Teacher Union in Rhode Island Says it Will Fight Any Attempt to Stop the Teaching of Critical Race Theory
“We want all children—regardless of race, ethnicity or ZIP code—to become critical thinkers who hear the truth about our country’s history”
This is just another reminder that teacher unions have way too much power and are putting their radical politics above the students they are supposed to serve.
Go Local Providence reports:
RI Teachers Union Says It Will Fight Any Attempt to Prohibit Teaching of Critical Race Theory
A teachers union in Rhode Island has spoken out on bans against critical race theory across the country — and said they will “fight any attempt to prohibit the teaching of the truth.”
Frank Flynn, President of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, issued a statement Wednesday on what the union called on the teaching of “so-called” critical race theory.
Many states have prohibited, or threatened to prohibit, teachers from discussing critical race theory, which is just “teaching honestly” about real historical events, said the RIFTHP, adding that a ban has not happened in Rhode Island — yet.
In Rhode Island, GoLocal was first to report in June that the South Kingstown School Committee considered suing a woman who had sent hundreds of APRA requests as it pertained to the teaching of critical race theory in schools; the issue regarding the large-scale request for information is now in mediation.
Union on Record
“We want all children—regardless of race, ethnicity or ZIP code—to become critical thinkers who hear the truth about our country’s history and be able to draw their own conclusions based on the facts and on diverse perspectives,” Flynn said. “Teaching America’s history requires considering all of the facts available, including those that are uncomfortable, like the history of enslavement and discrimination toward people of color or perceived as different.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Okay. I’ll say the obvious. It’s not the truth we’re worried about. It’s the lies masquerading as truth.
The Motte and Bailey arguments proliferate.
And they’re not interested in teaching anyone to be “critical thinkers” unless it’s criticism from one single Maoist point of view.
I’ll play my broken record again: it is time for the taxpayers to force a disbanding of their school districts. Shut down their government schools, and find a way to take over the infractructure, or form up home school teaching groups.
I don’t know why they even bother to put out a statement. It’s not as if RI government is swarming with covert Trumpies keen to pass laws against them teaching anything they damn well decide to. They could teach Lamarckian evolution and Velikovskiian cosmology, and I suspect nobody on Smith Street would ever notice.
“Teaching America’s history requires considering all of the facts available, including those that are uncomfortable, like the history of enslavement and discrimination toward people of color or perceived as different.”
I learned about this in school ages ago.
When did that stop being taught?
The union has made it clear that they lack critical reasoning skills. If they want to bet their future, their very existance, on promoting CRT, that is their foolish choice.
Very soon, they and their members will be unemployed.
Watch their deliberate perversion of the language, just as Orwell pointed out. The correct word is “slavery”, but the new leftist made-up word is “enslavement”. They refuse to speak of “slaves”, but of “enslaved persons”. George Washington didn’t “own slaves”, he “enslaved people”.
But it’s simply not true. Washington, like almost all Americans of the time, never enslaved anybody in his life. Every slave he owned had already been enslaved long ago — or had been born a slave and was therefore never enslaved at all. And the people who enslaved them or their ancestors were all black Africans. This is the truth that the new language is designed to cover up.
This isn’t a deliberate perversion of the language, it’s just the result of sheer ignorance. What the union meant to say was “discrimination against“, not “toward”. But whoever wrote this apparently never had a decent English teacher.