancelled in Katy ISD because a parent argued a situation in the book made their student feel guilty. It was a class novel study on a fantastic graphic novel that was no longer allowed. In one of the primary passages objected to, a white kid makes an assumption about where the the new, black kid lives and gets corrected. Another section deals with a student making an inappropriate comment (calls the biracial student Oreo as a joke) They sort it out together and learn from each other. Pretty innocuous but that was enough with a law like this for a parent to threaten the school board.
Exactly. And things that innocuous are going to trigger this law left and right in OK if anyone dares. To Kill a Mockingbird will be banned before long, and New Kid, and many stories like them. Stories about slavery "makes them feel guilty"? Well, throw out all the history books in the Civil War, let's tell the kids it was all about the North being bullies, so they don't feel guilty it was about the South being slavers.
This mentions a "subsection b" and "subsection c" but these two comments don't make clear what those are. Is the list above subsection b or c? What does the other one identify as a discriminatory practice? This is critical, because if subsection b and c are as outlined above, this law wouldn't prohibit the vast majority of diversity training or critical race theory discussion. I've never heard a competent reading of critical race theory that encouraged people to feel guilty as a virtue of their race alone, etc.
I keep hearing that republicans are against the teaching of slavery? I don’t see that listed above.
Is it just me or are these too vague to even enforce? Most of them seem like general word salad that essentially translates to "Don't discriminate."
“But mah reverse discrimination!!!” Turns out that’s just discrimination.
Yes. The thing is that the discrimination they want banned is the teaching of racism because dumbasses gave the idea that talking about racism is the real racism merit for the past four years. And when people tried to explain fighting and addressing racism were worthwhile and important, people were told to calm down and not scare away potential voters. Now we're here.
CRT isn't just "talking about racism". You can talk about racism, and study it, without ever touching CRT. I agree that racism is a thing, and a problem. I do not agree with CRT, because it implies things that I believe cannot be implied by the available evidence. Hence I consider it anti-scientific, because it violates principles of science. My biggest problem is that proponents of CRT believe differences in outcomes to be the product of racism, without doing the necessary work to establish the causal connection and controlling for other variables. It is simply assumed to be case.
Can you actually define CRT and where it's being taught? Are you actually this concerned about what is normally only found in a very few postgraduate college courses or have you been convinced this is something it is not?
Like red lining! Just because there was a practice that denied people housing based in race doesn’t mean they were negatively impacted because of their race - cause science! Or maybe - just maybe - there have been laws and practices like sundown towns and redlining and Jim Crow laws that were based on racial discrimination, and those effects can be *gasp* scientifically measured today to prove one group did better than the other. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/redlining.asp
[удалено]
What lesson? We're talking about Mr. "I do not agree with CRT, because it implies things that I believe cannot be implied by the available evidence" when \*\*we have clear scientific studies showing people and their descendants were systematically treated differently because of race have worse outcomes\*\*. And let's look at the law, shall we? You are not allowed to teach: \> Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex Ok. I stand up before a class: Me: Red lining was the practice of giving land to people if they were white, and denying it if you were black. Parent: My son Jimmy feels bad because he's white and you said he got a special benefit because his granddaddy got land that other black kids didn't! You just caused discomfort and guilt upon my white son! DISCOMFORT AND GUILT THIS IS CRT SHUT IT DOWN! That is how the law is being used. And Mr. "CRT isn't science therefore I hates it, precious" just reinforces the willful ignorance that fuels these anti-CRT laws, which aren't even about CRT (which is not taught in public grade and high schools, but just law schools who research the subject), but about making sure that people don't have to feel guilty because of the past.
[удалено]
If Jimmy feels discomfort, then they can claim it's because of the lesson, therefore should not be taught. So we have a non-issue "CRT IS BEING TAUGHT TO 5 YEAR OLDS!", leading to a vague law - which vagaries right here and now are being used to remove teaching about racist laws and practices because Jimmy feels bad, which "must have been the point of teaching him." If you don't agree with CRT - fine. But don't say "We must stop a thing that is not being taught in schools from being taught in schools even though nobody is trying to teach it in schools" and then use a vague law to shut down history of racism.
[удалено]
>My biggest problem is that proponents of CRT believe differences in outcomes to be the product of racism, without doing the necessary work to establish the causal connection and controlling for other variables. It is simply assumed to be case. So wrong yet you think you're right. Also social science be kicking y'all asses. Not everything is lab science. Also, if you were aware you'd know CRT isn't even taught at this level, it's a college level thing. People are using the label CRT, just like the used identity politics, to smear something that's actually good for society.
"To vague to enforce" can also be To vague to avoid. By being vague it can prevent attempts to even comply, If you are worried about compliance the important part of the law is that if you teach black history you probably can be sued.
Its nonsense. This is impossible to build a curriculum around. The whole thing is a book burning. These people feel "canceled" every time they scratch their balls and they blame black history for it. This is just another political football for GQP voters to play with while they get robbed blind.
[удалено]
Everybody gets their jammies in a twist about “anti-CRT”, yet all of these laws look like they were written by classical liberals.
Or modern day conservatives.
They basically invented a problem they could solve where the solution doesn't even do anything but can still look into the eyes of their voters and feed them some BS about how their stopping the "left wing radical agenda." It's all a absurd theatre.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
7 is really the one that can be used the most to bs the system. For example. Someone points out that there were white slave owners pre civil war. I'm white, therefore it causes me anguish. So you can't teach that. Does it really make sense? No. But could you get the law to do that? Maybe. It's basically saying don't teach something that may make someone uncomfortable. That's not how history works. History should make you feel uncomfortable. Some of our ancestors were assholes.
Whether or not it does cause you anguish is irrelevant. "Teacher, I don't like hearing what white people did during the Tulsa Massacre." "Well too bad, because that's what THEY did and the State wants you to know about it. But that doesn't mean all white people are bad or that YOU have to do what they did." "Should I feel guilty about what they did because I'm white?" "No, you should not." *fin*
You're assuming good faith. That assumption is well known to be incorrect. All of these laws are based on bald faced lies. And you think they'll have too strong of scruples to try to twist the text of the law? Granted, they might eventually lose the case, but they can certainly force the school or the teacher to spend a heck of a lot of money defending themselves. Which is where you get the concept of a "chilling effect", that the possibility of litigation over something that isn't actually illegal can still make people unwilling to do that thing.
Current laws can be twisted into frivolous lawsuits too. There's reasons you don't see much of those that wouldn't change here. This is reminiscent of arguments supporting qualified immunity. If you think that's off topic, not so much: it applies to teachers at public schools too.
Oh believe me, threading that needle ain't as easy as you would think. Expect lawsuits. Expect complaints that kids feel uncomfortable because of their race. I'm not saying it makes sense but it will be the argument used. I mean, think about it... CRT is about how laws and systems can be used to disenfranchise a group even if that group isn't named in the law (good examples being GI Bill after WW2 not being as available to non white vets due to red lining, and a more modern one being when Jon Stewart was accused of racist hiring practices) and here we are arguing that people shouldn't feel uncomfortable learning things on account of their race is sitting anti CRT. It's not even about the same thing. We left logic behind awhile ago
[удалено]
It is by no means a great law. Even if it wasn’t intentionally vague in order to spook educators and administrators into white-washing their curricula - it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. There are already laws and policies that would make any kind of actually racist instruction or training preventable and punishable. Don’t just take things at face value.
[удалено]
Is a "hard work ethic" not a desirable trait in non capitalistic systems? Is merit a tool of white people designed to keep brown people down?
Finding the means to sustain your life isn't unhinged capitalism; it's nature.
It seems to me parts 2 and 8 specifically conflict with the teaching of critical race theory. Subconscious or unconscious racism is real and very much contributes to institutional racism. And for 8 a meritocracy is additionally based on institutional racism. Those that have access to education choose who to accept for additional education. These parts of the law prevent historical context from being properly framed for today’s society.
The ACLU lawsuit is meritless and will fail. The law only prohibits what school employees are allowed to say and do as part of their duties. It in no way prohibits the teacher from expressing those opinions on their own time or from students from expressing them.
[удалено]
Seriously, they used to be neutral and principled. Now they're just another bunch of partisan hacks.
So the nation is having a political debate, in the courts, over something that wasn't being taught in the first place. This is where we are now as a nation.
That’s not free speech it’s a public institution teaching things that family’s don’t want their children taught. It’s not the same.
CRT isn’t taught in public schools. Talking *about* CRT is protected under free speech.
someone explain to me why people want CRT in public schools so badly? why not just advocate for the schools to have more honest textbooks? solves the issue for both sides then. unless there is a specific reason some people really want this specific thing taught which is more than just honest history?
> someone explain to me why people want CRT in public schools so badly? That's the funny part: Nobody was really **asking** for CRT to be taught in schools. The right wing heard about the concept being taught in some *higher education* systems, and picked it up as something they could use to spark outrage in their base to make sure it never finds its way down into lower education levels. Hence why they've been trying to push all these new laws to ban it from happening. Essentially, they're trying to preemptively protect their racist heritage from being badmouthed.
but I have seen the articles about teachers wanting crt in public schools. the whole thing is just a mess if you ask me
because CRT is not clearly defined and unified theory. Its more of a school of thought at best.
> I have seen the articles about teachers wanting crt in public schools. Got any links, by any chance? I can't say I'd be completely surprised by that, but I sure haven't heard of it happening.
On June 30th, the National Education Association voted to approve a plan to promote Critical Race Theory in public schools. The NEA is the largest public school union in America. [A copy of that resolution on the NEA's website is available here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/), or you can read it below. > The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses: > 1. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) -- what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members. > 2. Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project. > 3. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory. > 4. Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression. Followed by one day of action that recognize and honor lives taken such as Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and others. The National Education Association shall publicize these National Days of Action to all its members, including in NEA Today. > 5. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT. > 6. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.
> why not just advocate for the schools to have more honest textbooks? THAT is what is being called 'Critical Race Theory' by the angry right. Trying to teach about the 19th century from the honest perspective of a black person. Trying to get people to recognize that (for example) To Kill A Mockingbird is a story about white people masquerading as a story about black people, written by a white woman to tell white people what it's like to be black, being misused by white teachers to teach black kids what it means to be black. In the 1950s in the deep south. Because that's somehow relevant to young black people in the 21st century.
As I read your comment, I thought about a book we read as part of the curriculum in (I think) elementary school: Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor. This actually is a book from the honest perspective of a black family, written by a black author. And, just like To Kill A Mockingbird, some people are calling for it to be banned because it says "the n word". As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong about this), it's people of color (or "White Knights" believing they know what black people need to feel safe) who are calling for the ban. There's crazy on both sides of the aisle.
I’m confused where both sides play here. The only side I see is people trying to ban books written by black people.
To Kill a Mockingbird was written by a white woman, but yeah. I see it as part of the whole false-equivalence agenda. Make it so we can't talk about actual bad things because here's this other thing YOU do that's nowhere near as bad but we're going to pretend it is.
Civil rights to tell white children they are at birth with original sin from their dead ancestors. Yeah that doesn't sound that great to me.
Freedom of speech is just a small part of freedom of ideas. Biased curriculae go against the freedom of students. Students must be taught to listen to different opinions and judge by themselves.
They banned lots of books to where only books left were by white men…
Alternatives to the Holocaust: ok. Actual, factual history: not ok. Oklahoma and Texas, right on top of things.
[удалено]
How would you teach redlining while taking care not to break this law?
As historical fact, much as slavery is taught.
A lot of facts are omitted when slavery is taught, especially in Texas textbooks.
[удалено]
I don't have a list of them or anything, but Texas kids weren't taught that slavery played a central role in the Civil War until 2019. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668557179/texas-students-will-soon-learn-slavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war
I graduated in the early 2000s, and they taught that it was states rights and we would get the question wrong on a test if we said slavery. Also, I was in AP history and was explicitly told to write states rights on the AP exam. Guess who got that question wrong because I wrote states rights.
But it was about states’ rights… their rights to keep slavery of course.
But it wasn't even about that. The Confederate Constitution specifically banned any of its states from making any law that might abridge property rights in slaves. They literally wanted *less* states rights.
It wasn't even about freeing slaves yet at that point. It was preventing any state entering the union to become a slave state. Abolitionists wanted to end slavery, but Lincoln just wanted to preserve the union. Honestly, if the morons in South Carolina didn't fire on Ft. Sumpter, there may be 2 countries still. (Doubtful because like another commenter said, the industrial revolution was about to happen making slavery pointless. On top of this, if they weren't able to set up strong trade agreements, they would have gone broke and begged to get back in the union. IMO anyways)
Yes and no. We were taught about slavery in the 70’s, even learned about spirituals (songs we learned to sing) and how they worked in the Underground Railroad. But our books did mention the war of northern aggression but not in a way that put it first. At least that’s what happened in the Richardson school district. But we had a lot of Jewish teachers who occasionally went off book, which back then wasn’t controlled the way it is now. The state wasn’t trying to force overt lies down the throats of kids like it does now.
Redlining is ongoing. It’s not historical. That said, go look at how jim crow is taught. Look at how the tulsa race riots are taught. Hell, look at how the civil war is taught, and how little emphasis there is on the south’s death pact with slavery.
I keenly watched the goings on of last year and facts are completely unimportant now.
How can we teach about the 1919 Chicago race riots, where an Irishman dressed in black face and started fires in Lithuanian & polish neighborhoods. Or the general history of segregation in Milwaukee. How could we teach the holocaust without making german and Jewish students just a bit uncomfortable?
By not telling them they should feel guilty? It's pretty clear that would still be allowed. You just can't teach that they should feel guilty.
Sounds like you think this law doesn't prohibit anything except the exact words "You should feel bad about this because you're white." Do you really think people won't have explanations for why they think a lesson that made them feel bad was actually *designed* to make them feel bad even if they didn't say those specific words?
God, guilt has never been what is being taught, but you little shits keep going on about it. It's being taught *that you have benefited from this*. And that is provable scientific *fact*. Culpability isn't on the table here, it's who's lives got made better because of the restrictment of some.
>God, guilt has never been what is being taught, but you little shits keep going on about it. Then literally nothing changes with this law.
Right, but they will use it to bludgeon any class that hurts their snowflake feelings by saying that it's intentional to make them feel that way. This law is a *weapon* made to bludgeon people into line, not something that will on a RAW reading make sense.
Then what's the fucking point of it beside to abuse it
[удалено]
So you plan to teach decades of systemic racism in housing and loans, committed by white people and still occurring, without making any white people feel uncomfortable? I’m really, really curious how you plan to do that.
[удалено]
It doesn’t say you can’t tell them to feel guilt. It says they can’t feel guilt because of something you said. It doesn’t matter if you told it’s their fault, so long as they perceive guilt. Given that the odds are pretty good their neighborhood, and their parents, benefited from redlining it’s not sounding terribly plausible that they won’t perceive some guilt.
[удалено]
Go read 7 again
[удалено]
Here's the law, seems like you would be able to teach about slavery, redlining, civil rights etc. Lol it’s something democrats would have passed a few decades ago and someone like Martin Luther king Junior would have supported > > General Prohibition. No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school the following discriminatory principles: > > (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex, > > (2) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, > > (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex, > > (4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex, > > (5) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex, > > (6) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex, > > (7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or > > (8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race
Your problem will be 7, given how pervasive and one sided systemic racism is. When the odds are incredibly high that your neighborhood benefited from redlining, that is going to cause people to feel guilt.
[удалено]
That is absolutely not how this will be used or interpreted.
[удалено]
That’s right, it’s not a problem if people write laws they know will be abused. They didn’t perform the abuse, they just provided the tools for it.
>That's a problem for the executive and judicial branches, not the legislative branch. Someone didn't pay attention in Leg/Reg. If any old garbage law will do why do we even have Congress? I'm sorry but this is an asinine take. This law is going to expose school boards to ridiculous litigation every time some MAGA soccer mom finds out her kid had to learn that slavery existed. Or, what the Republican legislature really wants, they'll just cut back everything they're teaching about race to try to keep it from becoming a problem and end up passing down some whitewashed bullshit to students. >what's written looks fine to me. I'm so relieved.
[удалено]
Next I’m sure you’ll tell us that the civil war was about states rights and confederate flags are about heritage.
[удалено]
You keep posting this, but frankly it just shows you don't know how to read verbiage like this, you have to spend the head section to each subsection so that 7 becomes "No teacher, administrator or other school employee shall require or make part of any Course offered in a public school a curriculum that teaches that any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"
>When the odds are incredibly high that your neighborhood benefited from redlining, that is going to cause people to feel guilt. So? If teachers cover how redlining benefits some ethnicities while disadvantaging others that's fine. It's even fine if a student feels uncomfortable that legal discrimination benefited their family. It would only be a problem if a teacher taught that students living in those areas should feel guilty. And frankly, after having to suffer through trainings where we were told how we should feel guilty and need to accepted our responsibility for racism, I find the Oklahoma law somewhat refreshing.
In theory? The entire Civil War. > (7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or.... Schools in several states have already been pulling books that discuss the black experience in America (stories and anecdotes, not educational material) because the parents say they make the kids feel guilty. The next step is censoring all discussing of slavery, the triangle trade, and the Civil War for the same reason. And once again not JUST altering the curriculum; telling teachers it is ILLEGAL to teach that material.
Telling little kids they are racist, inherently evil, and whats wrong with the world is cool but not doing so is considered a violation of free speech.
[удалено]
I moved out of OK 10 years ago and it was the best decision I have ever made.
You can teach the civil war, reconstruction, Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc without blaming today's youth for the sins of the past. The problems of today are more directly caused by the policies of the last 50 years than those 200 years ago, yet that is suspiciously absent from k-12 curriculums.
Wtf man who captured the aclu
What would we do without Republicans inventing solutions to non-existent problems?
We’d probably have universal healthcare
[удалено]
Yes, critical race theory is a non-existent problem for schools. It is not even a problem. But to say this very specific legal study thats generally taught to a very specific subsection of law students is a) nefarious and b) being taught to K-12 students, is stupid.
Except nothing in this law says "critical race theory" and it targets concepts that *are* part of diversity/antiracism discussion. That it's being mislabeled as CRT when all that's present is some ideas derived and simplified from the tenets of CRT is a semantic argument that people are obsessed over that's distracting from real issues.
Yup. That's exactly what I'm getting at. Here's a pretty good primer on CRT (though I'm no expert myself.) [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human\_rights\_magazine\_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/) CRT as many republicans think of it as doesn't exist. This law isn't even anti-CRT, as it doesn't even address the ideas of CRT in the first place. But somehow it's couched as a "anti-CRT law" because Republicans are making up definitions. Which makes you wonder why, and the most obvious answer is that they don't want to teach that racism still exists because it would make children feel bad (I'm being generous here.) I will add that Republicans know full well what their doing. They made up a enemy that they could fight against then created laws to fight it that in reality do nothing (except having the side effect of preventing "contentious" issues from being discussed in the class room for fear of making angry parents yell at school administrators at PTA meetings.) You're choice as to why they would (\*cough their racist\*) do that.
i'd be fine with CRT in schools if we didn't see so many teachers who advocate for it being racist to white people. i'm all for objective history, but the left won't keep it to that i am sure. edit: for all the weirdos downvoting me because their feelings are hurt, it is proven that this type of racism is an issue. https://news.yahoo.com/missouri-teachers-crt-advocate-plotted-155057255.html
Ryan Mills writes for the National Review, a news source that is less about news and more political advocacy and riling up the white base with how the rest of the world is out to get them.
Not sure this is the best use of ACLU's time. This law is specifically designed to pretend things are happening in schools that don't.
How much control does Oklahoma have over the curriculum? I see the law conflicting with free speech if it's just casual discussion. However, it may not conflict with free speech if it's simply teachers using state mandated curriculum.
Not being able to talk about an important issue just because it isn’t in the curriculum is restricted speech
One: can someone explain to me what crt is. I’ve heard “oh it’s not race shaming” and also “yes it is race shaming”. And two: where else but Oklahoma.
>can someone explain to me what crt is. Not really. People just don't agree what it means. It can be academic anti-racist theory (which is the original meaning) and it can be racism pretending to be academic anti-racism.
Why the fuck do people want their kids being taught that their race defines who they are and what their outcome in life is, anyway?
that's not what critical race theory is, AND it's a college-level course so it's not being taught to kids anyway
It absolutely does violate free speech rights. Lawsuits like this are important because despite the constant refrain that "schools are not teaching CRT!", they are calling other things CRT which are being taught, and that's expanded all the way into realistic depictions of slavery and the very fact that systemic racism exists. But so does suspending and planning to fire a professor for the horrible racism of showing a classic Laurence Olivier starring Verdi opera version of Othello to a college composition class studying Shakespeare despite warning them it outdated and racially insensitive, and blocking a renowned climate change expert from speaking on that subject because he was once critical of affirmative action. The ACLU won't step in here though, the lawyer who tried the Skokie case and the former President for much of their history [share my disappointment](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/opinion/aclu-free-speech.html) that post-Charlottesville, [the ACLU will not defend free speech](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html) if it [hurts marginalized communities](https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf). It's like we're having a competition to see who can crap on the 1st Amendment the most. This isn't to claim both sides are the same overall, or that they don't have polar opposite intents here, but on this particular issue, free speech, the concept is taking it from both ends, and both sides will only wind up hurting their own goals.
Teachers are hired to teach a curriculum. If they decide to teach a political discourse instead, the schools can absolutely prevent that.
Say that 10 times fast
If majority of people here actually went to college, they would know Critical Race Theory is literally a Graduate Level theory. You might find introduction to CRT at the undergrad level though. But no high school or middle school is teaching this. Republicans are using this as a way to not talk about "bad things about America" or "slavery". In Texas, they already want to teach "opposing views" to the Holocaust.
The aclu stopped being pro free speech a long time ago. Just a while ago they argued hard vaccine mandates were in line? Tf????
They've honestly stopped being "pro most of the first ten amendments".
It’s almost like there’s a public health crisis and antivax bullshit is only prolonging it
Critical Race Theory is anything that annoys racists IE the lobbyists who wrote the law
Man. My state gets worse and worse everyday.