Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[Biff Tannen 45,715]

4 hours ago, YChang said:

Respectfully, we are not a monolithic group

No need for the bolded.  He doesn't deserve your respect.

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You say this so tell us what it is? 

CRT has been defined in numerous ways. In an attempt to give a neutral definition, here is the definition provided by Encyclopedia Britannica: 

“Critical Race Theory (CRT) [is an] intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans. 

CRT was officially organized in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much farther, to the 1960s and ‘70s. Its immediate precursor was the critical legal studies (CLS) movement, which dedicated itself to examining how the law and legal institutions serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized. (CLS, an offshoot of the Marxist-oriented critical theory, may also be viewed as a radicalization of early 20th-century legal realism, a school of legal philosophy according to which judicial decision making, especially at the appellate level, is influenced as much by nonlegal – political or ideological – factors as by precedent and principles of legal reasoning).

Like CLS scholars, critical race theorists believed that political liberalism was incapable of adequately addressing fundamental problems of injustice in American society (notwithstanding legislation and court rulings advancing civil rights in the 1950s and ‘60s), because its emphasis on the equitable treatment under the law of all races (“colour blindness”) rendered it capable of recognizing only the most overt and obvious racist practices, not those that were relatively indirect, subtle, or systemic. Liberalism was also faulted for mistakenly presupposing the apolitical nature of judicial decision making and for taking a self-consciously incremental or reformist approach that prolonged unjust social arrangements and afforded opportunities for retrenchment and backsliding through administrative delays and conservative legal challenges. Unlike most CLS scholars, however, critical race theorists did not wish to abandon the notions of law or legal rights altogether, because, in their experience, some laws and legal reforms had done much to help oppressed or exploited people.

In their work Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first published in 2001, the legal scholars Richard Delgado (one of the founders of CRT) and Jean Stefancic discuss several general propositions that they claim would be accepted by many critical race theorists, despite the considerable variation of belief among members of the movement. These “basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following claims:

(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.

(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.

(3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.

(4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interest of whites.

(5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on.

Finally, (6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism. This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.”  

I have read Kendi and Reynolds' Book.  These are quotes from it:

                                    a.     “White people think more of themselves, which further attracts them to racist ideas;

                                    b.     “Racist and anti-racist ideas have lived in human minds for nearly six hundred years. Born in Western Europe in the mid-1400s [LMAO], racist ideas traveled to colonial America and have lived in the United States from its beginnings;”

                                    c.     “To love capitalism is to end up loving racism;”

                                    d.     “I did not fully realize that the only thing extraordinary about White people is that they think something is extraordinary about them;”

                                    e.     “There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and anti-racist ideas;”

                                     f.     “Instead, they define policies not rigged for White people as racist. Ideas not centering White lives are racist. Beleaguered White racists who can’t imagine their lives not being the focus of a movement respond to ‘Black Lives Matter’ with ‘All Lives Matter;’”

                                    g.     “Embattled police officers who can’t imagine losing their right to racially profile and brutalize respond with ‘Blue Lives Matter;’”

                                    h.     “Do-nothing climate policy is racist policy since the predominantly non-White global south is being victimized by climate change more than the Whiter global north, even as the Whiter global north is contributing more to its acceleration;”

                                     i.     “Race is a mirage…they fail to realize that if we stop using racial categories, then we will not be able to identify racial inequality;”

                                     j.     “The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds the White nationalist victimhood;”

Supporters of CRT believe that race is a social construct and racism is a defining element of American society, and the goal is to challenge practices that reinforce white supremacy, white privilege, and the oppression of people of color. Opponents of CRT argue this ideology is harmful in that it is Marxist in theory, divisive in nature, racist on its face,  and anti-American in its teaching that America is an inherently racist nation. 

 

so, I don't recall any of that being taught to me in K-12, and maybe a smidge in a history class at UT (I was a hard science major, so I didn't take many liberal arts classes). I'm pretty invested in what my daughter is doing in middle school, and I haven't seen even the  barest inkling of any of that being taught to her. My anecdotal evidence is CRT is not being taught in school.

Do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, that it is being taught in school?

 

[Satchel 6,948]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your fingers broken?

I have the book.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 hours ago, Satchel said:

I have the book.

I quoted Ibram X Kendi née Rogers’ book.  You dispute any of those quotes.  

[Satchel 6,948]

26 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I quoted Ibram X Kendi née Rogers’ book.  You dispute any of those quotes.  

I didn’t read our Encyclopedia Britannica cut and paste. I have the book

[workswithseed 2,110]

6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I didn’t read our Encyclopedia Britannica cut and paste. I have the book

The bible of CRT?

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

10 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Supporters of CRT believe that race is a social construct and racism is a defining element of American society, and the goal is to challenge practices that reinforce white supremacy, white privilege, and the oppression of people of color. Opponents of CRT argue this ideology is harmful in that it is Marxist in theory, divisive in nature, racist on its face,  and anti-American in its teaching that America is an inherently racist nation. 

And none of that shit is being taught in K-12.

Except maybe challenging practices that oppress people of color.

And if you're opposed to that, something's wrong with you.

[Satchel 6,948]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The bible of CRT?

No, just the definitive word on what CRT really is, as seen through the eyes of its creators.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And none of that shit is being taught in K-12.

Except maybe challenging practices that oppress people of color.

And if you're opposed to that, something's wrong with you.

It's not?  Weird that my nephew was assigned to read Kendi's book.  He was a 7th grader at Pershing in Houston at the time.

[Captainant 27,741]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's not?  Weird that my nephew was assigned to read Kendi's book.  He was a 7th grader at Pershing in Houston at the time.

Was he at the magnet program? And which Kendi book?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Admittedly, I have more experience on CRT invading private schools as it is a battle we have been fighting for a couple years.  Thankfully a majority of states have laws prohibiting this toxic and racist crap from being taught in public schools.

CRT proponents are going hard after private schools.  They use teacher and administration continuing education in organizations such as NAIS -- which is supposed to be about education but is 90% about leftwing social justice advocacy -- to achieve those means.

If you have the WSJ, here is an opinion piece they ran last week on this very issue:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-woke-indoctrination-machine-diversity-equity-inclusion-bipoc-schools-conference-11644613908

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's not?  Weird that my nephew was assigned to read Kendi's book.  He was a 7th grader at Pershing in Houston at the time.

A book on CRT in 7th grade?  I call bullshit.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Was he at the magnet program? And which Kendi book?

Yes.  Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America.  Direct quotes from the book

These are quotes from it:

                                    a.     “White people think more of themselves, which further attracts them to racist ideas;

                                    b.     “Racist and anti-racist ideas have lived in human minds for nearly six hundred years. Born in Western Europe in the mid-1400s [LMAO], racist ideas traveled to colonial America and have lived in the United States from its beginnings;”

                                    c.     “To love capitalism is to end up loving racism;”

                                    d.     “I did not fully realize that the only thing extraordinary about White people is that they think something is extraordinary about them;”

                                    e.     “There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and anti-racist ideas;”

                                     f.     “Instead, they define policies not rigged for White people as racist. Ideas not centering White lives are racist. Beleaguered White racists who can’t imagine their lives not being the focus of a movement respond to ‘Black Lives Matter’ with ‘All Lives Matter;’”

                                    g.     “Embattled police officers who can’t imagine losing their right to racially profile and brutalize respond with ‘Blue Lives Matter;’”

                                    h.     “Do-nothing climate policy is racist policy since the predominantly non-White global south is being victimized by climate change more than the Whiter global north, even as the Whiter global north is contributing more to its acceleration;”

                                     i.     “Race is a mirage…they fail to realize that if we stop using racial categories, then we will not be able to identify racial inequality;”

                                     j.     “The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds the White nationalist victimhood;”

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

7th grade is Texas History at Pershing. That would certainly be an interesting choice for that class and I can't imagine which TEKS it would fall under.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

A book on CRT in 7th grade?  I call bullshit.

Pershing is pretty woke.  They had one of the gay kids running around with a pride flag during a school play for 8th graders.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

That's pretty heavy shit for a 7th grader, not so much in terms of the content, but understanding the context, etc.

That aside, reading controversial material and discussing it is what real education is all about.  

[Mole 4,333]

Depending on the context, that book looks awesome for smart, thoughtful, and educated kids. Reading things that challenge you and piss you off is the hallmark of a good education, even if you end up rejecting those ideas entirely. It’s not indoctrination; it’s education.
 

In my fantasy world, public school teachers would be treated more like college professors; requiring very high educational attainment, self-policing accreditation standards, and intellectual freedom in the classroom.

For example, I’d much rather my son learn a series of challenging historical perspectives from brilliant teachers than a uniform version of history that doesn’t upset the loudest and least educated among us. I’d also eliminate all statewide testing and trust my highly trained and highly paid professionals to teach well.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

7th grade is Texas History at Pershing. That would certainly be an interesting choice for that class and I can't imagine which TEKS it would fall under.

Fair point.  HIstorically, 7th grade is Texas History everywhere.  It was for me 40 years ago.

[Captainant 27,741]

Lol you sure typed all that up quickly, definitely didn't copy it from a fw:fw:fw:fw amirite? 

Points for using your clergyman skills to quote single sentences out of context to advance an argument that isn't supported by the text though. 

Granted, you dont think redlining was racist and that there's never been racial inequality in the US, so that's just par for the sack course.

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

That aside, reading controversial material and discussing it is what real education is all about.  

Yeah, considering it was at a magnet program that's definitely not just normal public school. I went to a magnet program in public school and was building high power rockets and filing FAA waivers in 8th grade as part of my school activities. Hell my 7th grade TX history course talked about Texan slavery, rather than sweeping it under the rug as sack would prefer.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point.  HIstorically, 7th grade is Texas History everywhere.  It was for me 40 years ago.

Believe it was for English class.  I can find out.

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol you sure typed all that up quickly, definitely didn't copy it from a fw:fw:fw:fw amirite? 

Points for using your clergyman skills to quote single sentences out of context to advance an argument that isn't supported by the text though. 

Granted, you dont think redlining was racist and that there's never been racial inequality in the US, so that's just par for the sack course.

Yeah, considering it was at a magnet program that's definitely not just normal public school. I went to a magnet program in public school and was building high power rockets and filing FAA waivers in 8th grade as part of my school activities. Hell my 7th grade TX history course talked about Texan slavery, rather than sweeping it under the rug as sack would prefer.

Redlining was racist and there has been racial inequality.  It is why all races should be treated the same by the law and by society.  It is evil to do otherwise.  CRT does not want a colorblind society.  So it is an evil concept.

No one wants slavery swept under the rug.  Or Jim Crow.  Or Civil Rights struggle.  Every CRT bill I have seen explicitly states those topics are required.  That is a red herring argument

I quoted it from a document I prepared on CRT to highlight how evil it is.

[Biff Tannen 45,715]

So let's say this is all true.  What exactly are you afraid of?

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is why all races should be treated the same by the law and by society.  It is evil to do otherwise.  CRT does not want a colorblind society.  So it is an evil concept.

Is it this?  Is this what it boils down to for you?

[Captainant 27,741]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

No one wants slavery swept under the rug.  Or Jim Crow.  Or Civil Rights struggle.  Every CRT bill I have seen explicitly states those topics are required.  That is a red herring argument

Your friends in the state lege that you donate to very nearly passed a ban on teaching the Civil Rights movement or about MLK, for fear of making lil Cletus junior feel bad about what pawpaw's grandaddy did. The only reason it didn't pass is because the house couldn't form a quorum.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Redlining was racist and there has been racial inequality.  It is why all races should be treated the same by the law and by society.  It is evil to do otherwise.  CRT does not want a colorblind society.  So it is an evil concept.

No one wants slavery swept under the rug.  Or Jim Crow.  Or Civil Rights struggle.  Every CRT bill I have seen explicitly states those topics are required.  That is a red herring argument

I quoted it from a document I prepared on CRT to highlight how evil it is.

Well, as disingenuous as the "sChOoLs aRE tEaCHinG CrT!" argument is, the legislation is arguably more disingenuous, because it doesn't actually ban anything that's happening.

And, I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between reading a book like Kendi's from being taught "CRT" as the fundamental curriculum.  Would you object to Das Kapital being assigned to high school students?  Do you think its purpose would be to make commies out of them?

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Redlining was racist and there has been racial inequality.  It is why all races should be treated the same by the law and by society.  It is evil to do otherwise.  CRT does not want a colorblind society.  So it is an evil concept.

No one wants slavery swept under the rug.

CRT is not a "concept".  It is a method for analyzing policy, law etc. to uncover any inherent racial biases.  

In other words, you should be all for it.  And, once more with feeling, it is not being taught at the K-12 level in the US, anywhere, despite what you say about Pershing.  It is a college level curricula, and mostly graduate schools at that.  These are the facts, and facts you conveniently ignore, because you are a disingenuous troll.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Your friends in the state lege that you donate to very nearly passed a ban on teaching the Civil Rights movement or about MLK, for fear of making lil Cletus junior feel bad about what pawpaw's grandaddy did. The only reason it didn't pass is because the house couldn't form a quorum.

It was not a ban on teaching the Civil Rights movement or MLK.  You should read the article you cited.  It does not say what you claim it does.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Believe it was for English class.  I can find out.

 

Do you know in what capacity? It still seems difficult to match that with an ELAR TEKS objective for 7th grade. We don't have many magnet schools here so are they given more leeway? Seems like a poor decision that would bring in outside scrutiny to me.

[wildcat09 29,377]

Sack is being disingenuous. Most of the “anti-CRT” bills do say you have to teach some specified topics, but they also make it illegal to teach anything that might upset any children and some give people the right to sue teachers who violate that. The fear and uncertainty these conflicting statutory commands generate is the point.

[Captainant 27,741]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was not a ban on teaching the Civil Rights movement or MLK.  You should read the article you cited.  It does not say what you claim it does.

I'm not a simpleton and understand how teaching works in this state in public schools and regulars courses. If it's not part of TEKS, it won't be taught in >75% of classrooms, and school administrators will force teachers to "stick to TEKS". Removing that subject matter material from required knowledge is absolutely a functional ban.

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

Do you know in what capacity? It still seems difficult to match that with an ELAR TEKS objective for 7th grade. We don't have many magnet schools here so are they given more leeway? Seems like a poor decision that would bring in outside scrutiny to me.

I was in public school magnet programs in middle school, the districts generally let the magnet do whatever it wants since it has a ~99% commended rate on state diagnostic exams like TAAS/TAKS/STAAR/etc that supports the rest of the school's underperforming students.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was not a ban on teaching the Civil Rights movement or MLK.  You should read the article you cited.  It does not say what you claim it does.

Better yet, read the bill itself, or this summary, which is fair despite coming from TEA.  https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/correspondence/taa-letters/senate-bill-3-87th-texas-legislature-second-called-session-update-to-instructional-requirements-and-prohibitions

Again, though, I think this is political pandering.

[fuggled 576]

40 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes.  Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America.  Direct quotes from the book

These are quotes from it:

                                    a.     “White people think more of themselves, which further attracts them to racist ideas;

I'm genuinely curious, why are you lying about this?  Are you intentionally trying to deceive others in order to prove CRT is "evil"?  Or have you not actually read any of this and therefore have no idea whether it's true or not?  Either way, you are spreading lies.

First, I can't find a single reference attributing that quote to "Stamped from the Beginning".  Every reference quotes this from "How to Be an Antiracist," a completely different book.  This makes me seriously doubt you've read either. 

Second, that is not a direct quote. You've lifted those phrases from the middle of a sentence and completely misrepresented the author's message. In the original text, "white people" are the object of the sentence.  You've misquoted this to make them the subject of the sentence and change the meaning.  This is shameful, lazy and transparent.

Here is the full quote:

Quote

Even now I wonder if it was my poor sense of self that first generated my poor sense of my people.

Or was it my poor sense of my people that inflamed a poor sense of myself? Like the famous question about the chicken and the egg, the answer is less important than the cycle it describes. Racist ideas make people of color think less of themselves, which makes them more vulnerable to racist ideas. Racist ideas make White people think more of themselves, which further attracts them to racist ideas.

I thought I was a subpar student and was bombarded by messages—from Black people, White people, the media—that told me that the reason was rooted in my race … which made me more discouraged and less motivated as a student … which only further reinforced for me the racist idea that Black people just weren’t very studious … which made me feel even more despair or indifference … and on it went. At no point was this cycle interrupted by a deeper analysis of my own specific circumstances and shortcomings or a critical look at the ideas of the society that judged me—instead, the cycle hardened the racist ideas inside me until I was ready to preach them to others.

The point is that racist ideas have an inherent seductive quality to them because they imply or state directly that the majority is good/better/worthy, and that makes these ideas move invasive.  All people want to feel good about themselves.  The danger of racist ideas is that someone can connect with that reinforcing message of goodness without ever realizing that the other side of the coin is exclusion and denigration of others.  The author is not criticizing white people, he's warning about the dangers of racist ideas. Care to comment on why you would disagree with any of this?

Furthermore, the passage really ISN'T EVEN ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE!  The point of the passage is that the author found himself in a destructive loop.  Racist ideas had helped him think less of himself, which led him to try less, which made him less successful, which proved those racist ideas right.  The passage is all about the author's own enlightenment and how he had sold himself short without even realizing it.  What about this perspective do you find evil?  Why wouldn't you want every young person in America to reflect on this?  The fact that you could read this and come away with such a self-centered interpretation is alarming. You must either completely lack self-awareness, or you must be so focused on championing a cause that you completely miss the powerful and valuable message.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, fuggled said:

I'm genuinely curious, why are you lying about this?  Are you intentionally trying to deceive others in order to prove CRT is "evil"?  Or have you not actually read any of this and therefore have no idea whether it's true or not?  Either way, you are spreading lies.

First, I can't find a single reference attributing that quote to "Stamped from the Beginning".  Every reference quotes this from "How to Be an Antiracist," a completely different book.  This makes me seriously doubt you've read either. 

Second, that is not a direct quote. You've lifted those phrases from the middle of a sentence and completely misrepresented the author's message. In the original text, "white people" are the object of the sentence.  You've misquoted this to make them the subject of the sentence and change the meaning.  This is shameful, lazy and transparent.

Here is the full quote:

The point is that racist ideas have an inherent seductive quality to them because they imply or state directly that the majority is good/better/worthy, and that makes these ideas move invasive.  All people want to feel good about themselves.  The danger of racist ideas is that someone can connect with that reinforcing message of goodness without ever realizing that the other side of the coin is exclusion and denigration of others.  The author is not criticizing white people, he's warning about the dangers of racist ideas. Care to comment on why you would disagree with any of this?

Furthermore, the passage really ISN'T EVEN ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE!  The point of the passage is that the author found himself in a destructive loop.  Racist ideas had helped him think less of himself, which led him to try less, which made him less successful, which proved those racist ideas right.  The passage is all about the author's own enlightenment and how he had sold himself short without even realizing it.  What about this perspective do you find evil?  Why wouldn't you want every young person in America to reflect on this?  The fact that you could read this and come away with such a self-centered interpretation is alarming. You must either completely lack self-awareness, or you must be so focused on championing a cause that you completely miss the powerful and valuable message.

I've read both and White Fragility.  I do apologize for the misattribution.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

5 minutes ago, fuggled said:

I'm genuinely curious, why are you lying about this?  Are you intentionally trying to deceive others in order to prove CRT is "evil"?  Or have you not actually read any of this and therefore have no idea whether it's true or not?  Either way, you are spreading lies.

First, I can't find a single reference attributing that quote to "Stamped from the Beginning".  Every reference quotes this from "How to Be an Antiracist," a completely different book.  This makes me seriously doubt you've read either. 

Second, that is not a direct quote. You've lifted those phrases from the middle of a sentence and completely misrepresented the author's message. In the original text, "white people" are the object of the sentence.  You've misquoted this to make them the subject of the sentence and change the meaning.  This is shameful, lazy and transparent.

Here is the full quote:

The point is that racist ideas have an inherent seductive quality to them because they imply or state directly that the majority is good/better/worthy, and that makes these ideas move invasive.  All people want to feel good about themselves.  The danger of racist ideas is that someone can connect with that reinforcing message of goodness without ever realizing that the other side of the coin is exclusion and denigration of others.  The author is not criticizing white people, he's warning about the dangers of racist ideas. Care to comment on why you would disagree with any of this?

Furthermore, the passage really ISN'T EVEN ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE!  The point of the passage is that the author found himself in a destructive loop.  Racist ideas had helped him think less of himself, which led him to try less, which made him less successful, which proved those racist ideas right.  The passage is all about the author's own enlightenment and how he had sold himself short without even realizing it.  What about this perspective do you find evil?  Why wouldn't you want every young person in America to reflect on this?  The fact that you could read this and come away with such a self-centered interpretation is alarming. You must either completely lack self-awareness, or you must be so focused on championing a cause that you completely miss the powerful and valuable message.

I have not read Kendi's work.  But it was my impression that to the extent he employs CRT, it is a "kinder, gentler" form of the analysis.

Which is consistent with what you say.

[fuggled 576]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I've read both and White Fragility.  I do apologize for the misattribution.

Are you also going to apologize for the misrepresentation of the message?  Or, if I'm being generous, that you just misunderstood the passage?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have not read Kendi's work.  But it was my impression that to the extent he employs CRT, it is a "kinder, gentler" form of the analysis.

Which is consistent with what you say.

He's the guy who tweeted ACB was a white colonizer for adopting two Haitian children.  He's an asshole.

[elfenix 34,331]

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

So he was "just saying"

[elfenix 34,331]

is that like "just misattributing"?

[Captainant 27,741]

no, it's more like "just being a lying sack of shit"

[aggie08 21,527]

23 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

Sort of like when you donate to a Haitian orphanage?

[fattyflattie 4,638]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So he was "just saying"

I’m not up in arms over this. It’s a convenient teaching moment to be having with your children.  

[Captainant 27,741]

So @Johnny Sack who all are you planning on sharing your dishonest document and representation of Kendi's writings with? I'd be curious to see the whole manifesto - I'm sure you only had one little oopsie-whoopsie with the truth

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

At this rate it'll be that the teacher at Pershing had heard of Kendi.

[wildcat09 29,377]

2 hours ago, fuggled said:

Are you also going to apologize for the misrepresentation of the message?  Or, if I'm being generous, that you just misunderstood the passage?

It looks like the answer to this is "no." 

[Satchel 6,948]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

It's not?  Weird that my nephew was assigned to read Kendi's book.  He was a 7th grader at Pershing in Houston at the time.

Kendi doesn’t believe that people are constitutionally racist. He believes the term “racist” should instead be understood as a descriptor. “It literally describes what a person is being in any given moment, based on what they are saying or not saying, doing or not doing.”

Is that what your nephew learned at Pershing?

[Biff Tannen 45,715]

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It looks like the answer to this is "no." 

[David Dennison 18,946]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

He's the guy who tweeted ACB was a white colonizer for adopting two Haitian children.  He's an asshole.

And she's a virtue signaler.

[David Dennison 18,946]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Redlining was racist and there has been racial inequality.  It is why all races should be treated the same by the law and by society.  It is evil to do otherwise.  CRT does not want a colorblind society.  So it is an evil concept.

No one wants slavery swept under the rug.  Or Jim Crow.  Or Civil Rights struggle.  Every CRT bill I have seen explicitly states those topics are required.  That is a red herring argument

I quoted it from a document I prepared on CRT to highlight how evil it is.

It's very convenient for people who have benefited the most from racial injustice to all of a sudden claim to want a color-blind society now that their head start has entrenched them at the top of the food chain.

[Guest Lobo]

UT Faculty Council votes overwhelmingly (41-5, IIRC) to allow faculty/staff to continue teachings like this.  And to 'disallow' for censure for professors teaching work like this, that has not been an issue up until now.  

Feel free to read the official statement.  But there's two ways to take it:

1.  They are tacitly telling the world that if we continue doing the same thing at the university you love, it shouldn't magically become a problem for you this year because you're been told it's a problem by people that don't actually know what's taught here.  

2.  Obviously what happens at UT will be in our 1st grade classrooms before the week is out.  Save your children while you still can from this indoctrination of Marxism! 

(side note-------if you don't think this was voted on the exact week that Texas GOP ballot measure #4 was on the ballot.......you haven't been paying attention.  I'm no socialist, I'm no Democrat.  But in higher education, the shit you read and hear is supposed to hurt your brain and your heart . That's the whole fucking point).  

[Beau Vine 54,388]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I've read both and White Fragility.

You live White Fragility.