This was a very conveniently comfortable hermetically sealed echo chamber. It was also, not surprisingly, a long tour de force in Motte and Bailey argumentation. So this wasn’t a serious discussion but pure hysteria. Paint your opponents as a bunch of Fahrenheit 451 and your own side as benignly and innocently being open minded just wanting to teach a controversial POV whereas the critics just want unthinking conformity. Perfect narrative. Once the narrative is in place then serious discussion is not needed.
Amna Khalid and another guest blatantly misrepresented critics as using CRT as a catch all phrase for any discussion on race. Very uninformed statement but a convenient one for the narrative.
That’s what apparently is meant when they say, “let’s have a discussion on race.” The real meaning is let us set the parameters of the discussion and narrative and everyone els has to argue within.
The aspects I enjoy most about your podcast seemed to be lacking in this episode, I don’t think I got a nuanced and balanced perspective on this issue. Your guests delivered arguments derivative of mainstream media outlets, blaming the right-wing politicians instead of analyzing the deeper issues at play. For starters, they mischaracterized the opposition coming overwhelmingly from people on the right-wing of the political spectrum. Secondly, the unclear language used in the CRT ban might be a direct cause of the unclear details of what a CRT curriculum would look like in practice. Lastly, they failed to contend with the hypocrisy of advocating for free speech when it’s convenient. The fact is that the tactics used for the ban were first wielded by the people who advocate for CRT. The issue of the radicals on the right repurposing the tools introduced by the radicals on the left has always loomed high. For example, how would we feel about a CRT equivalent on the right? Would the left oppose banning that? In order to think in those terms, we must first acknowledge that Critical Race Theory is extreme, which I don’t think the guests featured on this program would do.
To assume that the only Trump-loving racist would dare oppose Critical Race Theory signifies a lack of understanding and compassion. The United States is not the first country to attempt to rectify the wrongs of their past, to equal the playing field, or give a voice to the communities they deem as voiceless. If you migrated to America escaping an oppressive government, you probably understand how oppressive governments come to power. They prey on the vulnerabilities or fears of their citizens, they identify the enemy and the victims, they sell you on the idea of Utopia under their rule, and they instill doctrines or ideologies to control their citizens. This is true for regimes on the right as well as the left. When manipulation of language, censorship, and moral purity tests are suggested, alarm bells start to go off for immigrants like myself. If CRT elevates the concerns of “marginalized” people, why do they ignore this one? If they cared about history, why do they only focus on atrocities from the right when there are so many on the left? Communist rhetoric is just as offensive as Fascist rhetoric to anyone who has lived under its rule.
Unlike what the title “Critical Race Theory” implies, this does not teach students how to think critically and does not provide a deeper insight into historical events. CRT functions as a lens through which to view the world, in other words, it teaches students how to think. In practice, students would be taught what to be critical of, and what they are never allowed to criticize. If this were to be implemented in schools, students would be completely unaware of its presence. It’s misleading to suggest that CRT would merely be studied, that it would not be promoted if it were implemented in history or civic courses. Unless the student is taking a philosophy or social psychology course where CRT can be examined as a theory, it should not be allowed in K-12 schools.
I understand that this episode was intended to criticize the specifics of the ban legislation, and I agree the proposed ban lacked clarity which can lead to unintended consequences in the future. I argue that the lack of specificity in the ban is a direct correlation to the intangible and ever-evolving nature of the theory itself. I’d like to note that I’ve yet to hear the proponents of CRT provide detailed descriptions of its application in any concrete matter. Why advocate for a curriculum that you can’t explain?
Exposing yourself to concepts you disagree with is important, but I would have liked to see a guest on this show address some of those concerns. Ignoring this perspective felt patronizing and is contributing to the growth of people who agree with the ban. That being said, I admire the fact that feedback from your listeners is welcome because no one else does.
K-12 is the foundation of the education system. Children are not adults, and they are developing moral and cognitive skills. Kohlberg and Piaget studied the levels of moral development.
Kohlberg said some children were following ethical rules that they did not yet understand or comprehend because they were made to obey them. The rules that have to be obeyed are followed concretely.
Schools should not be teaching dIssent and going against the rules or conventional thought. Children should be taught ethical behaviors of character first. I suggest the "Six Pillars of Character" be taught. Let them learn how things should be before they can question them.
1. Trustworthy; (don't cheat, don't steal, reliable, dependable, do what you say, honest),
2. Respect; (tolerance, listening to others, use good manners, not bad language, be considerate of the feelings of others, don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • deal peacefully with anger, insults),
3. Responsibility; (self-control, be self-disciplined, think before you act, consider the consequences, be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes)
4. Fairness; (play by the rules, take turns and share, be open-minded; temperate, analytical, sincere, truthful, don’t blame others carelessly. treat all people fairly or equally, objectivity)
5. Caring; ( Be compassionate and show empathy, express gratitude, forgive others , Help people in need)
6. Citizenship; (Volunteerism, the environment, paying your taxes even though there are loopholes, honoring ideals country was founded on, get involved in community affairs • stay informed; vote, be a good neighbor, obey laws and rules, respect authority)
You mentioned not being able to ask why Mohammad made a decision and not another as being not answerable at that time. I am a Roman Catholic, and there is much dogma. Many scholars have studied the texts and devoted their lives to understanding God. Sometimes we have to have faith or belief in that is the way things are. You may question these if you are a biblical scholar. The teaching of the school should reinforce the teaching of the family and what the community wants. College is the place to learn to question how things are and test them.
Amna and her guests (particularly Sachs) were rather dishonest in discussing the actual bills in this podcast. The Tennessee bill referenced, for instance, provides in section 51(b), immediately following the provision discussing the ban on CRT in section 51(a), as follows:
"Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional
materials adopted in accordance with part 22 of this chapter;
(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group
of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
(4) Historical documents relevant to subdivisions (b)(1) - (3) that are permitted
under § 49-6-1011."
The law thus EXPLICITLY PERMITS the impartial discussion of divisive concepts. Many other bills follow the same structure. So Sachs lied and Amna supported the lie.
My question is about the distinction that's made around discussion vs promotion. In the Egypt example, you can't question the accepted dogma without suffering the consequences. The lesson to be drawn is that totalitarian regimes dictate what you think, and the healthy ideal we should strive for is open and free discussion. On the other side though, we have the example of creationism and CRT - we need to discuss these things, they're ideas in the world, but we just shouldn't promote them. But what if a public school teacher promotes creationism? And what if they refuse to stop promoting it? Will they lose their job? Yes.
How are these things different? Why is it authoritarian for Egyptian authorities to say "You have to promote a certain viewpoint, but you can't question or discuss it," but it's not authoritarian for American authorities to say "You have to question and discuss things, but you can't promote anything"?
Does anyone really think we're not promoting a viewpoint all the time? This whole podcast begins with saying that of course the government can decide what's taught in K-12. And so they decide the subject matter, the viewpoints. To give all your time to evolutionary theory and none to creationism is to promote one and banish the other. How could it not be? But that's also necessary - we have to make these decisions; we simply can't teach everything (nor should we). But the question is, Who makes those decisions? What's not questioned, but is simply accepted, is that the government makes them on behalf of the "community" - free speech doesn't apply to teachers. The government decided what and how we teach.
And so, as things continue to divide, we can imagine a public school in Texas where things really dramatically flip flop. Right now the social science teacher is outlawed from teaching CRT. But then, the political tables turn and progressives come to power (it is becoming a purple state), and so they strike down the laws and promote the 1619 project and all the outlawed materials. But then, a few years later, conservatives are reelected and again ban CRT. How is this social science teacher not a puppet in this scenario? Why would they even want to teach? Don't they have a heart? Don't they have beliefs? Don't they actually know the students and aren't they actually the ones who can inspire them to search and explore and create? But how do we expect them to inspire anyone if they can't work out of their own inspiration and beliefs, but are always having to parrot what some bureaucrat has decided based on the ever shifting political headwinds?
It makes no sense. I thought NROL34 Odin's comment below was illuminating (you don't have to go read it, I'll just recap it). That person clearly thinks that every child should be taught "6 pillars of character." When I look over those pillars, I think "great, those look good - how could someone not want their child to be responsible, fair, caring, etc." But if I was a teacher and they were handed down to me, and I had to do a lesson plan to teach my students to be sincere or empathetic.... blah! It doesn't work. You don't just say those things to kids and then they become them. If it was that easy, we could just tell every adult to be empathetic and Voila! The teacher has to really feel them themselves - they have to be inspired by them! They have to understand the classroom and the children so well, and then they have to weave those lessons into their stories and activities at such a deep level in order for them to mean anything at all. You have to inspire the children! And to do so you have to be inspired! You don't just tell them to be compassionate. It doesn't work that way. So teachers have to be free to teach out of themselves.
The Egyptian example was called an "extreme example" probably because no other teachers are stepping out of line. They're just doing what they're told and they're not discussing or questioning the status quo. But imagine if the law was lifted and they could question and discuss. They probably would - not all at once, but over time. A veil would lift, and they'd see they had been hemmed in and now they had much more freedom, and they could really look at things and explore. What if the same was done in America. What if teachers could teach what they wanted to teach and not what politicians and school boards dictated to them? People would probably start to teach what they actually think, what they actually care about. Not all at once, but they too would realize they had been hemmed in and were now really free to speak their own mind, to explore, to serve their students as best they can and not just what some outer authority tells them to.
The left loves censorship too FFS 🤦🖕. The Washington Post couldn't post links on social media to articles about Hunter Biden and the Biden families alleged corruption 🤣🤣🤣. Vote libertarian 💯
This was a very conveniently comfortable hermetically sealed echo chamber. It was also, not surprisingly, a long tour de force in Motte and Bailey argumentation. So this wasn’t a serious discussion but pure hysteria. Paint your opponents as a bunch of Fahrenheit 451 and your own side as benignly and innocently being open minded just wanting to teach a controversial POV whereas the critics just want unthinking conformity. Perfect narrative. Once the narrative is in place then serious discussion is not needed.
Amna Khalid and another guest blatantly misrepresented critics as using CRT as a catch all phrase for any discussion on race. Very uninformed statement but a convenient one for the narrative.
That’s what apparently is meant when they say, “let’s have a discussion on race.” The real meaning is let us set the parameters of the discussion and narrative and everyone els has to argue within.
The aspects I enjoy most about your podcast seemed to be lacking in this episode, I don’t think I got a nuanced and balanced perspective on this issue. Your guests delivered arguments derivative of mainstream media outlets, blaming the right-wing politicians instead of analyzing the deeper issues at play. For starters, they mischaracterized the opposition coming overwhelmingly from people on the right-wing of the political spectrum. Secondly, the unclear language used in the CRT ban might be a direct cause of the unclear details of what a CRT curriculum would look like in practice. Lastly, they failed to contend with the hypocrisy of advocating for free speech when it’s convenient. The fact is that the tactics used for the ban were first wielded by the people who advocate for CRT. The issue of the radicals on the right repurposing the tools introduced by the radicals on the left has always loomed high. For example, how would we feel about a CRT equivalent on the right? Would the left oppose banning that? In order to think in those terms, we must first acknowledge that Critical Race Theory is extreme, which I don’t think the guests featured on this program would do.
To assume that the only Trump-loving racist would dare oppose Critical Race Theory signifies a lack of understanding and compassion. The United States is not the first country to attempt to rectify the wrongs of their past, to equal the playing field, or give a voice to the communities they deem as voiceless. If you migrated to America escaping an oppressive government, you probably understand how oppressive governments come to power. They prey on the vulnerabilities or fears of their citizens, they identify the enemy and the victims, they sell you on the idea of Utopia under their rule, and they instill doctrines or ideologies to control their citizens. This is true for regimes on the right as well as the left. When manipulation of language, censorship, and moral purity tests are suggested, alarm bells start to go off for immigrants like myself. If CRT elevates the concerns of “marginalized” people, why do they ignore this one? If they cared about history, why do they only focus on atrocities from the right when there are so many on the left? Communist rhetoric is just as offensive as Fascist rhetoric to anyone who has lived under its rule.
Unlike what the title “Critical Race Theory” implies, this does not teach students how to think critically and does not provide a deeper insight into historical events. CRT functions as a lens through which to view the world, in other words, it teaches students how to think. In practice, students would be taught what to be critical of, and what they are never allowed to criticize. If this were to be implemented in schools, students would be completely unaware of its presence. It’s misleading to suggest that CRT would merely be studied, that it would not be promoted if it were implemented in history or civic courses. Unless the student is taking a philosophy or social psychology course where CRT can be examined as a theory, it should not be allowed in K-12 schools.
I understand that this episode was intended to criticize the specifics of the ban legislation, and I agree the proposed ban lacked clarity which can lead to unintended consequences in the future. I argue that the lack of specificity in the ban is a direct correlation to the intangible and ever-evolving nature of the theory itself. I’d like to note that I’ve yet to hear the proponents of CRT provide detailed descriptions of its application in any concrete matter. Why advocate for a curriculum that you can’t explain?
Exposing yourself to concepts you disagree with is important, but I would have liked to see a guest on this show address some of those concerns. Ignoring this perspective felt patronizing and is contributing to the growth of people who agree with the ban. That being said, I admire the fact that feedback from your listeners is welcome because no one else does.
K-12 is the foundation of the education system. Children are not adults, and they are developing moral and cognitive skills. Kohlberg and Piaget studied the levels of moral development.
Kohlberg said some children were following ethical rules that they did not yet understand or comprehend because they were made to obey them. The rules that have to be obeyed are followed concretely.
Schools should not be teaching dIssent and going against the rules or conventional thought. Children should be taught ethical behaviors of character first. I suggest the "Six Pillars of Character" be taught. Let them learn how things should be before they can question them.
1. Trustworthy; (don't cheat, don't steal, reliable, dependable, do what you say, honest),
2. Respect; (tolerance, listening to others, use good manners, not bad language, be considerate of the feelings of others, don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • deal peacefully with anger, insults),
3. Responsibility; (self-control, be self-disciplined, think before you act, consider the consequences, be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes)
4. Fairness; (play by the rules, take turns and share, be open-minded; temperate, analytical, sincere, truthful, don’t blame others carelessly. treat all people fairly or equally, objectivity)
5. Caring; ( Be compassionate and show empathy, express gratitude, forgive others , Help people in need)
6. Citizenship; (Volunteerism, the environment, paying your taxes even though there are loopholes, honoring ideals country was founded on, get involved in community affairs • stay informed; vote, be a good neighbor, obey laws and rules, respect authority)
You mentioned not being able to ask why Mohammad made a decision and not another as being not answerable at that time. I am a Roman Catholic, and there is much dogma. Many scholars have studied the texts and devoted their lives to understanding God. Sometimes we have to have faith or belief in that is the way things are. You may question these if you are a biblical scholar. The teaching of the school should reinforce the teaching of the family and what the community wants. College is the place to learn to question how things are and test them.
Amna and her guests (particularly Sachs) were rather dishonest in discussing the actual bills in this podcast. The Tennessee bill referenced, for instance, provides in section 51(b), immediately following the provision discussing the ban on CRT in section 51(a), as follows:
"Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
(1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional
materials adopted in accordance with part 22 of this chapter;
(2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
(3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group
of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
(4) Historical documents relevant to subdivisions (b)(1) - (3) that are permitted
under § 49-6-1011."
The law thus EXPLICITLY PERMITS the impartial discussion of divisive concepts. Many other bills follow the same structure. So Sachs lied and Amna supported the lie.
Great episode, thanks for your work.
My question is about the distinction that's made around discussion vs promotion. In the Egypt example, you can't question the accepted dogma without suffering the consequences. The lesson to be drawn is that totalitarian regimes dictate what you think, and the healthy ideal we should strive for is open and free discussion. On the other side though, we have the example of creationism and CRT - we need to discuss these things, they're ideas in the world, but we just shouldn't promote them. But what if a public school teacher promotes creationism? And what if they refuse to stop promoting it? Will they lose their job? Yes.
How are these things different? Why is it authoritarian for Egyptian authorities to say "You have to promote a certain viewpoint, but you can't question or discuss it," but it's not authoritarian for American authorities to say "You have to question and discuss things, but you can't promote anything"?
Does anyone really think we're not promoting a viewpoint all the time? This whole podcast begins with saying that of course the government can decide what's taught in K-12. And so they decide the subject matter, the viewpoints. To give all your time to evolutionary theory and none to creationism is to promote one and banish the other. How could it not be? But that's also necessary - we have to make these decisions; we simply can't teach everything (nor should we). But the question is, Who makes those decisions? What's not questioned, but is simply accepted, is that the government makes them on behalf of the "community" - free speech doesn't apply to teachers. The government decided what and how we teach.
And so, as things continue to divide, we can imagine a public school in Texas where things really dramatically flip flop. Right now the social science teacher is outlawed from teaching CRT. But then, the political tables turn and progressives come to power (it is becoming a purple state), and so they strike down the laws and promote the 1619 project and all the outlawed materials. But then, a few years later, conservatives are reelected and again ban CRT. How is this social science teacher not a puppet in this scenario? Why would they even want to teach? Don't they have a heart? Don't they have beliefs? Don't they actually know the students and aren't they actually the ones who can inspire them to search and explore and create? But how do we expect them to inspire anyone if they can't work out of their own inspiration and beliefs, but are always having to parrot what some bureaucrat has decided based on the ever shifting political headwinds?
It makes no sense. I thought NROL34 Odin's comment below was illuminating (you don't have to go read it, I'll just recap it). That person clearly thinks that every child should be taught "6 pillars of character." When I look over those pillars, I think "great, those look good - how could someone not want their child to be responsible, fair, caring, etc." But if I was a teacher and they were handed down to me, and I had to do a lesson plan to teach my students to be sincere or empathetic.... blah! It doesn't work. You don't just say those things to kids and then they become them. If it was that easy, we could just tell every adult to be empathetic and Voila! The teacher has to really feel them themselves - they have to be inspired by them! They have to understand the classroom and the children so well, and then they have to weave those lessons into their stories and activities at such a deep level in order for them to mean anything at all. You have to inspire the children! And to do so you have to be inspired! You don't just tell them to be compassionate. It doesn't work that way. So teachers have to be free to teach out of themselves.
The Egyptian example was called an "extreme example" probably because no other teachers are stepping out of line. They're just doing what they're told and they're not discussing or questioning the status quo. But imagine if the law was lifted and they could question and discuss. They probably would - not all at once, but over time. A veil would lift, and they'd see they had been hemmed in and now they had much more freedom, and they could really look at things and explore. What if the same was done in America. What if teachers could teach what they wanted to teach and not what politicians and school boards dictated to them? People would probably start to teach what they actually think, what they actually care about. Not all at once, but they too would realize they had been hemmed in and were now really free to speak their own mind, to explore, to serve their students as best they can and not just what some outer authority tells them to.
The left loves censorship too FFS 🤦🖕. The Washington Post couldn't post links on social media to articles about Hunter Biden and the Biden families alleged corruption 🤣🤣🤣. Vote libertarian 💯