The WOKE Generation!

Post Reply New Topic

The National Education Association has approved a plan to "publicize" critical race theory and dedicate a "team of staffers" to assist union members looking to "fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric."

New Business Item 39 also declares that the union opposes bans on critical race theory and the New York Times’ controversial 1619 Project – which roughly half the U.S. states have already implemented.

Additionally, the resolution calls for the union to "join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on Oct. 14 — George Floyd’s birthday — as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression."

The public debate over critical race theory (CRT) is in large part a semantics argument, with the anti-CRT faction attempting to include "all of the various cultural insanities" people hear about in the media under the banner of CRT while the other side protests that it's technically a much more limited concept confined to elite education. Progressives are essentially correct that the definition of CRT is being tortured to match conservative grievances, but conservatives are justified in feeling aggrieved by some of these things, and thus the argument is quite tedious

That said, the National Education Association (NEA) appears to have accepted the conservative framing of CRT: namely, that it's not merely confined to academia but is in fact also being taught in K-12 schools.

Consistent with its defense of CRT, the NEA will also provide a 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." The implication is that these critiques are aspects of critical race theory, which in a weird way makes this an example of the activist left basically accepting the activist right's new working definition of CRT as "all of the various cultural insanities."

This is no small matter, given that many progressives have rested their entire defense of CRT on the idea that it's a very narrowly defined aspect of elite law school training. Judd Legum, formerly of ThinkProgress, has said the notion that CRT is taught in K-12 schools is a lie. During an extended and furiously unproductive debate on the subject, MSNBC's Joy Reid accused Manhattan Institute scholar Christopher Rufo—the leading anti-CRT activist—of "making up your own thing, labeling it something that already existed as a name, slapped that brand name on it, and turned it into a successful political strategy."

I think this accusation is basically correct, and Rufo occasionally appears to admit as much. But if the NEA asserts that CRT is a much broader concept—encompassing anti-capitalism and anti-ableism—and a vital tool for fostering "honesty" in K-12 education, the organization is essentially validating conservative parents' concerns.

This does not mean that state legislatures are the proper remedies for the problem

A great deal of gaslighting has been perpetrated against American parents by “antiracist” activists when it comes to the presence of critical race theory (CRT) in classrooms. These activists often claim that the presence of CRT curricula in American schools amounts to nothing more than teaching accurately and extensively about the country’s tragic history of racial violence. When skeptics question tenets of critical race theory that are far more radical than this anodyne description suggests, these same activists perform one of two rhetorical maneuvers. Either they inform us that critics of CRT simply do not understand the discipline enough to criticize it, or they try to narrow the definition of CRT, insisting it is merely an advanced postgraduate-level legal theory that would never appear in K–12 classrooms.

A cursory examination of America’s most prominent schools of education shows that CRT advocates are making these arguments in bad faith. University schools of education are precisely where academia and the education of children intersect. Consequently, these schools function as something of an information superhighway from the former to the latter. Whatever academic trends prevail in university education departments are likely to make their presence felt in K–12 classrooms.

In a recent study for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Jay Schalin examined education-school syllabi obtained from three leading institutions: the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. To get a flavor of what is being taught and assigned, he documented the names of authors who showed up most frequently on required and recommended reading lists at these schools. The results of his research are an unanswerable rebuke to those who claim that concern over CRT’s presence in classrooms amounts to nothing more than moral panic.

The authors who feature most prominently and frequently on lists of assigned reading at these schools indicate that “critical pedagogy” is the chief academic paradigm according to which future teachers are instructed. According to a leading theorist in critical pedagogy, Peter McLaren, “critical educators argue that knowledge should be analyzed on the basis of whether it is oppressive or exploitative, and not on the basis of whether it is ‘true.’” The foundational text of this approach to education is Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published in 1968, which features prominently on reading lists at all the schools Schalin examines in his study.

But on Schalin’s list of the most-assigned authors at all three of the schools he studies, Friere ranks behind two critical theorists who put race at the center of their pedagogical theories. According to the National Academy of Education, Gloria Ladson-Billings, who tops the list, is “known for her ground-breaking work in the fields of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Critical Race Theory.” Ladson-Billings made her pedagogical priorities clear when she wrote, “We educators should align our scholarship with the philosophy of Marcus Garvey: race first!” As Schalin notes, she also seems to argue in some of her writings for reparations for historic educational disparities among the races. It’s worth repeating here that Ladson-Billings is the most frequently assigned author at all three of these schools.

Tara Yosso, who teaches at the University of Michigan, is the author of “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth,” the most-cited article in Race Ethnicity and Education since its publication in 2005, with more than 3,000 citations.

Many in the American intelligentsia are currently ridiculing any and all concern about the introduction of CRT into American classrooms. It’s another paranoid conspiracy theory, the same as QAnon or the alleged stealing of the 2020 election, they insist.

Anyone who argues that critical race theory, which is a species of this larger philosophical genus, does not aim at the practical political overturn of the existing social order is either ignorant or deceitful. Moreover, as is evident from the data presented above, CRT has serious and lasting institutional power behind it in the form of teacher-training college

Many in the American intelligentsia are currently ridiculing any and all concern about the introduction of CRT into American classrooms. It’s another paranoid conspiracy theory, the same as QAnon or the alleged stealing of the 2020 election, they insist.

Kind of sounds like anti-intellectualism. Where are all the scholarly people saying it is a problem, rather than just conservative folk who would rather say that there is not a race problem. I mean, most of these people don't seem to hold the same standard in regards to actual propaganda that is meant to just make people love the country without questioning it. One side is patriotic, and the other is gaslighting.

Do you think that maybe you have read a bit too much propaganda and yourself been gas lit into opposing something that does more good than bad? There are still people who don't think the civil war was about keeping slaves.

It comes down to, to borrow the overused cliche I do believe racism is a catastrophic bug not a central feature of the United States, I do believe if even if a part of what I am reading kids are being taught is true it is doing wrong to correct a wrong.

Okay, can you in a plain terms, which can referenced to actual evidence, that kids are being taught that is harmful. For instance is there actual evidence that kids are being told they should feel guilty for being white, or can't succeed because they are not? On that point, saying that some people are privileged or disadvantaged by race is not the same thing. There has been plenty of evidence of racial discrimination.

Because a lot of what you keep linking are things like a Fox News article of a North Korean defector complaining over gender neutral pronouns as an example of things going too far, which is quite frankly offensive.

An elementary school in Lower Merion is tackling the issue of racism by having students read a book that has raised eyebrows in some circles. But parents Eyewitness News spoke with support the assignment and the conversations about racial injustice.

The Lower Marion School District is making it a priority to fully support developmentally appropriate anti-racism education, and believes “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness” is critical in that effort.

Unlike most or all of us the North Korean defector has lifelong experience living under hardcore communism. And if she sees similarities between the language policing in North Korea and her American university she should be listened too. That is the “lived experience” concept that “woke” people keep on talking about. Lets assume she is hardcore transphobic, that has at most determined the example she used to compare, it does not negate the comparison. This in a nutshell is a major issue I have with “wokes”. Judging a person solely on the basis of their prejudices, assume ones prejudices means everything one says is to be discounted.

A Book About Whiteness’ Teaching Lower Merion Students About Systemic Racism

This source is a local CBS affiliate not Fox and that is reflected in the more positive reporting and reaction to the book. It is harmful to ascribe negative traits to one race. “White Fragility” or not young children are fragile and they are literal minded. They are less likely to interpret “whiteness” as a rhetorical device.

I think you missunderstanding something. The person from North Korea was saying that the West is crazy for accepting ideas like transgender or non-binary genders. That seems rather poor evidence for a "woke" problem, when I myself am non-binary. It really comes across as slander by saying that there is a problem just because I exist. And still, I am not going to judge that person as someone as bad just because they don't believe in they/them pronouns, although I will probably consider them misinformed, perhaps because they came from a highly conservative background that anything better than North Korea is better.

I will also take using her statement of they/them pronouns as evidence of a problem, to be intellectually dishonest, or an attack against me and those like me. Being able to criticise your own country, doesn't make things the same as North Korea that would criticise said country.




I don't think you understand what "White Fragility" means. It isn't about something inherent in being white, it describes a phenomena of someone that is part of a privileged group of a system/society, to take offense to any criticism of the system/society along the lines of privilege or disadvantage as being an attack on them and their group. The word "White" can be swapped out for others depending on the topic, such as straight, male, rich, Christian and so on.

I am going to assume the word might be used to ascribe to children that some people, who themselves are white, might react rather strongly to critiques of racism as being an attack on them and their race, which is certainly being rather fragile. Just as like how some men take any criticism of possibly institutional sexism as being anti-men or an attack on them, it is fragility. It itself does not ascribe that fragility to all or most people of that group. This is rather harmless when you understand it, although ironically the very people who might be described as having the fragility, are probably going to be the very same people who are going to take offense to it.

Maybe it is a very complex subject for children who are literal minded, but that is perhaps all the more reason to try and teach them things like systematic racism, to explain how not everyone has the same experience. I don't think that kids are so dumb as to not get the basic concepts. Children can generally be expected to understand how someone being rich might be better off than someone who is poor. I know that I was able to grasp things like The Stolen Generation that I was taught as a kid, and kids can understand how people used to be slaves mostly because of their race.

I fail to see actual sourced evidence of CRT being harmful, or kids being taught something.

The fact that she grew up in uber sheltered North Korea makes it plausible she is transphobic thus that is what triggered her but the question is if this theory is true is does ascribe her belief that America is too politically correct is centered her transphobia?


I think there is a non “anti racist” way of teaching empathy(the original definition, understanding others think differently). Use examples and language kids can relate to such as short kid, overweight kids are less likely to be picked for the team, to be made fun of and that will make the short kid sad. Yes at some point race should be thrown in as one example. Kindergarten seems too young but I could be wrong.

This has to be done carefully. I think we all have been in a situations and adults where the teacher or the person conducting the meeting is talking in generalities about the group you belong to or certain qualities that define you in a positive way and the teacher and the whole room is staring at you and you want to hide under the desk but despite your wish there is no place to hide. As a kid this is devastating. It seems to be inherent human nature to look at the person whose group is being talked about. By hyper focusing on race CRT influenced anti racism lessons are going to cause a whole lot of room staring at you effect. I just can not believe this is not going to be counterproductive.

Speaking of literal mindedness it seems more than children are taking “white fragility” literally and are not getting that white privilege is not talking about them. Louden County, Virginia where a lot of the anti CRT movement was instigated went for Biden by 25 percent not MAGA land or was not. I guess it is good evidence of “white fragility”. Maybe I am clueless but I fail to see how race relations have been helped, empathy improved.

Yes, and this guidance and direction of children is called HOME SCHOOLING -- the process of sequestering one's children from their peers so that their social skills become stunted and their minds can be filled with political and religious propaganda at the expense of teaching them science, reason, and rational thinking.[/color]

What the heck are you talking about? I am pretty much quoting the article that she apparently mentions a problem with gender neutral pronouns as being a reason for being too "woke". There were other reasons too, such as being against the idea of being sceptical of the narrative of the "West", whilst inside of it, as being like North Korea. I suspect she is being hyperbolic in what a staff member said about colonist mindset of them saying an author brainwashing her. And saying that there was anti-American propaganda without giving any actual examples, what you quoted then only saying what was done in North Korea.

It kind of sounds like you are either making up, or using an imagined idea of what CRT is, as focusing on a group and having the entire class stare at a student as part of that group. Can no subject be talked about with a class if only a few or a single member of the class might be more relevant to that subject? If there was only five children, and one was male or female, would you not be allowed to talk about reproductive biology of that sex? This argument seems very much like grabbing at straws with an imagined situation where a teacher might not have enough tact to not make a subject all about one student. It is why CRT works best in generalities not prescribing the experience of everyone of a race, rather than broad trends that can talk about on averages.

And what the heck does voting more for Biden than Trump have to do with White Fragility in regards to a large anti-CRT movement there? Doesn't it still mean something like 1 in 4 people still voted for Trump in that area, a man was infamously being fragile in seeing CRT as evidence of being anti-American? And tried to counter it with literal propaganda movements to teach students to love the USA instead?

Looking back on the article she did not say she believes there are only two genders, she said she was confused, a point she mentioned about other issues. From what I interpreted it she saw it as another example of people trying to force thought on her.

Unless she is a Republican plant it comes it still comes down to her experiences vs your seeing her motivations(to hyperbole) based on your knowledge and experiences. None of us grew up in North Korea and none of us attended her classes.

That it is a Biden district might be relevant to both if the possible future success of the anti-CRT backlash and to a certain political narrative. The narrative is that the backlash is driven by a bunch of brainwashed racist MAGA's. I would guess the there are a greater percentage of Trump voters involved with the backlash than the general population there and
and Republicans operatives have been instigating. In a district, that blue the objectors can not all fall into the MAGA/brainwashed category. My "white fragility" comment was not about the merits of the "white fragility" concept it was about a demographic I would assume supporters of CRT would want to be on their side not understanding the concept and turning against them.

As far as the staredown in class, it is you engaging in the hyperbole, I never said never teach anything bad about groups in a class, I said be careful. I think using terminology such as "white privilege" and "white fragility" is anything but being careful.