National Education Association Votes To Push “Critical Race Theory” Into K-12 Schools Across The Country
Puts the lie to claims CRT is not taught in K-12: NEA Representative Assembly passes Resolutions requiring NEA action “Supporting and leading campaigns that … Result in increasing the implementation of … critical race theory … curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education”
When the history of the Critical Race Theory in K-12 is written, the role of teachers unions will be prominent, if not dominant. The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest teachers union in the country, and it has been active in pushing CRT training and teaching both through its national headquarters and local chapters.
NEA in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, targeted local mom Nicole Solas for serving a large number of public records requests, and NEA’s fingerprints are all over the messaging taking place to oppose dissident parents (more on that in subsequent posts). As we documented recently, the NEA Representative Assembly just passed a resolution directing NEA To Invest In Researching Groups Opposed To Critical Race Training
One of the messages we continually hear is that “Critical Race Theory” is not taught in K-12. That’s of course a deception because kindergarteners may not have a book called “Critical Race Theory” but they are indoctrinated into the key principles using euphemisms like “antiracism” and “equity.”
To the extent there was any doubt, at the NEA Representative Assembly just passed another resolution, New Business Item A, directing NEA to push “Critical Race Theory” into schools (emphasis added):
The National Education Association, in coordination with national partners, NEA state and local affiliates, racial justice advocates, allies, and community activists, shall build powerful education communities and continue our work together to eradicate institutional racism in our public school system by:
* * *
2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:
* * *
- Result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin(o/a/x), Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education;
A second resolution, New Business Item 39, reiterates the point, including that NEA must lead the effort against parental pushback (emphasis added):
The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:
A. 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.
* * *
C. 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.
* * *
E. 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.
F. 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.
Once again, NEA already was doing this at the national level, but the fact that NEA representatives from around the country have joined in the demand shows that this is not just a few activists at headquarters, it’s local represenatives shaping education policy in school districts around the country.
It also puts the total lie to the claim that CRT is not being taught in K-12.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
But, but, but I was assured that CRT is a law-school or master’s-level field of study and theorizing, and in no way a thing meant to be taught to children!!!
Here’s a rule of thumb I’ve been using for a long time that never fails: When someone says, “I assure you …” or “you can be assured that …” or any similar type of speech, everything that comes after is a lie.
I hear Senator Joseph McCarthy laughing at us from the grave, do you?
Marxism on the march.
As Dennis Prager says public schools are just Leftist Seminaries teaching the Leftist Religion.
Insisting the so-called racism is structural or systemic becomes the excuse for the broader transformations envisioned by Marx’s Feuerbach quote about the point of philosophy being to change the existing world. CRT is simply trying to create what self-proclaimed Marxist Paulo Freire called ‘critical consciousness’ so that students feel emotionally compelled to take action for fundamental change.
As this past week has demonstrated, the problem isn’t confined to public schools.
The gauntlet has been thrown down, the NEA is another enemy of America.
We’ve known that for decades, but now the masks are off.
Can anyone provide a good source on CRT and what it actually is .. specifically a source on the right giving a coherent discussion on the subject.
This post http://invisibleserfscollar.com/shaping-a-mind-is-more-important-than-stuffing-it-grasping-the-psychosocial-key-to-fundamental-transformations/ lays out the connection between the NEA and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance K-12 curriculum. Teaching for Tolerance was recently renamed Learning for Justice and has an extensive curriculum ready to be downloaded for the classroom. Notice too how the euphonious sounding CARE Guide pushes almost constant references to race daily in classrooms.
There is also a new curriculum called Liberatory Mathematics released in April from Team Transcend that is absolutely mind-boggling in what it calls for in the name of math.
If you want to get beyond K-12, the most illuminating publication I have read was from 2020 in the Yale Law Journal in what they are calling the Law and Political Economy Framework. Marx appears far more influential in the 21st century than anyone would have envisioned in 1989.
Easily found something from 2001, but it’s a fake question. He’s not really interested. The talking point is that it’s a myth, even as the corrupt teachers’ union contradicts that false meme.
You imply intent without any foundation. The reason I’m looking into it is becuase it’s quite a difficult subject that I don’t know a lot about. The left wing sources I normally read characterise the rights position as basically being a gross mischarachterisation of what CRT actually is. So it’s only fair that I try and establish if that’s fair or not.
Yeah it’s a strange article interesting though. It’s confusing that it makes a statement about CRT/racial equity being about structural racism and then in the following sentence talking about the same them describing it as people being inherently racist. That’s not a conclusion I would draw from something described as structural. More reading required .. I’ll look at some of the links within the article.
That’s the Hegelian dialectic of the left. Contradictions lead to a deeper truth or something like that. I don’t understand it. But James Lyndsay is a good source for information on CRT. He testified before the NH legislature against CRT and wrote a book with Helen Pluckrose called Cynical Theories.
Yeah the article isn’t from the left wing at all, as fa as i can tell its a right wing perspective.
Well I hope the book is better than the PragerU Video he did because that was not good, he managed to come up some pure nonsense in that. Thanks for the book idea though. Its gotten some mixed reviewed but to be fair Pinker has endorsed it so willing to give it a go.
It is not about rationalism. That’s what enables critical race theory proponents to both argue tha HB3979 is banning critical race theory, while simultaneously arguing that none of the actual text of the bill discusses it in any way.
Yes I had that actual conversation.
We are not dealing with people constrained by reason, merely a list for power and a will to say anything and do anything to get it.
You surely can find what you seek if you only look.
I’m looking for something substantive from the perspective of the right. Stuff I’ve seen is a bit ‘light weight’ looking for some better info.
For what purpose, pray tell? There is plenty straight from the horse’s mouth. That is the best way to determine what it is. Why play these games? You can easily find what you seek, if you are sincere. Are you? The passive-aggressive schtick is transparent.
Assuming for argument’s sake that you really are interested, John McWhorter and Glen Loury speak to the matter. Or Christopher Rufo. Here’s an article he wrote:
https://www.city-journal.org/the-left-wont-debate-critical-race-theory
All easily found to those that are ACTUALLY curious.
Thanks for the links I’ll take a look. As I’ve said in a previous comment (just posted for fairness) I’ve got the left wing view not the right. I don’t want to be guilty of the crime of being in an echo chamber myself. Hence asking a right wing forum about the right wing perspective. The only way to have a balanced view is to have both sides, thus far what I’ve found from the right has been a little lacking hence asking the question.
You are open minded. You come here looking for some better info.
Yeah sure. You’re like a pajama boy taking his lil’ scooter to a Harley Davidson Ralley trying to convince the big bikers of the advantages of his moped.
Bwahaha! This is hilarious! And spot-on.
No offence UserP but your claim falls flat when you realise that the standard of your arguments are so poor. If you have nothing substantive to say.
A very entertaining analogy. However if your analogy is supposed to entail Harley bikes as equivalent to being intellectual giants then I’m afraid that the facts follow to an entirely different conclusion.
@fuzzy
Hi Fuzzy, still got nothing useful to say I see. It’s funny how honesty and integrity are values that you despise. Asking questions, re-evaluating opinions based on new facts, making efforts to understand the opposite view. Try it sometime. If you were genuine and honest you wouldn’t hold some of the views you have.
@mark311
That’s why when you post here you have the most thumbs down of any poster. You have only one thumbs up which is one you give yourself. You remind me of Jeffery Toobin.
@userp
Your argument appears to boil down to ‘ I’m more popular than you.’ a great example of a fallacy. Again, you seem to be a substance free zone.
The fact that you asked that, and then just moments before dismissed a write up of it specifically as being from the right in response to the same quest up says that he is a dishonest actor here.
I think you have your facts wrong I asked that then received various links. Some better than others. One of those links I discussed as being odd which then prompted a follow up which claimed it was a left wing source , I corrected that according to my understanding of the source. Perhaps you should read the full extents of the commentary before arriving at conclusions that don’t reflect the reality.
CRT is Democrats way to appeal to Blacks, their base. Dems hope the Blacks will believe that more retributions will be coming to them!
Freudian slip there, but valuable.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22critical+race+theory%22+site%3Aprageru.com&t=osx&ia=web
Thanks for the link Henry, I had the err privilege of listening to James Lindsey talk for five minutes. I have to say he kinda proves the point about CRT it’s pretty clear that he has absolutely no idea what it is. Even from my limited knowledge it’s obvious. Making the claim that it calls whites inherently racist just isn’t true. The claim is that whites benefit from being in a privileged position. His thought experiments are hilarious though, I was highly entertained. He talks utter nonsense. Amazing really.
Well than, you’ve already made up your mind. Why pester people here?
That’s a strawman, its one thing to be recommended a good source and quite another to be recommended obvious crap.
Actually CRT is very coherent. The ideas in a nutshell from what I understand is that structures within society give an inherent advantage to whites and vice versa the oppressed groups have a tougher time. Examples might include lower employment for educated blacks vs educated whites, or the disparity in sentencing between blacks and whites, or the disparity in stop and search for black and whites using weed as a pretext even when statistically whites are more likely to possess, or historic redlining issues. These are all issues that have strong statistical basis, the question is why. CRT has some views on it but there are alternative views.
It’s a leftist ideology, so you probably won’t find what you are supposedly looking for. Leftist ideologies are deliberately incoherent. The average person can get the gist of CRT: I’ts racist.
Here’s an excellent video. Let us know what you think of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1458&v=GRMFBdDDTk
I would watch it but it says its unavailable?
Pardon my error.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=GRMFBdDDTkI
No worries Gibbie, thanks for the video. It was an interesting watch. Some interesting points raised.
1) Dr voddie seemed to imply that structural racism is a real thing but that when it comes to a choice it seems to take precedent over individual cause. No idea of this is the case but to me both are true. It’s not an either or.
2) having acknowledged that structural racism exists he doesn’t really delve into how important those issues are Vs individual ones. Taking the Michael brown case he cited it’s fair to say that in the circumstances he described it’s clearly Browns fault that it ended the way it ended. However would CRT describe how M Brown got into that situation in the first place. In other words is it a means by which to describe the probable trajectory for a particular social group based on the extents of the structural racism. Would M brown have been where he was if redlining hadn’t happened, or if there was an equal distribution of resources for schools or some other factor(s). I feel like Dr voddie alluded to that without actually quite getting there since clearly he prefers his own biblical justice narrative
It was an interesting video thanks, clearly as an atheist some aspects were less persuasive than others
Mark, To the extent there is structural racism in the US, its best example is the lack of educational opportunity for children from low income families. The main cause of this lack of educational opportunity is the implacable opposition of teachers unions and democrat politicians to school choice.
I’m sorry to hear you have an argument with God. I suggest that the best way of resolving such an argument is to pursue it with him. The worst way is to ignore it.
Gibbie
An interesting perspective, sounds like you at least acknowledge the possibility of structural racism even if you might have different views on the extents of it and it’s nature. I appreciate that, it’s an honest response.
When you say school choice what do you mean by that?
Ahh my atheism is based on a simple premise I need evidence that God exists and at present I’ve been provided with no compelling argument to think a god might be real. So no argument per se. Think about it like this, I assume you are a Christian and as such you’ve rejected Islam, Hinduism, the Norse gods etc etc I’ve just taken that a step further and refuted one additional god.
Mark, Briefly, there are two problems with education being run by government entities. The first is that the institution of democratic control is always implemented via bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are inefficient, ineffective, and unaccountable. I suggest you read the first part of “Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools” by Chubb and Moe for an excellent explanation of this.
The second is that education is inseparable from religion, and therefore the government schools, far from being religiously neutral, are permeated with religion. Before objecting, I suggest you read this article:
https://blogs.cornell.edu/envirobaer/publications/why-a-functional-definition-of-religion-is-necessary-if-justice-is-to-be-achieved-in-public-education/
It contains thoughts and history of which I suspect you are unaware.
You might find R.C. Sproul’s series, “Defending Your Faith” helpful. Sproul makes a compelling argument for the existence of God solely using reason. It’s available in book, video, and audio formats.
I also recommend C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”, and G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”.
Thanks Gibbie, always keen to read more and yes I’m not that familiar at all with those works on education. Always enjoy challenging my views when it comes to apologetics too. Its an interesting subject, I listen to quite a few podcasts and shows stuff like the the atheist experience (Matt dillahunty is fantastic) cosmic skeptic, rationality rules
@Gibbie
I have a question for you, what’s your view on property tax and funding for schools?
Mark, If you do nothing else, at least read the article about a functional definition of religion.
Although I am implacably against the practice of having the government run schools, I am not necessarily against government funding of schools. It is still dangerous in that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but it is considerably less dangerous than the government being the piper.
Property tax funding of schools can lead to inequality since some districts are poorer than others. However, the government schools are currently over-funded anyway – government bureaucracies are very expensive. It would be better if school choice were funded at the state level. I moved my family from NY to FL largely because of NY’s antipathy to school choice and FL’s support of it. And since the bigoted Blaine laws were found unconstitutional last August, school choice is being enhanced in FL and is being adopted by many other states.
Hi Gibbie
Read the article you provided it’s interesting. A lot to unpack. If I understand correctly its central claims are that 1) that secular teaching and secular humanism is pervasive in the American school system 2) that the school system with respect to religion isn’t neutral 3) that it’s inevitable that the school system will teach values framed by secular humanism 4) that a wider view of religion is required in order to redefine and capture secular humanism 5) that secular philosophies are not inherently more rational with regard to morality than theological based philosophy.
1) secular humanist is not a widely held viewpoint although there is limited data. My suspicion is that the author is conflating non religious atheists with those who describe themselves as secular humanists. I would say it seems likely that US schools are somewhat secular but I get the impression thats not uniform given the high percentage of Christian folks.
2) It’s not neutral in the sense that it precludes religion which is as intended really. Religion has a poor record in schools with regard to diluting subjects like science where it has no place at all. Of course there is a place for religion in the sense that specific classes might discuss religious ideas provided there is suitable context.
3) I’m not sure about this one, the article references things I’ve not come across before so can’t really comment.
4) I think it would basically be a rewriting of the meaning and purpose of the constitution with respect to religion to take this view. It would give open ended access to religion in any subject which I would most definitely be against. I would also say that it doesn’t make a lot of sense either. One of the central themes of secular humanism is that rationality and critical thought are featured heavily. If one were to look at things through the prism of ‘how does one discover truth and knowledge’ then any religion has the same basic problem in that truth and knowledge’ is derived from faith and therefore is neither falsifiable nor subject to revision. That’s as opposed to atheism which is by it’s very nature not wedded to any view other than from an evidential and reason perspective.
5) this is the most interesting one from my point of view. Im a bit of a geek on this particular subject. There are a number of philosophical avenues of discussion here.
A) the Euthyphro dilemma is a good starting point. The claim seems to be that religion can provide a better moral framework than secular humanism ( ignoring the fact that there are numerous subsets of thought on the subject of morality within humanism). Thus my first question is this what is ‘good’ is it becuase god says so or because he has given you knowledge of what good is. In the later case the consequence is that God is redundant since it’s a set of discoverable rules that don’t require him or any religion that goes with it. In the former case this creates a contradiction taking the Bible for example the old testament is littered with things that I’d consider to be acts of evil from God thus from that point of view I can’t consider god to be a moral agent.
B) moral truths , this is inherently difficult with the Bible. As time has gone on the tendency has been to revise the original context to suit modern morality. That is to say the more literal you interpret the Bible the less moral it is. It’s also the case that the Bible is full of moral contradictions and indeed acts of evil perpetrated by God himself or allowed by him thus how can one use it to find moral truths?
C) Religion by its nature is difficult to change. Taking a foundation rule of a religion and finding its no good isn’t possible it will always remain. For example it could be argued that the Koran explicitly allows people to commit suicide and kill others in order to get into heaven. That’s an interpretation of some which has allowed evil acts. There are clearly lots of examples in all religions (obviously not necessarily as extreme!). It’s a general point that all religions are prone to this
D) atheists by definition have none of the above issues. The real question is what fills in that moral system. There are numerous answers to that. I won’t bore you with my own moral framework.
Mark, You seem to have completely missed a couple of concepts.
The article makes the case that the functional definition of “religion” as “that which we use to answer the Big Questions” (Who are we? Why are we here? How should we live? What is the Good, the Beautiful, and the True?) applies to the worldview of all humans – including atheists. Including you. Being an atheist does not privilege your ideas over those of theists. I’m not sure how you missed this. The article is quite clear.
“That’s as opposed to atheism which is by it’s very nature not wedded to any view other than from an evidential and reason perspective.”
This claim is completely disputable. Atheism makes the claim that there is no god – a claim which is completely unprovable. The very nature of atheism is cannot be derived from evidence or reason.
“Religion has a poor record in schools with regard to diluting subjects like science where it has no place at all.”
This is nonsense. For example, the value of truth-telling is not something which can be determined scientifically, but without truth-telling there could be no science.
Socrates was commissioned by “the god” via the oracle to seek out anyone who claimed to know what was “the good”, and then to question him to determine whether he could justify his answer. Socrates was unable to find anyone who could do so. The obvious answer is that “the god is the good”.
“the old testament is littered with things that I’d consider to be acts of evil from God”
You rashly consider yourself qualified to pass judgement on Yahweh, the God of the Bible. You might want to reconsider that.
“atheists by definition have none of the above issues.”
This is wishful thinking.
I suggest you give R.C. Sproul a try.
Hi Gibbie
That’s true up to a point, I framed it in terms of morality. I alluded to the wider spectrum of views. As I said there was a lot to unpack from the article hence stating what I was discussing in response to it.
“Atheism makes the claim that there is no god – a claim which is completely unprovable.” That’s not the case actually, its a burden of proof for those claiming god exists to show there is a god. Atheism is simply the lack of faith in god(s) and that there isn’t any evidence to support the assertion of a god or gods existence.
““Religion has a poor record in schools with regard to diluting subjects like science where it has no place at all.”
This is nonsense. For example, the value of truth-telling is not something which can be determined scientifically, but without truth-telling there could be no science”
With respect religion isn’t a reliable method of finding the truth, By definition religion is based on faith and that’s not a reliable means of determining truth. Religion has a long and troubled history of holding back science and even in the modern era where creationist teachings were forced into schools despite being totally unscientific
“Socrates was commissioned by “the god” via the oracle to seek out anyone who claimed to know what was “the good”, and then to question him to determine whether he could justify his answer. Socrates was unable to find anyone who could do so. The obvious answer is that “the god is the good”.
I’m a bit confused by this since this relates to the Oracle claiming that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Socrates ended up proving the Oracle right in the sense that he alone admitted that that he didn’t know everything. In other words the story you cite doesn’t really have relevance to the dilemma in question which is where does good come from. Is it independent of god or because god says it is. The issue can be stated as thus suppose God comes to you and proves to be God 100% certainty God then commands you to commit genocide. if good is derived from god then that becomes a moral act. This is clearly flawed.
““the old testament is littered with things that I’d consider to be acts of evil from God”
You rashly consider yourself qualified to pass judgement on Yahweh, the God of the Bible. You might want to reconsider that.”
There are numerous instances of evil acts within the bible. The very pretext of Christianity makes no sense to me. For example in the case of a criminal act
would you consider it moral to ask someone else to suffer punishment for it? No it makes zero sense. Another example is slavery within the bible (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6), God ordering warriors to kill thousands including women and children, including the rape of the wives (Judges 21:10-24), Murder, rape and pillage of the Medianites Numbers 31:7-18, killing of rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), how about infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3) … I could go on.
“atheists by definition have none of the above issues.
This is wishful thinking.”
With respect Atheism doesn’t make any assertions. You have to have a word view for that and atheism as explained previously is just that the burden of proof for gods existence hasn’t been met. In order for some of the issues to be valid you’d have to know what moral framework the atheist is using. That might be a form of utilitarianism or maybe virtue ethics it might be based on Kant. Their are a lot of options and a lot of nuances to each option.
“I suggest you give R.C. Sproul a try.”
I shall thanks
Water is wet. Marxists ‘teach’ Marxism.
Where ‘teach’ means indoctrinate and brain wash.
The Aspen Institute, which is tied to most of the large American philanthropies and many politicians who have proclaimed themselves to be ‘conservative’ has had what it calls its Racial Equity Theory of Change or RETOC that is covered here http://invisibleserfscollar.com/prescribing-racial-equity-outcomes-at-all-levels-of-social-interaction-wil-make-each-of-us-truly-bound-and-governed/
As that post noted, the point of Racial Equity goes far beyond just education. Education is the means to an end that is trackable only if someone is aware it is there. This is actually not about how to best teach math or reading. It’s about creating the desired values and categories of thought and images and emotions that will produce a desired collectivist ‘citizen’/change agent.
On this day especially it is important to recognize the aspirations to use our schools and universities to ultimately create a new “proper ordering of political life at all levels of social interaction.”
CRT is simply the opportunity to make such reordering seem equitable and just to those being asked to implement it.
This is necessary if it’s to be repudiated. It often takes overstep to wake people up. Eventually, the camel’s back will break. Looking forward to that day when normal people rise and take back America from those that abuse the legacy they were given.
Yeah, that won’t be happening. We used to have reactions and revolutions. Now, all we have is a heavy old Overton Window, and a Republican Party too damn lazy to push it.
You got that right!
Republican led state legislatures need to use this as a reason to push hard – demand – vouchers and other forms of school choice. We MUST disentangle government run education from government financing of education. (In the long run, even government financing needs to be abolished.)
Conservatives used to argue for vouchers on the completely rational theory that when parents are given choice, they will put their children in better schools with better teachers and that competitive pressure will provide an incentive for poor performing schools and teachers to improve. If they fail to improve, then the poor schools will close and the poor teachers risk becoming french fry shovellers at McDonald’s.
Now the voucher issue is no longer about introducing competition an incentive to improve. Now it’s an absolute necessity to prevent harmful racialist brainwashing of the nation’s children.
The problem is that private schools a teaching racism to their students.
Better to make it illegal for teachers to teach their religion (CRT) to students with real punishment for those who break the law. Along with requiring that the teach that judging people by race is racist.
This has become workable, due to that great invention, the computer. It will have as great an effect as the printing press.
Except it’s more likely that poor teaching is a function of poor resources given that wealthy areas give schools far more money than poor ones.
The actual consequence of your rational theory is that those who are able to move ie those with wealth and mobility will coalesce into high performing areas (which are already wealthy and therefore house prices are out of reach for the poorer parents relatively) thus making it more difficult for the poorer schools to make progress. I’d actually say what you advocate perpetuates bad schools and won’t improve them. It’s also the case that in your scenario the bad school closes and kids won’t be educated or it would make an already impoverished group more impoverished since they are highly likely in that scenario to have to travel further for school. They would have the double whammy of longer days compared to the advantaged rich kids and spending more than them.
When did the NEA get to decide what curriculum to push? Oh, that’s right, when they started teaching Marxism.
When you have local school board elections, research the candidates. Any who are or ever have been members of a national teachers union, this is why you should vote against them.
The Teacher’s Unions have been wrong on every decision they made! From shuttering schools to forcing masks on kids! And these are the smart people? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
No. They’re the stupid people who have mobbed their way to the levers of power.
The decision-makers in the Teacher’s Unions use both teachers and children to for their own benefit, and the benefit of a party. It’s time to extend Right to Work laws to cover teachers and other State union members.
The PBS Newhour held a Live Q&A with Prudence Carter regarding CRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4pvWBcNoec I think that Prof. Carter is confused with “Intersectionality” which was developed by legal scholars. I was very disappointed.
Not really critical race theory was started in Harvard in the early 70’s by DerrIck Bell. Intersectionality was a term used in the late 80’s by Crenshaw. It’s a separate and distinct field of study although it clearly states from CRT and vice versa.
But both are crap.
In what sense is it crap, in terms of the underlying data or the conclusions drawn? In terms of the former its a pretty robust case but I do take issue with the reductionist narrative.
Remember how popular Black Panther was? I hated it because it was riven with the same racism imbedded in CRT. Blacks would fight against white countries for the black living in those countries.
When you see clinched fists raised high in support of CRT at a teacher’s gathering it is time to fire every person that is employed in education and start over.
Remember all the stories about student unions and homeowner’s associations and even cities passing ultra vires actions in favor of the Palestinians?
This is just the latest version of it.
If we decide to put a stop to this nonsense, we win a lot for our children and our society.
The repetition of infiltration of non-governing bodies by “activists” with ill will is almost enough to make me believe in the Devil.
I have been a confirmed agnostic all of my adult life, mostly because I can see that there is no proof that God exists, or does not exist. But I am beginning to believe that something evil exists.
Ultra vires is a great way for a nonprofit organization, including possibly a union like the NEA, to lose its nonprofit status and also have its officers and directors sued personally for breach of fiduciary duty by disgruntled members. This has been used against nonprofits that supported a boycott of Israel and a Form 13909 was filed recently against another on the same grounds. One would have been filed against the NEA had it adopted an anti-Israel resolution, but it rejected it. If the organization’s mission, as stated in its bylaws and also what it tells the IRS in its Form 990, does not provide at least a fig leaf for support of BDS, it could conceivably be exposed to both litigation and revocation of its 501(c) status. (Not legal advice, I am not a lawyer, but if you Google on “nonprofits” and “ultra vires” you will find articles written by lawyers; that is where I learned this.)
The homeowners’ associations’ officers and directors should realize that directors’ and officers’ insurance may not cover ultra vires acts, which I also learned from the articles published by lawyers.
History, a subject the anti-intellectual NEA abuses.
https://savejersey.com/2021/07/independence-day-american-exceptionalism-jeff-van-drew/
“One of the messages we continually hear is that “Critical Race Theory” is not taught in K-12.”
That’s exactly what I hear from the democrats in my life. They never admin to being wrong, and they always believe the next leftist lie.
So perhaps mark311 can tell us:
Do you believe the “Charlottesville Fine People Hoax”?
Do you believe the “Drinking Bleach Hoax”?
Do you believe the “Russian Collusion Hoax”?
As I understand it CRT isn’t taught in schools as in the theory that’s as opposed to some of the ideas contained within CRT ie the idea that there are examples of structural racism.
With regard to “Charlottesville Fine People Hoax” from my recollection the meme that went around lacked the full quote do no.
“Drinking bleach” a balanced view might be that Trump was ambiguous with his words but I don’t think it was an explicit endorsement of drinking bleach as some claimed
“Russian collusion” well this is a bit more nuanced since the senate intelligence committee has explicit stated that Manafort did collude with Russia. The wider claim that Trump was explicitly in bed with Russia isn’t true but it’s fair to say he benefited from Russian actions with regard to the 2016 elections via the actions of the internet research agency
Not sure what “quote do no” means, but I think your your responses are surprisingly reasonable.
If Trump benefited from the actions of the Internet Research Agency, it was their loss since he proceeded to act against Russia’s interests by, among other things, developing US energy independence and working against the Nord Stream pipeline – both of which actions Biden has reversed. But that has nothing to do with collusion with Russia. The Manafort thing was not on behalf the the Trump campaign.
Oops not sure what happened there. Just lacked the full quote which didn’t support the claim that it was pro far right.
With respect to Manafort he was working for the Trump campaign. At the very least Trump should have called him out on that and pardoning him was questionable.
With regard to Trumps relationship with Russia appeared somewhat cost with Putin. I take the point about indirect damage to Russia but I think that’s limited at best.
“your responses are surprisingly reasonable.” I have my moments, thanks
The NEA also debated a resolution to support the BDS movement against Israel, but had the good sense to reject it. However, CRT is educational quackery that does not belong anywhere and should be called out as exactly that, educational quackery.
Two words: “home schooling” to avoid having your children taught ideology instead of job skills. CRT is taught primarily by people with no real job skills at all, they would otherwise have to sweep floors and clean toilets which are at least honest work as opposed to CRT.
The American Federation of Teachers is also in on the act. “Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, warned in a speech Tuesday that conservative lawmakers, pundits and news sites are waging a ‘culture campaign’ against critical race theory.”
This quote is from the Washington Post on July 6, 2021 and can be found at the following site:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-union-critical-race-theory-weingarten/2021/07/06/ef327c20-de61-11eb-9f54-7eee10b5fcd2_story.html