Florida Bans CRT in Schools - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15177935
late wrote:Few Supers will fall on their sword to protect a teacher.

Most of what you say about education falls under the 'you've gotta be kidding' category, like this.


It doesn't matter what Supers say, if a teacher could be accused of misconduct for complying with State law it's not an educational matter but an issue of labor law, and that means teachers can rely on labor law in this case. Indeed, Supers are the ones who would be sued probably.
#15177938
wat0n wrote:No, it's not a "historical error" to say that Black people effectively did not have a legal way to vote under Jim Crow. Also, Jim Crow started to be demolished by the American elites, not by Black people. We know this because Eisenhower and the Warren Court kick-started the process as a way to deal with Cold War Soviet propaganda. Black leaders like MLK and institutions like the NAACP realized the opportunity and took it.


You were incorrect to claim they could do nothing about the Jim Crow laws.

And I find it very difficult to believe that black people did nothing to improve their lit until Eisenhower decided to act.

No, it is not. Grandfather clauses were not similar to ID requirements because the literacy requirements would apply differently to people whose ancestors could vote before 1866. That means that there was a quite evident discrimination, as those who had to deal with that system could do nothing about the prevailing election laws before 1866. Indeed, it's why the SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional in 1915, and part of the reason had to do specifically with the date chosen.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep238347/

Furthermore, the realities of the segregated school system, where schools had different qualities and even budget depending on the student body they served, meant it was also close to impossible for Blacks to learn how to read. This is hardly comparable to getting an ID.


They are similar insofar as both are attempts to stop black people from voting and neither mention race in the law.

If you feel the grandfather clause was racist, then please explain how the current laws are not. Thank you.

Sure, if they want to. That's exactly the point.


So we agree that the speculation that black people would not vote anyway even if they were not being disenfranchised is incorrect or irrelevant.

You can depending on the situation, just like the SCOTUS did when knocking grandfather clauses down.


You now seem to be confusing the definition of systemic racism with a specific issue of Jim Crow voting.

This is why you would help yourself if you stopped writing entire arguments with only pronouns and actually rewrote your argument out regularly.

Weird, because supposedly sexism is there to benefit men. But just as importantly, you'd also have show how this finding is due to sexism.


Sexism does benefit men. No one said that these benefits are universal, nor did anyone claim that there are no negative impacts that are caused by this same system of benefits.

And you'd be wrong as well. Instead, I'd read it as saying that "thoughtlessness" seems to be intentional - Carmichael's definition is even clearer as the only thing he's saying is that institutional discrimination can enjoy a veil of respectability by not being associated to any particular individual (well, sometimes).


Again, you are not convincing me of the necessity of intent.

That last part I can agree.

That's an odd way to interpret what she wrote, given she claimed slavery was on its way to be abolished in 1776 in Britain's colonies (also not true, given Wilentz's points). In fact, it's a disingenuous interpretation of what Nikole Harris-Jones was claiming.


Please explain how I am incorrect.

Neither mentioned CRT, they mentioned the 1619 Project

More like it's not as broad as you are saying, as teachers would be protected by the law.


Again, people can read it for themselves.
#15177939
wat0n wrote:
It doesn't matter what Supers say, if a teacher could be accused of misconduct for complying with State law it's not an educational matter but an issue of labor law, and that means teachers can rely on labor law in this case. Indeed, Supers are the ones who would be sued probably.



Assuming that things work like that where you are, that's not how it goes here.

A former Super who had become a speaker for hire liked to say that when he got the job there were 3 envelopes in his desk labelled what to do in a crisis. The first one said blame the teachers, the second said blame the kids, the third said to update your resume...
#15177943
Pants-of-dog wrote:You were incorrect to claim they could do nothing about the Jim Crow laws.


I'm not speaking about not being able to do anything about the Jim Crow laws, I'm speaking about them not being able to do things like vote under the said laws :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I find it very difficult to believe that black people did nothing to improve their lit until Eisenhower decided to act.


Some of those laws were challenged, but the system as whole did not begin to be dismantled until Eisenhower (or arguably Truman, but it became clearer during Eisenhower's administration that it was being dismantled).

Pants-of-dog wrote:They are similar insofar as both are attempts to stop black people from voting and neither mention race in the law.

If you feel the grandfather clause was racist, then please explain how the current laws are not. Thank you.


It's racist because it was based on the standard prevailing before the adoption of the 15th Amendment, and it was something people could do nothing about circa 1915, as it simply made the pre-1871 status quo hereditary. OTOH, ID requirements can simply be fulfilled by doing the associated paperwork and bringing the ID to vote: No one is banning you from getting an ID due to your race and there are no grandfather clauses involved either.

You argument is like saying the sky and the sea are similar, simply because they are blue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that the speculation that black people would not vote anyway even if they were not being disenfranchised is incorrect or irrelevant.


My point is that it's possible that such differences in registration rates also reflect different preferences for voting.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You now seem to be confusing the definition of systemic racism with a specific issue of Jim Crow voting.

This is why you would help yourself if you stopped writing entire arguments with only pronouns and actually rewrote your argument out regularly.


No, I'm not confusing things here. OK's grandfather clause was simply used as an example of the idea that intent can be inferred.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sexism does benefit men. No one said that these benefits are universal, nor did anyone claim that there are no negative impacts that are caused by this same system of benefits.


Why would the patriarchy lock more men up?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you are not convincing me of the necessity of intent.


Why would you be "thoughtless" but only when it comes to Black people unintentionally?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please explain how I am incorrect.


"By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade" is false as well. Should I quote from Sean Wilentz again?

Even worse, as Wilentz also mentions several of the thirteen colonies had already moved against slave trade by the time the American Revolution began, and it was banned in the early 19th century.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, people can read it for themselves.


Sure, and people can also read the law and decide if an executive directive can go against the law.

late wrote:Assuming that things work like that where you are, that's not how it goes here.

A former Super who had become a speaker for hire liked to say that when he got the job there were 3 envelopes in his desk labelled what to do in a crisis. The first one said blame the teachers, the second said blame the kids, the third said to update your resume...


I'm not sure about what your point is here. Even if true, if some Supers may use this as a political launching pad, the teacher would still have legal recourse. I think the directive is in fact vague and PoD is right about that.
#15177945
wat0n wrote:I'm not speaking about not being able to do anything about the Jim Crow laws, I'm speaking about them not being able to do things like vote under the said laws :roll:


Theoretically, they could vote. All they had to do was pass the test or pay the tax or have property.

Much like modern BIPOC people can simply get the ID.

Some of those laws were challenged, but the system as whole did not begin to be dismantled until Eisenhower (or arguably Truman, but it became clearer during Eisenhower's administration that it was being dismantled).


So black people were slowly improving their lot. Okay.

It's racist because it was based on the standard prevailing before the adoption of the 15th Amendment, and it was something people could do nothing about circa 1915, as it simply made the pre-1871 status quo hereditary. OTOH, ID requirements can simply be fulfilled by doing the associated paperwork and bringing the ID to vote: No one is banning you from getting an ID due to your race and there are no grandfather clauses involved either.

You argument is like saying the sky and the sea are similar, simply because they are blue.


That explains why grandfather clauses are racist, It does not explain why voter ID laws are not racist.

My point is that it's possible that such differences in registration rates also reflect different preferences for voting.


I have no idea what differences in registration rates to which you are referring.

It seems like you are confused.

No, I'm not confusing things here. OK's grandfather clause was simply used as an example of the idea that intent can be inferred.


If the sole point of this tangent is that one can infer intent in other situations, then sure. Please note that this does not mean that intent is a necessary component of systemic racism.

Why would the patriarchy lock more men up?


This is not applicable to CRT.

Why would you be "thoughtless" but only when it comes to Black people unintentionally?


Please rewrite this in some form other than a loaded question.

"By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade" is false as well. Should I quote from Sean Wilentz again?

Even worse, as Wilentz also mentions several of the thirteen colonies had already moved against slave trade by the time the American Revolution began, and it was banned in the early 19th century.


How does this disprove my point?

Sure, and people can also read the law and decide if an executive directive can go against the law.

I'm not sure about what your point is here. Even if true, if some Supers may use this as a political launching pad, the teacher would still have legal recourse. I think the directive is in fact vague and PoD is right about that.


It is not only vague, but as you show, it directly conflicts with required curriculum subjects.
#15177955
Pants-of-dog wrote:Theoretically, they could vote. All they had to do was pass the test or pay the tax or have property.

Much like modern BIPOC people can simply get the ID.


Literacy was a hard requirement to fulfill when Black students could not attend good enough schools and their parents were illiterate. The poll taxes were, as far as I'm aware, prohibitively expensive. Ditto for property. Neither had a business justification that need to be taken into account like ID requirements have (namely, controlling people vote once and that you cast the vote yourself), which is why they are used in several countries.

Now, of course, you may actually not argue against voter ID laws in general but only some particular ones. If so, make your case. I can actually imagine some could in fact lack business justification, because of some requirements they may impose. For instance, I just learned that at least one state has a law that not just requires the voter to bring an ID (reasonable) but that the one they use (e.g. the driver's license or their SS card) should exactly match the voter's voter registration form - which is unnecessary if the registration form includes the driver's license number and the SSN, and if it does not then it's contingent on the state to explain why it doesn't. I ignore if this law has been challenged in court to force the state to explain itself here. Certainly, an inability to provide a cogent explanation for this requirement would amount to a disparate impact situation since it seems to affect African Americans more. The state I'm thinking about actually does ask for the driver's license/SSN in its voter registration form, by the way, which makes its law hard to justify from an election integrity perspective unless I'm missing something here - and precisely because I can be missing something here is why I think it should be challenged in court, so there can be clarity on this matter relying on expert witness testimony from people who know about something as specific as proper election procedure. Thankfully, the prevailing Federal law does allow courts to revise these state laws to detect and subsequently correct possible disparate impacts.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So black people were slowly improving their lot. Okay.


I can tell you are trying to draw a false equivalence with the improvements they are seeing nowadays. But you are wrong here: Even those legal challenges did not overturn things such as mandated segregation, which would only be overturned when elites jumped into this too.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That explains why grandfather clauses are racist, It does not explain why voter ID laws are not racist.


Yes it does: IDs are something people can get through their actions, grandfather clauses were not dependent on your own behavior and were impossible to fulfill if you were Black.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea what differences in registration rates to which you are referring.

It seems like you are confused.


Or if you want, the differences in the probability to get an ID may also reflect an underlying difference in the preference for voting. Maybe some people can get an ID but they don't, because they don't see the purpose - including purposes like voting.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If the sole point of this tangent is that one can infer intent in other situations, then sure. Please note that this does not mean that intent is a necessary component of systemic racism.


It is, you can show a counterexample if you want. The definitions thus far don't really say an institution can be "unconsciously racist"

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not applicable to CRT.


Weird, I thought gender and race oppression were linked, as intersectionality theory would lead us to believe.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please rewrite this in some form other than a loaded question.


I don't see how it's loaded.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this disprove my point?


The fact that there was no movement brewing against slavery in the colonies doesn't add up with Hannah-Jones' narrative at all. Even worse, it seems that coverage of the Somerset case was fairly neutral, when it was covered at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not only vague, but as you show, it directly conflicts with required curriculum subjects.


Or maybe it has to be interpreted in a way that respects prevailing law. That means that talking about systemic racism in the context of the Jim Crow era would be permissible.
#15177957
wat0n wrote:Literacy was a hard requirement to fulfill when Black students could not attend good enough schools and their parents were illiterate. The poll taxes were, as far as I'm aware, prohibitively expensive. Ditto for property. Neither had a business justification that need to be taken into account like ID requirements have (namely, controlling people vote once and that you cast the vote yourself), which is why they are used in several countries.

Now, of course, you may actually not argue against voter ID laws in general but only some particular ones. If so, make your case. I can actually imagine some could in fact lack business justification, because of some requirements they may impose. For instance, I just learned that at least one state has a law that not just requires the voter to bring an ID (reasonable) but that the one they use (e.g. the driver's license or their SS card) should exactly match the voter's voter registration form - which is unnecessary if the registration form includes the driver's license number and the SSN, and if it does not then it's contingent on the state to explain why it doesn't. I ignore if this law has been challenged in court to force the state to explain itself here. Certainly, an inability to provide a cogent explanation for this requirement would amount to a disparate impact situation since it seems to affect African Americans more. The state I'm thinking about actually does ask for the driver's license/SSN in its voter registration form, by the way, which makes its law hard to justify from an election integrity perspective unless I'm missing something here - and precisely because I can be missing something here is why I think it should be challenged in court, so there can be clarity on this matter relying on expert witness testimony from people who know about something as specific as proper election procedure. Thankfully, the prevailing Federal law does allow courts to revise these state laws to detect and subsequently correct possible disparate impacts.

Yes it does: IDs are something people can get through their actions, grandfather clauses were not dependent on your own behavior and were impossible to fulfill if you were Black.

Or if you want, the differences in the probability to get an ID may also reflect an underlying difference in the preference for voting. Maybe some people can get an ID but they don't, because they don't see the purpose - including purposes like voting.


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... tification

    Executive Summary

    Ten states now have unprecedented restrictive voter ID laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin all require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued photo identification before they can cast a vote that will count. Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one.

    Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters. This report is the first comprehensive assessment of the difficulties that eligible voters face in obtaining free photo ID.

    The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

    Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
    More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
    1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.
    Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
    More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.

    The result is plain: Voter ID laws will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of poor Americans to vote. They place a serious burden on a core constitutional right that should be universally available to every American citizen.

So we see that access to obtaining ID also disproportionately impacts BIPOC people.

And as we can see, racist intent is not a part of this, but it still means that more BIPOC voters are being disenfranchised.

I can tell you are trying to draw a false equivalence with the improvements they are seeing nowadays. But you are wrong here: Even those legal challenges did not overturn things such as mandated segregation, which would only be overturned when elites jumped into this too.


Yes, how silly of me to think that black people fought for their own equality. It is far more logical to suppose Eisenhower gave it to them.

It is, you can show a counterexample if you want. The definitions thus far don't really say an institution can be "unconsciously racist"


If you think voter restrictions are not intentionally racist, and at the same time agree that they have a discriminatory impact, the you agree that there is a real world example of systemic racism that is not intentional.

Weird, I thought gender and race oppression were linked, as intersectionality theory would lead us to believe.


They are, in many complicated ways.

I don't see how it's loaded.

The fact that there was no movement brewing against slavery in the colonies doesn't add up with Hannah-Jones' narrative at all. Even worse, it seems that coverage of the Somerset case was fairly neutral, when it was covered at all.


That actually corroborates my point. Thank you.

Or maybe it has to be interpreted in a way that respects prevailing law. That means that talking about systemic racism in the context of the Jim Crow era would be permissible.


No, it is explicitly not allowed to teach “that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons”, such as with Jim Crow laws.
#15177965
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

    Executive Summary

    Ten states now have unprecedented restrictive voter ID laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin all require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued photo identification before they can cast a vote that will count. Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one.

    Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters. This report is the first comprehensive assessment of the difficulties that eligible voters face in obtaining free photo ID.

    The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

    Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
    More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
    1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.
    Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
    More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.

    The result is plain: Voter ID laws will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of poor Americans to vote. They place a serious burden on a core constitutional right that should be universally available to every American citizen.

So we see that access to obtaining ID also disproportionately impacts BIPOC people.

And as we can see, racist intent is not a part of this, but it still means that more BIPOC voters are being disenfranchised.


And so one may ask why do these voter registration offices open so few days a week and, more importantly, why can't IDs just be delivered home (this would solve the issue in a single go). Have these been challenged in court?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, how silly of me to think that black people fought for their own equality. It is far more logical to suppose Eisenhower gave it to them


What's silly is to believe elites weren't key to dismantling Jim Crow :|

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think voter restrictions are not intentionally racist, and at the same time agree that they have a discriminatory impact, the you agree that there is a real world example of systemic racism that is not intentional.


Actually, if the disparate impact has no business justification and the institutions responsible know it, I'm gearing towards saying there's intent. Hence why the restrictions to getting voter IDs can and should be fought in courts, so if this is the case it will be made explicit and, if it's not, then authorities will provide the corresponding explanation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They are, in many complicated ways.


Vague.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That actually corroborates my point. Thank you.


How so? :eh:

It means the Patriots were seemingly not, in general, concerned about an imminent abolition of slavery.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is explicitly not allowed to teach “that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons”, such as with Jim Crow laws.


Present tense is key here. It would be legal to teach “that racism was embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons” as it's usually done.
#15177974
wat0n wrote:And so one may ask why do these voter registration offices open so few days a week and, more importantly, why can't IDs just be delivered home (this would solve the issue in a single go). Have these been challenged in court?


I have no idea as to the answers to your speculative questions.

Froma factual and empirical perspective, we see how government policies as supposedly innocuous as the opening hours of an agency that issues identification can have measurable and disproportionately negative impacts on BIPOC people and communities.

What's silly is to believe elites weren't key to dismantling Jim Crow :|


Then it is a good thing that I never argued that.

Actually, if the disparate impact has no business justification and the institutions responsible know it, I'm gearing towards saying there's intent. Hence why the restrictions to getting voter IDs can and should be fought in courts, so if this is the case it will be made explicit and, if it's not, then authorities will provide the corresponding explanation.


Yes, you can speculate about possible scenarios that fit your ideological outlook. I do not see them as being any more probable than scenarios where you are incorrect.

Vague.

How so? :eh:

It means the Patriots were seemingly not, in general, concerned about an imminent abolition of slavery.


Where, exactly?

Present tense is key here. It would be legal to teach “that racism was embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons” as it's usually done.


If you think teachers are going to risk their careers on a tense, I think that belief is naïve.
#15177980
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea as to the answers to your speculative questions.

Froma factual and empirical perspective, we see how government policies as supposedly innocuous as the opening hours of an agency that issues identification can have measurable and disproportionately negative impacts on BIPOC people and communities.


And the question then is why those innocuous policies are in place. What's the business justification, if any? I can imagine that registering for voting is infrequent generally, that's why I would ask why don't they just do everything by mail.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is a good thing that I never argued that.


So key that it was only dismantled once elites got into the project.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you can speculate about possible scenarios that fit your ideological outlook. I do not see them as being any more probable than scenarios where you are incorrect.


So, even after the failure to show there is business necessity, you would still insist there is no clarity about intent?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Where, exactly?


The thirteen colonies, even in the South. See Wilentz.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think teachers are going to risk their careers on a tense, I think that belief is naïve.


I actually would be surprised if they did not teach about Jim Crow, since it's probably included in their materials and planning.
#15177983
wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what your point is here. Even if true, if some Supers may use this as a political launching pad, the teacher would still have legal recourse. I think the directive is in fact vague and PoD is right about that.



In the 70s, budget cuts were flying faster than a slasher movie. Schools dumped a generation of teachers, just to save money.

Reality, what a f***ing concept.
#15177985
late wrote:In the 70s, budget cuts were flying faster than a slasher movie. Schools dumped a generation of teachers, just to save money.

Reality, what a f***ing concept.


Did they do so while breaking the prevailing law at the time?
#15177986
Drlee wrote: "We’ve got to have an education system that is preferring fact over narrative,” DeSantis said. “When it departs from a historical record and then when it goes into trying to create narratives that basically are teaching kids that the country is rotten and that our institutions are illegitimate, that is not worth any taxpayer dollars. It’s wrong and it’s not something that we should do.”


Exactly. History should be taught objectively and apolitically, because narratives are political by nature. You can present various narratives of different key groups/stakeholders to help people understand history better, but you can't just teach one narrative as if it's fact. That's called brainwashing.

And once you start moralizing history it becomes political also. "When person X did this, it was bad/good" is just bad history, it's indoctrination. Present the facts, let the students themselves moralize, not the teachers or textbooks. Let them debate and critically engage the content.

A teacher can even teach a theory like "CRT" or "Marxism", but for the teacher to make a moral judgement on those theories to their students, or to prefer one over another, or to specifically include or exclude certain key theories because they're counter to the teacher's own ideology, is inappropriate.
#15177988
wat0n wrote:And the question then is why those innocuous policies are in place. What's the business justification, if any? I can imagine that registering for voting is infrequent generally, that's why I would ask why don't they just do everything by mail.


That is not the question I would ask.

I would, instead, ask what is the next step to actually achieving equality.

So key that it was only dismantled once elites got into the project.

So, even after the failure to show there is business necessity, you would still insist there is no clarity about intent?


I have no idea what you are trying to argue with this question

The thirteen colonies, even in the South. See Wilentz.


There was no movement to abolish slavery in the colonies at the time of the revolution.

I actually would be surprised if they did not teach about Jim Crow, since it's probably included in their materials and planning.


yes, they will teach some sanitized version where white people unintentionally did nothing racist and these laws do not need to be discussed in class in any depth.

————————

Unthinking Majority wrote:Exactly. History should be taught objectively and apolitically, because narratives are political by nature. You can present various narratives of different key groups/stakeholders to help people understand history better, but you can't just teach one narrative as if it's fact. That's called brainwashing.

And once you start moralizing history it becomes political also. "When person X did this, it was bad/good" is just bad history, it's indoctrination. Present the facts, let the students themselves moralize, not the teachers or textbooks. Let them debate and critically engage the content.

A teacher can even teach a theory like "CRT" or "Marxism", but for the teacher to make a moral judgement on those theories to their students, or to prefer one over another, or to specifically include or exclude certain key theories because they're counter to the teacher's own ideology, is inappropriate.


Since the current anti-CRT policies in Florida only allow for one narrative, they would then be considered brainwashing, according to this argument.

Do you agree?
#15177994
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is not the question I would ask.

I would, instead, ask what is the next step to actually achieving equality.


Vague. How does equality look like to you here?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea what you are trying to argue with this question


Feel free to reread: Why would you say there is no intent involved even after you show that this supposedly not intentional policy has no justification?

Pants-of-dog wrote:There was no movement to abolish slavery in the colonies at the time of the revolution.


The fear was that there would be an imposition from Britain, according to Nikole Hannah-Jones. Also, abolitionism would actually start in the 1780s IIRC.

Pants-of-dog wrote:yes, they will teach some sanitized version where white people unintentionally did nothing racist and these laws do not need to be discussed in class in any depth.


How can you do that when segregation was mandated by law?
#15178000
wat0n wrote:Vague. How does equality look like to you here?


Ending the ongoing censorship in Florida would be enough for the sake of this thread.

Feel free to reread: Why would you say there is no intent involved even after you show that this supposedly not intentional policy has no justification?


Because a lack of justification is irrelevant to the question of intent, which is irrelevant to discussions of systemic racism.

The fear was that there would be an imposition from Britain, according to Nikole Hannah-Jones. Also, abolitionism would actually start in the 1780s IIRC.


Are you arguing that this assertion is incorrect?

How can you do that when segregation was mandated by law?


I do not think you can. You are correct. This policy is awful.
#15178004
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since the current anti-CRT policies in Florida only allow for one narrative, they would then be considered brainwashing, according to this argument.

Do you agree?

Maybe, I guess i'd have to look at the specific legislation. I think banning a theory in its entirely is wrong, so banning CRT from classrooms is wrong and is censorship.

I don't think presenting CRT in class is wrong, I think you can teach it just like you can teach any social/political theory. It depends on how its taught, like if a teacher stands on their soapbox praising the virtues of CRT that's wrong.

Just like how a teacher can teach fascism as a political theory, but teaching it like it's a wonderful theory is wrong. Students should be taught to think critically and make up their own minds. Present CRT or fascism or whatever other theories in class, maybe also present the common arguments for and criticisms against each theory, and let the kids debate if they want.
#15178005
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ending the ongoing censorship in Florida would be enough for the sake of this thread.


I agree that the resolution needs to be changed, but I don't think CRT and the 1619 Project should be taught as fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because a lack of justification is irrelevant to the question of intent, which is irrelevant to discussions of systemic racism.


Are you sure? Why would you do something without justification?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that this assertion is incorrect?


Her assertion? Sean Wilentz seems to think so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think you can. You are correct. This policy is awful.


At least something we can agree on. It's just way too vague.
#15178017
wat0n wrote:I agree that the resolution needs to be changed, but I don't think CRT and the 1619 Project should be taught as fact.

Are you sure? Why would you do something without justification?

Her assertion? Sean Wilentz seems to think so.


Considering the fact that British loyalists were promising freedom to slaves, and the southern states were willing to go to war to protect slavery, the only logical conclusion is that the southern states saw a clear threat to slavery and so decided to fight Britain.

And they were right. Slavery ended in the British colonies in 1834, which is decades before it was abolished in the USA.
#15178022
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that British loyalists were promising freedom to slaves, and the southern states were willing to go to war to protect slavery, the only logical conclusion is that the southern states saw a clear threat to slavery and so decided to fight Britain.

And they were right. Slavery ended in the British colonies in 1834, which is decades before it was abolished in the USA.


The South didn't fight the independence war only or even mainly because of slavery. The fact that news of the Somerset ruling didn't quite cause a ruckus should already help falsify Hannah-Jones' claims (she's the one who brought that case up)

And 1834 is still 58 years after the Declaration of Independence.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 16
CRT

You don't need to do away with neutrality of the […]

They are becoming more polarized, @colliric , but[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

This is why you'll never experience the joy of a M[…]

Germany has high taxes on inheretance except you i[…]