Reality:



What IHIV would have us believe:

It's not that it's "scary", it's wrong because it violates liberal principles. Teaching through the lens of critical race theory, excludes any other valid interpretation. If it validates any other interpretations of systems and race, it's not critical race theory, because critical race theory explicitly says anything that counters the tenets of CRT is acting to uphold the oppression and system.

With that said, the attempts to push critical race theory resulted in attacks on free speech, due process, the Civil Rights Act, public education, the criminal justice system, the political system, the American Republic, among others.


Critical race theory says the American Republic is designed to be racist.

What's the only logical conclusion to change a structure that has a purported bad design? Critical race theory says stuff like color blind approach is a band-aid that doesn't really work because it doesn't change the fundamental design of the country.

This isn't something you disagree with.

What are these "liberal principles," and why should I care if they are violated?

I dunno man, you've done a whole lot of accusing any mention of race and racism and wanting to do something about it as being critical race theory, so, if that's true, are they really wrong? Either you oppose doing anything about racism (you), or you're down with CRT (yeah you know me).

,

Ah yes, let's ban it, then, in the name of free speech.

ROFL. What incredible histrionics. How dare people say mean things about the criminal justice system!

It was. It still is. If you think otherwise, you don't even have the slightest understanding of American history.

Yeah, that seems to be true.

I mean, you're here disagreeing with it, so yes, it is something you can disagree with. It just means you're racist.

I actually don't support banning it, besides you can't really ban ideology. I do believe Marxist praxis is something that doesn't belong in public school, and I wouldn't vote for a school board member that allows that.

Right, you simply want your own form of indoctrination instead.

First, It's not about you.

Free speech.

I do not deny I want to instill liberal values, but my guess is you would deny critical race theorist want to instill marxian values.

Critical race theory is not anti-free-speech, at least not any more than being anti-CRT is.

Indeed I would, mainly because CRT values and Marxist values are not the same thing.

This is precisely the same argument that lady who didn't want to issue driver's license to some group, as far as the free speech argument goes in regards to teachers teaching stuff in public education.

These teachers are more than welcome to use Twitter any other non-government platform they would like. Your counter argument is dangerous especially when it comes to religion in school, which I'm sure we both agree shouldn't be there. Incidentally, the right tried to push something similar in regards to intelligent design, essentially Christianity vield as something else.

I can cite any number of journal entries that indicates the premise of a free speech is built around whiteness. Remember anything that uses a system or structure to oppress minorities is racist. That's a direct assault on the principle of free speech. In other words, because some people can use free speech for nefarious purposes, it's oppressive to have free speech.

We also run into the exclusionary aspects of this. If you support the principal of free speech you're upholding the systems and structures that are oppressing people.


Says you.

Teaching history is pretty clearly a political act, no matter how it’s presented.

That's a fair point. I don't disagree. If this was only about teaching history, which it is clearly not, the criticism of critical race theory wouldn't be as substantial.

With that said, the interpretations of history should be examined and there are two solutions to which interpretations to use... you can use multiple interpretations (which I don't think is a good idea), or you can get a relative consensus on what's the best interpretation. None of the solutions will work for critical race theory because they only want their interpretation, and any other interpretation is racist or upholding whiteness.

Also, teachers shouldn't be the ones deciding what interpretation to use. The school board should do that.

This is the result when citizens or being critical of school boards allowing critical race theory in schools:

Sure, and I think a fair number of those articles would have some pretty valid examples about how the alleged-colorblind principle of free speech is weaponized against Black people and other minorities, just as the right to bear arms is something that in practice is reserved for white people.

We've seen numerous occasions that when a white person, especially a white conservative, is denied a platform, that is equated with being denied free speech, while Black people who get fired from their jobs or the like as a consequence of their speech aren't given the same outrage and support. So why is there this obligation to treat free speech as some ideal when in America it's not applied equally?

Very similar outrage to what we saw back when Trump was touting the brown menace heading towards the US border and how he was going to save America by building the Wall.

Funny how that went away post 2018 Midterms.


Very similar outrage to what we saw going in to the 2020 GE, when Trump was touting the new brown menace, ANTIFA and how "they" were coming to a suburbs near you.

Funny how that went away post 2020 GE.

Hmm, what is coming up in 2022? I wonder? Hmmmmm?????

I also wonder if the 'white' errrr I mean 'right' has identified a new brown menace to try and whip up fears over and if there are still are people dumb enough to not see how these things are manufactured and fed to them.

Lucky, should you not be the loudest voice telling IHIV how easily he is being manipulated?

Maybe work to apply it equally, as opposed to rejecting the idea itself? With that said, the Civil Rights Act is powerful, and there's many other institutions outside of just civil suits where these inequalities can be taken up. You have the eeo, the NLRB, the media, among others.

Your argument says, if we were to operate within the framework of CRT, "whiteness" isn't fixable either, just like the principal of free speech.

Not fixable is not the same thing as not fixed. The Civil Rights Act was a good thing, but it didn't end racism (not that it really had any promise to be sufficient to do so: the Voting Rights Act was passed right after it and was also important). It didn't even fully deliver on the promise of what was written in the law. Given that, just doing the same things over and over and hoping that white people just get less racist is pretty stupid. It hasn't worked, and there's no reason to think it'll start working.

Unfortunately, what it means to be "less racist" it is open to interpretation, because it's fundamentally changed what it means to be racist. Especially, when someone advocates for the principal of free speech, and that principal is essentially labeled as racist.

Well, a lot of these differences are essentially still the same old battle lines being re-hashed. With every time the right claiming the current iteration is a new and dangerous threat about to end the world

Since when have we actually had Free Speech? And public schools have been in the biz of teaching values/morals since day1. Oddly enough many right-wingers didn't like them back then either and generally favored private education--where they're free to go wild doing all the things they claim they hate

No, it hasn't changed. It's just that it's more in your face.

Damn it sucks when social norms change and you have no capacity to adapt or even understand what’s going on.

Which is it, fellas?

Nice whatif. But before we call JG Wentworth:

I wonder if you all realize, or if even Democrats realize, you are giving up the liberal base by backing this stuff....