Does the state have to require it for partisan political officials to determine that it should be taught?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Does the state have to require it for partisan political officials to determine that it should be taught?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Who else would set the curriculums? I've yet to hear of any place that mandates it. Perhaps because it's a complex theory generally not covered before high-level undergrad courses...Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The CDE has approved the teaching of an ethnic studies curriculum that is pretty well rooted in CRT, (and would have been more so had not the original curriculum generated so many objections and controversy that it needed multiple revisions) and given schools wide latitude in how that curriculum is decided, but given a model curriculum to adopt. So, if the local school board decides to teach CRT because of partisan political officials, is that a violation of academic freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Regardless, the question can be approached theoretically. Would having partisan political officials determine that CRT should be taught be a violation of academic freedom?
No, the school board is teaching ethnic studies. Just like it could offer music or art, which would entail using approaches dominant in those subjects. CRT is an important approach within that field.
So what you're saying is local officials are given the autonomy to cover or not cover certain controversial subjects. And those subjects are entirely within the mainstream of the field in question. Horrifying.
I'm pressing you on the point that you yourself made. You said that decisions made by partisan political figures, (which school board members certainly could be considered) on what is taught is a violation of academic freedom. However, what I actually think you believe is that decisions made on what to teach by partisan political figures that you disagree with are violations of academic freedom. These decisions are being made every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I made my position clear. Unless a theory I discredited within its field, there should be an option to teach it. I would be concerned about CRT being used in math. You're just using the potential for wrongdoing on a local level to excuse actual wrongdoing at the state level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
So on what level in military tactics, training, and education does CRT have credit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Gonna post this perspective now and sort through the accounts of the absolutely batshit mob action against "critical race theory" a day or so ago
Twitter Link
When he's right, he's right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Specific applications in military studies and training? Educaiton in nation-building, interfactional relations and diplomacy, and peacekeeping, including domestic crisis-related national guard deployments. Off the top of my head. If you don't understand the dynamics between people and peoples you're interacting with, you're effectively making your mission success or failure a matter of chance.
Critical Race Theory is just the latest of the string of the buzz words* the right picks basically at random from the leftist lexicon or other source, and wants you to get mad about to distract you from the thing you actually should get mad about, which is the fact that they exist solely to fuck you over.
Yes, you.
This, of course, is something that is actually Orwellian. As in, this is something George Orwell wrote about in his famous book Nineteen Eighty Four, unlike whatever the fuck it was the OP was on about.
* BLM, wokeness, cancelling, SJWs, trigger warnings, political correctness, sharia law, the gay agenda, the trans agenda, liberals, communists, etc etc
And you believe critical race theory is the proper framework to inform military education and decision making in nation-building, inter-factional relations, diplomacy, and peace keeping?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
How so?
Why the US Navy wants sailors to read ‘How To Be An Antiracist’
"I believe that we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions."
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy...an-antiracist/
Approximately 1 in 5 sailors reported racial discrimination on their assigned aircraft carrier in 2019, according to internal Navy surveys obtained by the Associated Press.
Nearly a third reported hearing racial slurs, comments, and jokes aboard these ships, which function as floating cities with crews of roughly 5,000 people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I think it is a potentially accurate one and even if and where it gets things wrong it can probably provide a useful perspective to more fully inform any approaches one may make in accomplishing those missions. Furthermore, I think there are a number of places in the world where our troops get deployed where it or related material will be part of the lexicon of at least some of the parties they work with (or against) which again makes understanding it mission-relevant. Just like reading Mao.
I would love to see specifics in how it is a potentially accurate framework that will help our military accomplish their objectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
There are any number of things that may or may not aide in our understanding of an area, a conflict, or the individuals involved. I'm interested in specifically why you think CRT is that tool, beyond vague assertions that it would broaden perspectives and fully inform approaches. That can be true of literally anything.
"the proper framework"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
"the"?
"proper"?
There is no one singular "proper framework" for understanding complex issues relevant to any of the areas you list. CRT is one of many approaches that may be of value, in providing novel and useful perspectives on the challenges students might encounter. See eg. Milley's comments above re. his firm belief in the value of becoming acquainted with different ways of looking at the world and the people in it. Ofc, CRT isn't taught as widely as the people swept up in this latest [im]moral panic believe.
The screenshot of the two tweets—and their juxtaposition—illustrates several different points. The most obvious point concerns the irony or naked hypocrisy of Pence decrying "cancel culture" while also openly and enthusiastically endorsing a much more aggressive state-imposed implementation of cancel culture currently unfolding all over the country. A second—somewhat less obvious but no less important—point is that his characterization—and his audience's perception—of the world is delusional, or, in the vernacular, batshit insane, in this respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The objection you raise is not compelling, for one primary reason: unlike you, I recognize that how we ought to relate to claims and narratives—or, indeed, facts—is very much a function of the merits of those things—for example wrt their truth value, their practical value, their ethical benefits and harms, etc; things that are meaningfully different should be treated differently. Consequently, I do not agree that the weaponization of conservatives' delusions about CRT is less objectionable than or similarly objectionable to VP Harris publicly opposing the teaching of eugenics in schools, the military, and govt. agencies; that eugenics is fallacious, morally repugnant, and outright dangerous is more or less a settled matter. Moreover, I disagree with your argument re. curricula. There is no reason why curricula must be politically determined; in most situations, curricula should be defined by subject-matter experts—not by politicians primarily concerned with enhancing their power at the expense of both students' education and their safety. It is telling that most of the conservative rage at the teaching of "CRT" is, in reality, just a delusional fear-driven anger at kids being taught mainstream history.
I've actually looked through my college's course catalog. There are at most half a dozen classes where CRT might even come up. All of them are within majors where students should expect to learn this kind of material. None of the classes are required for gen ed. purposes.
It's in the walls Loki, like asbestos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You best step carefully, they're coming after white dudes now:
Twitter Link
Fair enough, I worded it poorly. Why is makes it "a" proper framework to do so? There are any number of different competing frameworks that could potentially provide value, some I assume far more so to the military than CRT. I am interested in what makes this one valuable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If your idea of what comprises cancel culture is not including something in an educational curriculum then literally millions of philosophies, ideologies, concepts, notions, frameworks, and theories are being canceled. Cancel culture as a criticism does not apply to abstract ideas, it applies to people. You can't cancel CRT, any more than you could cancel any other thought pattern.Quote:
The screenshot of the two tweets—and their juxtaposition—illustrates several different points. The most obvious point concerns the irony or naked hypocrisy of Pence decrying "cancel culture" while also openly and enthusiastically endorsing a much more aggressive state-imposed implementation of cancel culture currently unfolding all over the country. A second—somewhat less obvious but no less important—point is that his characterization—and his audience's perception—of the world is delusional, or, in the vernacular, batshit insane, in this respect.
You misunderstand. When it comes to speech, and claims it is being outlawed, I believe it is vitally important to divorce the truth, practical value, ethical benefit, and harms from the equation whenever possible. If Pence's call for not including CRT as part of the pedagogy of governmental institutions is an impingement on speech then perhaps so is any other decision to include or not include subject matter, up to and including those examples I provided. This is and should be a separate argument for the specific perceived value of the specific speech in question.Quote:
The objection you raise is not compelling, for one primary reason: unlike you, I recognize that how we ought to relate to claims and narratives—or, indeed, facts—is very much a function of the merits of those things—for example wrt their truth value, their practical value, their ethical benefits and harms, etc; things that are meaningfully different should be treated differently. Consequently, I do not agree that the weaponization of conservatives' delusions about CRT is less objectionable than or similarly objectionable to VP Harris publicly opposing the teaching of eugenics in schools, the military, and govt. agencies; that eugenics is fallacious, morally repugnant, and outright dangerous is more or less a settled matter. Moreover, I disagree with your argument re. curricula. There is no reason why curricula must be politically determined; in most situations, curricula should be defined by subject-matter experts—not by politicians primarily concerned with enhancing their power at the expense of both students' education and their safety. It is telling that most of the conservative rage at the teaching of "CRT" is, in reality, just a delusional fear-driven anger at kids being taught mainstream history.
If your argument is that CRT is a perfectly valid and useful analytical framework, then a debate can be had based on the merits, and the merits of CRT can be assessed differently by reasonable people. However, that does not mean that any analytical framework with possible utility can and should be included in a curriculum. The fact that there are conservatives who are opposed to CRT to being included as training to federal agencies, the military and public schools should be no more shocking than the fact that there are liberals who support it. Opposing that then is not a question of violating free speech, it is a question of perceived value, utility, and harm. If CRT is considered harmful, the fact that it's detractors don't want it to be foisted upon individuals in the federal government, school children across the country, and the men and women of our military, is little different from another theory that is harmful, (see the Civil War as a war of Northern aggression) being foisted on those populations, and would no doubt see wide-spread opposition. You may feel as though CRT has truth, practical value, and ethical benefits. That opinion is clearly not shared by everyone.
CRT is taught because experts in certain fields believe it should be taught. You've yet to cite an example of liberal politicians requiring this specific theory be taught.
If I were a professor in Florida right now, I would not be able to teach this theory in my class. In which state would I be required to teach it?
Yet, I don't believe that as a society we should be under the illusion that talking with fascists or similar will result in anything else than what happened first time round.
Bingo! All this new "outrage" over Critical Race Theory is a red herring. It's meant to distract from Republican legislatures enacting fascist laws -- like bans on teaching accurate history, including all the ugly discrimination that is factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And it lets Republicans like Pence say Equal Rights is *really* just about marginalizing and persecuting Christians and Conservatives (because they're the real victims here). Buzz words to stoke fears of the White Grievance crowd, which apparently makes up a large chunk of the GOP. :picard:
Yeah, your "missing something". K-12 public schools do NOT teach CRT since it's not part of their curriculum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Dude, you're trying to make this all about Free Speech, when it's really about being fully informed and well-educated via public schools that use state and/or federal funds (tax dollars). I don't mind Religious/Parochial or Home Schoolers using the sports or busing funds enjoyed by public schools....but that doesn't mean Religious Theory like Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught *in K-12* public schools.Quote:
I am genuinely curious about this line of argument. If CRT is not included as a component of the military's training for nuclear propulsion systems is that a violation of speech? Does this logic stand if we replace CRT with some other instruction? If someone was advocating for example that eugenics, creationism, that the civil war was a war of Northern aggression, or white supremacy be taught in public schools, the military, and government agencies - and Harris then went out to demand that those organizations reject it being included in the curriculum, would that still be an out of control attack on free speech?
Last time I checked, SCOTUS agreed.
What makes explaining the durability of post-colonial power structures as evolved despite various efforts to change them valueable? Gee, I can't think of a single reason. What makes it a BAD thing to learn? Because you seem to be completely forgetting something in your drive to label this is CRT "not being included"Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It IS cancel culture because this is not a case of CRT merely not being included. This is a case of it being banned or forbidden. By state legislatures and similar authorities. It CAN'T be included, even if it fits, makes sense, or is outright integral. Once again, your conservativism is triumphing over your libertarianism.Quote:
If your idea of what comprises cancel culture is not including something in an educational curriculum then literally millions of philosophies, ideologies, concepts, notions, frameworks, and theories are being canceled. Cancel culture as a criticism does not apply to abstract ideas, it applies to people. You can't cancel CRT, any more than you could cancel any other thought pattern.
It IS being outlawed. If a state (like Idaho or Florida) passes a law forbidding it from being taught, then it has been outlawed. That is the definition of outlawing something. And Pence's comments are made IN THAT CONTEXT. He is referring to outlawing the material.Quote:
You misunderstand. When it comes to speech, and claims it is being outlawed,
Conservatism Trumping Libertarianism, yeehaw!
Because it is a single factorial analysis whose tenets state that the organization that would be doing the teaching, (the US Military) is inherently and irredeemably racist. Not just racist, but indeed it is white supremacist, and that the remedy is to challenge, remove and overhaul its systems of power. Additionally it teaches the centrality of race intersectionality. For a military organization that is defined by a power structure and hierarchy, which requires obedience, values tradition, expects integration, cooperation, and unit cohesion, this is a poison pill. So I ask again, what about teaching CRT would make our troops better at protecting this nation? If it is being taught and taken seriously I can definitely see obvious ways it could hurt them, in fact I struggle to see how it couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I also don't imagine our adversaries are engaging in this same intensive self-destructive navel admiration.
I am hearing two different arguments on this front. The first is that CRT is not being taught anywhere, (Loki and GGT) so essentially CRT is already forbidden defacto. In which case this is red meat to the base, and while contemptible, not terribly surprising. However that also means that it makes no difference in the lives of students or teachers.Quote:
It IS cancel culture because this is not a case of CRT merely not being included. This is a case of it being banned or forbidden. By state legislatures and similar authorities. It CAN'T be included, even if it fits, makes sense, or is outright integral. Once again, your conservativism is triumphing over your libertarianism.
It IS being outlawed. If a state (like Idaho or Florida) passes a law forbidding it from being taught, then it has been outlawed. That is the definition of outlawing something. And Pence's comments are made IN THAT CONTEXT. He is referring to outlawing the material.
The second seems to be more of an appeal to the primacy of free speech, and the horrors of the state outlawing subject matter. This is clearly wrong-headed, ideas should not be banned. However, there are any number of things that can't be taught in Florida schools, up to and including Holocaust denial. The rule in question:
Are you similarly upset that there is a rule that outlaws and forbids the teaching of Holocaust denial using state dollars? If this was truly a principled free speech issue, instead of a free speech cudgel, that should be equally problematic - and newsworthy - after all, the government is banning, outlawing, and forbidding speech!Quote:
(b) Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Except it isn't. One can still buy Mein Kampf in Florida. One can still get a Nazi tattoo, a Swastika flag, and march in the street playing whatever the terrible skinhead music of today is. One can burn the flag of Israel and yell from a bull horn that the Holocaust never happened, and death to all Jews for good measure. They just can't do it and receive funding from the state for doing so.
"You can practice whichever religion you want, but unless you practice the correct one, you can't get money from the state." Solid libertarian position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Better libertarian position - the state shouldn't be in the business of handing out money.
But if it is, it should certainly only give it to its supporters.
Yes, I confess, were I to live in Florida - the fact that my tax dollars are not being funneled to Holocaust deniers, being paid by the state to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen - would not keep me up at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, because that's definitely something experts want taught.
So there are experts clamoring for teaching CRT in K-12? I thought nobody was teaching it anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Look, if you want this to be a free speech issue, then argue it as a free speech issue. If you want it to be an issue on the merits, make it an issue on the merits. Show some consistency.
I don't think Holocaust denial should be outlawed, no. But I think it goes to your general dishonesty and unwillingness to engage on CRT that you're trying to deflect on issues like the Florida law to clear window-dressing like that.
Do you believe it should be taught in school? Should a K-12 teacher be allowed to teach a class in critical Holocaust studies and receive your tax dollars to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Please, engage with me on CRT. What about it makes a valuable framework that should be taught to school children, our military, and federal agencies. Be specific.
He is avoiding the conversation in the same bullshit ways Ben Shapiro does, logical fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Twitter Link
Logical fallacies like The Straw Kippah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Should be? No. Can be? Yeah, probably. And they already are via home-schooling with government aid and that doesn't really bug me, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
First of all? Because at its fundamental base it's true and accurate and our entire system of education (also your entire political and ideological framework, for the record) works hard to be blind to those truths about how environment shapes us as an aggregate population and our environment is one filled with soft barriers along racial lines. Are they the only barriers? No. Are they insurmountable? No. But it amounts to a systemic racist bias Now maybe time and real dedication to colorblindness can remove those barriers and bias. But the timescale involved would be hundreds of years and taking a look around the world today and at the history of innumerable areas, the idea that time actually WOULD result in such change absent radical action or destruction starts to look kinda like a blind faith cargo cult.Quote:
Please, engage with me on CRT. What about it makes a valuable framework that should be taught to school children, our military, and federal agencies. Be specific.
I would remind you that education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Just because you don't want society to be changed to remove racial bias (and the idea that all such bias can be removed is fantasy) doesn't provide the least bit of justification for refusing to recognize the reality or setting up more barriers to keep others from learning about the reality.
While this is slightly hyperbolic to be funny, it really does feel like some of the "wokest' proponents of CRT fit the bill of this comedy sketch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
At a higher level there's nothing wrong with teaching kids about racism, there is a huge problem with race essentialism or in teaching kids that people of different races must be treated differently based on their race. And I hope everyone understands the anti-CRT bills don't prevent the teaching of historical racism and events during the civil rights era.
You're conflating a million different issues to come up with a monster strawman that doesn't exist in nature.
I am very happy for your principled stand for free speech. It may exceed my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Perhaps you can be more descriptive about what you believe the fundamental base of CRT is, and what makes it true. Again, specifics please. Maybe then you can explain what policies you believe should be implemented to address these changes. What would Fuzzy do to address the very real issue of racial bias?Quote:
First of all? Because at its fundamental base it's true and accurate and our entire system of education (also your entire political and ideological framework, for the record) works hard to be blind to those truths about how environment shapes us as an aggregate population and our environment is one filled with soft barriers along racial lines. Are they the only barriers? No. Are they insurmountable? No. But it amounts to a systemic racist bias Now maybe time and real dedication to colorblindness can remove those barriers and bias. But the timescale involved would be hundreds of years and taking a look around the world today and at the history of innumerable areas, the idea that time actually WOULD result in such change absent radical action or destruction starts to look kinda like a blind faith cargo cult.
I am also struggling to understand your point regarding the progress that has already clearly been made. Hundreds of years ago slavery was widely practiced and accepted. Black Americans were legally considered to be 3/5ths of a person. Boats crossed the Atlantic with human beings stuffed in their holds and stacked like cord wood. A hundred years ago race riots where scores of people were killed and families would pack picnics for lynchings were relatively common. Sixty years ago anti-miscegenation laws were on the books and being enforced and there were no black justices on the Supreme Court. Thirty years ago there had never been an African American serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking official in the military, and fifteen years ago there had never been a black president. If you asked a slave in the 1790's if he thought that one day there might be a black president, what do you think their response would be? It is almost within my living memory that there were people who were proud to be racist. Today it is among the worst things you can be accused of. The pace of progress, admittedly often too slow, is hardly measured in hundreds of years, it is better measured in years or decades, and to be blind to it is to ignore the incredible changes that have been made in our country, socially, culturally, and institutionally. It is, to use your wording, to blind yourself to historical truths, and ignore how progress, even incremental progress, can and is being made on timescales far smaller than you seem to believe. To argue that bias exists is true and trite. To say that the foundations of this country must be removed, its institutions torn down, and the baby thrown out with the bath water, to remove the rot of racism is deranged. Racial animus is a terrible thing and should be excised wherever it is found. Racism is not a cancer requiring poison to treat.
Second point, beyond the bad faith assertion that I do not want society to remove racial bias, I am left with the conclusion that you believe the only way that society can be changed to remove racial bias is through CRT. Maybe you would care to flesh that out a little. Why is CRT the only way to drive societal change to remove racial bias, and what are the policy prescriptions it has offered to do so?Quote:
I would remind you that education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Just because you don't want society to be changed to remove racial bias (and the idea that all such bias can be removed is fantasy) doesn't provide the least bit of justification for refusing to recognize the reality or setting up more barriers to keep others from learning about the reality.