Gov. Mike DeWine says he opposes critical race theory, supports teaching ugly parts of American history
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Gov. Mike DeWine says he opposes critical race theory, supports teaching ugly parts of American history
7-9 minutes Invalid Date
C OLUMBUS, Ohio – Gov. Mike DeWine does not like critical race theory, but in an extensive conversation, he explained that he believes history needs to be taught truthfully – blemishes and all.
“We need to study slavery,” he said Tuesday during a meeting with the editorial board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer. “We need to understand the impact that it has had. We need to understand discrimination. So these are all things we should study, and we should understand.”
Critical race theory – the college-level study of racism as it relates to the structural systems of American society, instead of the actions of individuals – is widely talked about in Republican politics this year, seen by some as a strategy to draw back to the GOP white suburban women who left because they were disgusted by the words and actions of former President Donald Trump.
DeWine’s Republican primary opponent, Jim Renacci, has consistently campaigned on a message that he will end critical race theory in K-12 schools, and that DeWine is not doing enough about it.
The Ohio legislature has proposed a so-called “teacher transparency” bill that would require districts to place teachers’ syllabi online. The move echoes how the nationwide CRT movement evolved since the last election.
However, there is no credible evidence that it’s taught in K-12 in Ohio.
DeWine – a former social studies education major at Miami University who student taught for four months at Princeton High School north of Cincinnati before going to law school – deflected the question when asked whether critical race theory is actually taught in Ohio schools.
Like many conservatives, DeWine claimed critical race theory made white people feel guilty and minorities feel like victims.
“I think where people pull back and have a problem is, am I responsible for something that happened 100 years ago? Well, I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody is,” he said. “But to recognize that happened and to say something bad happened shouldn’t have happened – whether it is to Native American Indians, or whether it is to African Americans who got here in chains. All those things, you know, we should be aware of, and we should talk about.”
DeWine said it’s not productive for people to think they’re victims.
“I don’t want any kid to think that they are a victim because that’s not what generally a parent wants for their child,” he said. “If you want the child to understand in this world, there is unfairness. And we should try to do away with unfairness. We should try to do away with prejudice. We should try to do away with the fact that you may not be treated right, for whatever reason. What you want for your own kid, which is what I want for all kids when they face that, to take appropriate action to get back up and keep going and not let that deter them. And the rest of us have an obligation to do everything we can to eliminate or push down on that kind of pressure.”
Brant T. Lee, a University of Akron School of Law professor and dean for diversity and social justice initiatives, said that critical race theory is an obscure field of study and that the real battle currently being waged is over the substance of whose interpretation of American history gets taught public schools.
Lee attended Harvard Law School, where he was a research assistant to Professor Derrick Bell, one of the founders of critical race theory.
DeWine is trying to straddle a middle ground – of supporting teaching unpleasant episodes of American history while at the same time acknowledging the fears of white conservatives. It’s untenable, Lee said.
“Here’s the question for him: What if teaching about slavery (and Jim Crow and lynching and redlining) makes people feel bad? If you accurately teach what 300+ years of American history looks like from the perspective of African Americans in particular—and the general public is only now starting to learn about much of that history—you will feel differently about America,” Lee wrote in an email. “The traditional, mainstream story we all learned about the Founding and Manifest Destiny and Reconstruction and even the New Deal starts to look a little less glorious. You should feel at the very least some humility, or perhaps some shame, or possibly even horror. That’s not CRT. That’s history. And if you don’t like someone messing with your stories and your heroes, you might get angry.”
History isn’t objective, said Jared Yates Sexton, author of “American Rule: How a Nation Conquered the World but Failed its People,” which examines commonly believed myths about the country.
“American history is often molded and shifted by specific people for specific purposes, and the current debate (whether America’s history is mired with white supremacy or whether it’s a shining beacon of hope and equality) is actually more about how history should be used,” Sexton said. “And this controversy (it’s not ‘CRT,’ actually, which is just the political name Republicans use because it polls well) is about one side arguing that history has been framed to maintain power while the other side, the Republicans, are arguing history is actually objective and this current ‘trend’ is an intentional attack on the country.”
Lee, the University of Akron law professor, said that the idea of white people feeling guilty about the past comes from poorly designed diversity training in the workplace. In some of those trainings, white people have been lectured and scolded.
“But those examples are about trainings for adult employees, not K-12 classrooms,” he said.
DeWine said he believes history and government teachers should expose students to primary source documents, including the U.S. Constitution and, “looking at something written by a slave, maybe after they escaped, how was it to be a slave.”
To that end, Ohio House Republicans have introduced bills prohibiting teachers from promoting “divisive topics ,” and another bill that lists 11 topics that cannot be taught , including, “With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.”
The decision of whose stories are told in history can be more inclusive, said Desiree Tims, president and CEO of Innovation Ohio, a left-leaning group that is fighting for what it calls “honesty in education.” It doesn’t consider the allegations about critical race theory in K-12 schools to be honest.
“Educating Ohioans about an accurate and honest history is the right and moral approach,” she said. “There were white people in Ohio who helped enslaved Africans escape the horrors of the South. I am sure that many of their descendants would want their stories told too. We cannot erase history for political convenience, nor can we lie our way to the truth.”
Ohio State Board of Education member Meryl Johnson, who is retired after a 40-year career of teaching in Cleveland schools, said DeWine is repeating Republican talking points.
But the GOP’s position supporting what Johnson calls “dishonesty in education” goes against the economy and business, she said.
“Republicans claim to care about the economy and about business,” she said. “We are preparing children to be successful business owners and team players when they learn how to get along with people who are different than they are.”
Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
I'll give DeWine credit for this - he comes closer to describing the real issue about all this than almost all other conservatives do.
“But to recognize that happened and to say something bad happened shouldn’t have happened – whether it is to Native American Indians, or whether it is to African Americans who got here in chains. All those things, you know, we should be aware of, and we should talk about.”
Why should we obsess and talk about it now? Where is the value in that?
So you think we should not teach children the honest history of the country.
Sorry, but I consider CRT and honest history to be oxymorons.
why do i have the feeling you dont know anything at all about CRT
I know much more than you think I do, being that I am a minority who grew up with blatant racism on AZ/Mexican border. But I sense that it would be useless to discuss this further because you feel you are absolutely correct and refuse to see to see anybody else point of view that does not match your own so there is no sense continuing. I'm done. Have a good day John.
you have never read anything substantial about critical race theory. just admit it
IMPASSE
Teaching history in a history class does not mean anyone is obsessing on it. It’s the appropriate topic of discussion in that setting - and then it’s over. Next is Recess.
[Deleted]
I think he's specifically referring to the educational curriculum.
"...college-level study of racism..."
I beg to differ that it is not solely college level.
College level or not, it's the truth but that doesn't matter as long as we don't discuss the racist parts of the history of the US.
Why discuss it? What's the point? Isn't all this just political posturing by the democrats
No one is arguing the unpleasant aspects of American history shouldn’t be taught. Claiming that’s what opposing CRT means is incredibly dishonest.
There are a lot of white people who dont want their children being taught that white people have been racist throughout the history of this country. THAT is what this is all about.
There’s a difference nineteen teaching what happened (slavery, Jim Crow) and indoctrinating kids that all white people are racist, all minorities are helpless victims and that the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
When we talk about teaching kids “what really happened” remember it’s the same group who celebrate the 1619 project and pushed it on children have no problem with the lies therein.
Unlike most people here I looked through all of the 1619 material ( I did not read every word of it) . It is not filled with lies and no one reputable has ever claimed it is filled with lies. Some historians took issue with a few parts of the opening essay as relates to the break from England.
America has been a racist nation historically. This is extremely easy to prove. And a lot of whites dont want to hear it.
Please cite the curriculum and/or syllabus that documents said indoctrination Sean. I'll wait.
Wow, deep. /s
Total and utter bullshit.
I find it hilarious that 'DeWine’s Republican primary opponent, Jim Renacci' promises to end CRT in K-12 schools. Just like Glenn Youngkin's promise, it's easily kept since there's nothing to end.
Let's glory in the dishonesty of this response. Imagine premising an argument on the belief that indoctrination only occurs if a syllabus say "indoctrination."
Priceless.
Wow, deep. /s
I doubt you understand how ironic that is.
But by all means take up the issue with Dr. Ibraham X Kendi.
Was protecting slavery a primary cause of the Revolution?
Let's glory in the dishonesty of the strawman posted above.
Strawman arguments are cheap.
BTFW Sean, if it isn't in the 'curriculum and/or syllabus' what evidence do you have that the indoctrination that you claim is occurring? You must have SOME kind of documentation, right? Or perhaps you have firsthand eyewitness testimony you'd like to share.
Come on Sean, post some tangible facts.
Oh, please DO explain it to me Sean.
You're the one that has the responsibility for your false claim Sean, no one else.
Those pushing CRT and 1619 Project onto young ones just fail to grasp the difference between teaching and indoctrinating.
The original 1619 Project in the New York Times was about 10 different essays, most of them thousands of words long. Each one of them covered a different aspect of American history. It is not just about Was protecting slavery a primary cause of the Revolution?
Nice deflection, but certainly no answer to what was asked.
/or syllabus' what evidence do you have that the indoctrination that you claim is occurring
There's been plenty shared on this site. I'm tired of explaining and proving the same things over and over to you.
Oh, please DO explain it to me Sean.
I've taken you to water. I can't force you to drink.
'
How can you be tired of doing something you have never done Sean?
So as per your MO, you've got nothing.
stop trolling. you dont know what you are talking about.
I damn sure can read and see that you didn't and STILL haven't answered the question.
You seem to consider anyone who calls you out on anything as trolling.
That is incorrect.
Those pushing the lie that is happening fail to grasp the difference between 'alternative facts' and reality.
i dont answer your questions unless i want to. most of them are useless
Why not just admit you can't answer the question honestly?
Bingo, we have a winner!
You dont even know what the fucking question is. Ask Sean.
Then how in the hell did I manage to accurately QUOTE the fucking question??????????????????
Here it is AGAIN for you to deflect from:
post 5.1.5
Have you read the 1619 Project? Have you read anything about Critical Race Theory?
I didnt answer Sean as to whether I thought the American Revolution was done to protect slavery because i dont have an opinion about it. That was a contention made by the woman who headed the 1619 Project , and some historians took issue with her argument. I accept that she may have gone overboard. That hardly discredits the entire 1619 Project. Of course, since you dont know a fucking thing about it, how would you know?
[deleted]
Sure is. The entire premise that slavery began in the United States in 1619 is a blatant lie. There was no such thing as the US in 1619.
If you have problems with this, maybe you need to take your grievance up with the British, and especially the Dutch. They are the ones who first brought slaves to the New World.
Of course, they will get right on your whine and pay reparations tomorrow to sooth your whining s/
The idea that nothing that happened in the British colonies prior to 1776 is part of American history is just stupid.
Find me an American history book that begins in 1776. I'll wait.
Those of us with common sense read our history book that begin before 1776 where absolutely no mention of the United States was mentioned before then.
Just because New World history is listed in American History books does not necessarily mean that the history mentioned happened in the United States. It simply lists events that happened on soil that later became the United States.
Take your whine to the British and the Dutch. Real Americans don't want to hear it.
The families that owned slaves in 1619 or 1650 are the same families that owned them in 1750 or 1850. It is part of American history for sure. Keep trying though.
Have you read any part of it?
If so, maybe you can provide a link from the project which actually claims that.
The only significance of the number 1619 is the year slavery infected our shores.
Even those these people are a conservative think tank, their review of 1619 is pretty objective
and explanatory
Fact Checking the 1619 Project and Its Critics – AIER
You should read it.
That's not true.
Right, because that's what you would say if Republicans were advocating for a similar project framed by an essay that claimed slavery wasn't a cause of the Civil War.
It's a ridiculous argument.
The First Continental Congress, which took place in 1774 was integral to the events that followed.
Skirmishes between Patriots and British troops occurred in Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1774.
Lexington and Concord happened in April of 1775.
The Second Continental Congress started in May 1775. It took them over a YEAR of debate for it to culminate in the Declaration of Independence in July 1776.
Bunker Hill happened in June of 1775.
The Siege of Boston began in 1775 and lasted until March 1776.
But if they had their way, NONE of that would be US history.
Talk about 'cancel culture'.
Yes, all you mention occurred before the formation of the United States of America.
Except....it's actually not. He cited you. You're just unhappy that he's called you out on your favorite bullshit tactic.
Is that how you're able to afford so many?
So now you're doubling down on the very thing you just claimed you weren't doing. This is hilarious.
They would have people believe that the slaves arrived holding drinks with little umbrellas and voluntarily went to work on the plantations.
For sure...
You know this how?
Even if they are the same, those between 1619 and 1776 were British or Dutch subjects of the colonies, not US citizens.
Your hole digging is certainly getting bigger.
You and yours really need to start READING for comprehension before you post kneejerk bullshit.
I said:
Note that I didn't say a fucking thing about indoctrination ONLY occurring if its in curriculum and/or syllabus.
Which makes Sean's comment a strawman and his snark about 'dishonesty' hypocritical.
Your 'I'm rubber, you're glue' argument is juvenile.
Tell you what Jack, when you come across me using a strawman argument, you just step right up and point it out. I'll wait.
WTF if that babble about?
So you agree that American history did not officially start until 1776 and from the years 1774 to 1776 were skirmishes between citizens of British colonies and the British government.
Who exactly are those "they" you are talking about?
WTF is that babble about?
Some folks imagine all sorts of things they can't support with logic or facts.
No. Reading is fundamental.
Sure is. Maybe you should take your own advice.
Show us in your comment that citizens of the United States fought with the British during the years 1774 to 1776, before the Declaration of Independence was ratified.
You won't because you can't, but, alas, we know where the goalposts are getting moved to.
Oh and BTFW, it's called the American Revolution bugsy.
That's right, it was. You actually got something right.
The land we now call America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian, hence the inhabitants were called Americans.
BUT, there were no states, only colonies, before we were officially known as the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA in 1776 with the ratification of the DOI.
1619 project is total bullshit.
Now, change the goal posts like you so dearly love to do.
It means nothing. Some on here think that if they use phrases that make them SOUND intelligent, they actually THINK the same.
Bugsy, the only one all this drivel from you is impressing is Texan.
That 'goalposts' thingy is fucking hilarious since you went from 'American' to 'citizens of the United States'.
You know that every resident of this CONTINENT is an 'American' right bugsy? RIGHT?
Canadians are Americans, Mexicans are Americans, Brazilians are Americans.
United States - History | Britannica
Wow, that almost sounds like you're recognizing that those inhabitants who were called Americans may just have been making American history BEFORE 1776 bugsy.
Nah, that would be too fucking logical...
American history didn't begin in 1776 bugsy.
I can't help but wonder why you would want to erase Lexington and Condor from US History.
Thanks for expressing your uninformed opinion.
American - citizens of the United States...that was YOU.
How in the hell is there room for me to live in your head when Trump takes up so much space?
Its sad that you are so incapable of discussing the topics. Your entire schtick is annoying people.
You sound like you are still mad I called you out for deflecting from a question you claimed I didn't know anything about after seeing me accurately quote the question to you, only to STILL have you deflect and never answer it.
Then YOU started up again today with your wisecrack about me (but not TO me, I wonder why?) so get out of here with your usual trolling crap.
If any of that annoys you, tough fucking shit.
Facts often seem to have that effect on you.
I can't believe (I really do, though) you don't get it.
Tell you what, Dulay
Show me a document where the US was referred to the UNITED STATES of America before the Declaration of Independence was ratified by all 13 colonies.
There were no such things as United States before 1776, only colonies of the British.
Anyone that does not realize this is simply delusional and trying to rewrite history to satisfy the stupidity of very few in the country.
Again...the 1619 project s total bullshit.
I can't believe you typed that with a straight face based on your annoying infatuation with a man who has been out of office for a year.
I suspect said infatuation will continue until at least one of them is dead.
This means nothing, John.
Show me where in your link the US was referred to as the United States of America before the ratification of the DOI.
My guess, and I'm usually correct, is that you will not respond coherently.
My guess is that if Trump goes first, someone will continue to have Trump deep in their minds well past that time.
[Deleted]
Only on Newtalkers will you find people trying to argue that the United States existed as a country before 1776.
Well, not exactly on newstalkers.
Libturds everywhere have bought into the 1619 bullshit lie.
What most of them won't answer is if the US existed in 1619, why did we not celebrate our 402 birthday last July instead of what we did celebrate..our 245th.
Posing that questions is a total lib stumper.
[Deleted]
I understand this, Dulay. Maybe (probably) what you STILL don't understand that anyone before the date July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was ratified, every person in this country were Americans, but not citizens of the United States. They were British subjects.
From July 4, 1776 to today, each person in this country are inhabitants of the United States of America.
Anyone believing this before the July 4, 1776 date is delusional.
Well, no it littoraly isn't. But it appears to be the first time businessmen with bills of lading and records brought
their living wares to theses shores to be sold. Jamestown is focused on because it was the first successful
English settlement in North America.
There are previous accounts of shipwrecked slaves reaching the North American coast in the 1400's.
Of course most of those first 500,000 slaves went to the present day port of Rio De Janeiro
and the Valongo Wharf which eventually accepted almost 5 million slaves.
Well because 1619 doesn't claim the USA started then. They make the claim that organized slave traders first
arrived at Jamestown.
Isn't Jamestown part of "our " collective history?
And Slavery wasn't just a British issue, while European countries could go to war at the drop of a hat,
on slavery they were unified and complicit.
So please continue the black and white hairsplitting of when American history started,
to avoid the blame of things that changed not one iota for the slaves, be they in SC or ME.
That's the real point of 1619, that 1776 only applied to educated, landowning white men
and 245 years later things are still not "equal' yet.
That is the most utterly ridiculous thing you've ever posted....including that time you demanded a list of shit that doesn't exist.
Never said it did, however, the 1619 has attempted to suggest that slavery started in the United States that year.
No citizen of the United States existed before July 1776.
And 245 years later, if you don't think things are equal, then maybe some are just not trying hard enough.
EVERYONE has equal access to what this country has to offer. You just need to WANT it, and work for it.
Not really
Well because 1619 doesn't claim the USA started then.
"The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year."
Jake Silverstein, NYT Magazine Editor in Chief
"The 1619 Project is a major initiative from the New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."
NYT intro to the Project
Then it should be easy enough to actually read all of the essays and provide a link to prove that.
Sorry brother the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is still a struggle.
The Controversial History of Levittown, America's First Suburb - Untapped New York (untappedcities.com)
2020
Trump Moves to Roll Back Obama Program Addressing Housing Discrimination - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
2022
Arlington settles federal housing discrimination lawsuit (msn.com)
2017
BANK OF AMERICA CORP. ET AL. v. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA | FindLaw
and your point is?
Does it categorically state that the nation started in 1619?
That's as disingenuous as stating that American history started with John Hancock's signature.
I LOVED your humorous reply, and am sorry it was deleted.
It was funny!
But I suppose a sense of humor is needed to actually be able to recognize that.
"The 1619 Project is a major initiative from the New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding"
The NYT is literally telling you exactly what it did. If you want to ignore it, that's on you.
hat's as disingenuous as stating that American history started with John Hancock's signature.
n August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began.
Lol
Uh, oh, must be time to get those goalposts moved after that post!
I can see it coming soon!
I do get it.
The rest is just strawman bullshit.
Carry on.
Congratulations, that's three strawman fallacies in a row.
Don't you think the whole paragraph should be published for context?
I accept hyperbole, especially about racial matters written by a minority.
Personally I think 1607 was the beginning of the first successful English settlement at Jamestown
thanks to Captain Smith and the beginning of America's modern history.
Lol...
Bingo, we have another winner! Slavery prior to 1776 would have to be blamed on the British as the 13 Colonies were in fact peopled by British subjects. That discredits 1619 right there. The liberal left pushing it just cannot/will not accept or deal with that. Ironically, my ancestors on my fathers's side did not come over on the Mayflower. They were actually on the Fortune, the next ship after the Mayflower one year later. According to family records, there were no slaves brought to the New World by either the Mayflower nor the Fortune and my family never owned slaves after that.
I have it on good conservative opinion that the NYT is a lying POS nest of liberal retards.
Why would you believe anything they say or overreact to it?
Good, 100% agreement.
Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves both prior to and after July 4 1776. How did they change on July 4?
No it doesn't
Who is pushing it on you?
Ok, so they came here in 1621? Good for your lieges avoiding slavery. No guilt for you /s
Columbus sailed the ocean blue and was here slaving in 1492, In 1526 a Spanish colony and 1583
a different Sanish colony had slaves dropped off by the White Lion who stole them somewhere in the Caribbean
from a slaver. Both colonies failed, unlike Jamestown.
I had paternal family members fight on both sides of the Civil War and only as far as we know, none could afford slaves.
Don't know, don't care. Absolutely no white guilt of any kind, but I do like to know the truth.
If it's bad (Uncle J tattooed his arms for every German he killed in battle,
and under other circumstances; kept a diary that makes "Fury" read like a nursery rhyme.)
Not my guilt either.
The answer is in the very part you block-quoted in your comment.
They were no longer British subjects.
Never mind. It is beyond you.
on't you think the whole paragraph should be published for context?
You can post the whole damn thing. It doesn't change what was written.
accept hyperbole, especially about racial matters written by a minority.
So you hold minorities to lower standards. Got it.
It changed because they were still British subjects prior to July 4, 1776.
You have never once in your life written anything beyond my understanding, and most likely never will.
Exactly.
People choose to deliberately misrepresent many conservative positions, this is just yet another example of it.
The obsession with race won't allow folks to move from the past.
Misplaced "white guilt" doesn't change anything and is a massive waste of time and makes those suffering from it look like the fools they actually are.
I agree, but I think it’s more common for scared people on the Right to look at an ordinary history curriculum and imagine that it’s CRT. These days, anything can uncritically be labeled CRT and then we have arguments about teaching CRT even though it’s not in the curriculum.
That is sensible. The problem is that some really demand a whitewashed version of history or they will find some angle to call it CRT...
Although I'm sure there are some that do not understand what is happening, I believe most people are smarter than that... Of course my history education started way back when they still taught actual history, and taught all aspects of it... not just an anti-racism biased version of history....
History shouldn't be slanted in any direction, it should teach what was and the whys it was that way so we don't make the same mistakes again..
Most people understand this innately and is why most people have an objection to the application of CRT to education...
It’s always going to be slanted in some direction because even just creating the curriculum makes a statement about what we think is important - what is worth our attention. There’s no avoiding it. There’s no one, single, objectively best history curriculum.
This, if I think it through I could probably agree with, there was a decided difference between my HS and College history professors in their approach to certain subjects... The same but different... but one thing I do know, it isn't a wholesale rewriting of history from a different slant... A racist social slant... Which is what CRT is...
First, let's be honest here. It's not conservatives who've tried to rewrite the "ordinary history curriculum." Remember the 1619 project?
But Very little about the CRT debate is actually about the "history curriculum." Sure people object when it's abused for partisan reasons, but It's objecting to teaching kids that race defines their existence and that kids are oppressors, or victims based on skin color is the central focus.
Yeah...but to be fair....for every one of those there's a counterpart on the left awash in their own white liberal guilt demanding we all validate them by feeling guilty for shit we had nothing to do with.
History IS... it doesn't have a slant, It doesn't have a perspective...
When you start down the road of teaching history to a certain perspective, you loose all sense of actual history.... You interject biases and yes prejudices into it... The discussion becomes one of intent of which a person is forced to choose...
History is facts and dates... Understanding of history comes from discussion of context which is where one can choose their perspectives and discuss them towards a greater understanding of what was... And why it isn't today...
CRT forces a perspective on the teaching of history... It seeks to teach history from a certain perspective as facts without context, the context being added by the instructor later not the context of the events....
It teaches racism.... it contextualizes hate... it creates a permanent sub class of people, the perpetual victim... and fills then with uncontextualized hate...
It is a racist ideal and should be dumped in the trash bin of all racialized ideals... Right along with Nazism
CRT isn't part of a HISTORY curriculum and doesn't have anything to do with teaching HISTORY.
CRT is college level academic LEGAL analysis. PERIOD, full stop.
Maybe you can inform the Superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools how wrong he is then.
Let him know he is a liar.
Detroit superintendent defends critical race theory and says it’s embedded in the curriculum (msn.com)
And the silence ensues
Yep, them crickets sure are chirping loudly!
Texan1211 is well aware that I ignore his posts and have done so for quite a while.
If you and yours are so desperate to give out points, give him a gold star for being ignored.
WTF is this babble?
Nice way to say you are unable to respond cohesively or without a probable snarky insult
Maybe you and yours could try a little harder.
yeah, and then they claim they have someone on ignore when we all know they are lying.
Notice how the people who ask the tough questions are allegedly ignored?
Easy enough for you to get on the ignore list., too.
All you have to do is ask a single question which destroys the left's narrative or simply state a fact they can't counter logically or sanely.
Works like a charm!
[deleted]
Yep. I have no problem if somebody puts me on ignore. In fact, that just means I don't have to deal with folks I have problems with and that just makes things easier for me.
Actually, it was a nice way of saying that there are those who are unworthy of reading or responding to.
No need bugsy, I take care of business just fine.
I don't have any current members on my 'ignore list'.
Never said you did
Never said you did.
[deleted]
It absolutely has a slant and a perspective. There are an endless number of ways to study and teach history.
It’s more than that though. It’s settings, environment, relationships, customs, and on and on . . .
Sure it does. So does saying that history is facts and dates - or countries and leaders, or wars, or migrations, or economics, etc. Any approach to history narrows the scope of the study, but it is possible to have wide-ranging discussions within that paradigm.
Seriously? Let’s consider a real world situation where a K-12 teacher is actually teaching genuine racism. How long do you think that would go on, for real? Do you really think a community would tolerate that?
On the other hand, if a teacher is teaching that racism has existed in America - including in government and institutions - I would say that just sounds like teaching history. Remember that there are text books and primary sources in any history class and the students will study them and think. History class is more than just a lecture or sermon from the teacher.
I think it’s valid to be involved with our kids’ educations, but the panic I see over CRT frankly looks cowardly and pathetic. As a parent myself, I do not fear what happens in school because I have a strong relationship with my kids and we talk about what they learn. The teacher’s voice is not the only one my children hear.
https://mynorthwest.com/2937573/rantz-teacher-uses-science-class-to-call-white-middle-schoolers-privileged-oppressors/?
Then what is teaching white power/priviledge doing in Science class?
There is also this....
Where she says...
When even the people defending CRT says it is... there is a credibility issue with those claiming it isn't...
Yeah that sounds like an unfortunate waste of time, especially for a science class. I see that it’s optional, at least. It’s probably not the first time a school or a teacher tried to work an idea they thought was important into the general curriculum. I bet many schools have worked patriotism or Christianity into the curriculum over the generations.
I’m not a big “acknowledge your privilege!” person, but I’ve also never had any difficulty recognizing that I enjoy certain privileges as a white, straight male born in the US. I have other privileges, too. I could probably make a long list.
I don’t think it hurts anything to be aware of privilege, although I think the big ones are mostly common sense. I don’t think it says everything there is to know about a person, though.
And if my kids were presented with this project, I would talk to them about it in just that way. I am not afraid of the teacher or the school’s agenda, whatever it might be.
This is the way.
Of course not. Political conservatives have latched onto CRT as the Bogeyman for the next election cycle. It’s the thing they are going to use to get people afraid of the Left so they vote for the party that will defeat CRT - even though it isn’t part of the curriculum, and really, no one wants it to be.
Most K-12 teachers know it would be a waste of time to try to have some kind of high level colloquy with students over the racist (or not) nature of law and institutions in America. That kind of analysis is just beyond anything you hit in the survey type courses that are typical of K-12. And anyway, the teachers are probably not even qualified to teach it.
The campaigns against CRT are a fake fight against an enemy that is not present. It’s tilting at windmills.
Are they directly teaching CRT in the classroom? no they aren't... What they are doing is teaching everything under the umbrella of CRT the approach to teaching is CRT....
There's been plenty of proof provided right here in the site... this kind of a statement is a very uninformed one...
Then you shouldn't have an issue posting a link.
This is the beauty of the campaign. You can describe vague circumstances and label them CRT, and everyone just accepts it. Or you can say it’s “like/inspired by/similar to/under the umbrella of CRT” and think you have the same issue. It’s just not this big, threatening, national problem that political types keep claiming it is.
It’s all just a tactic to drive people hysterically to the polls. It’s the old “be afraid . . . Be verrryyy afraid.”
A campaign that fulfills their desperation for a shiny object to distract away from REAL issues.
The funny thing is, that mirrors exactly the arguments posted right here on the board...
Out of all the linkages in that article, you pick the one that completely denies and defends their position... I feel that the real intelligent people, will read all the links rather than just cherry pick what supports their political agenda....
NWM, I QUOTED the 'memo' that YOU used to support your claim that they are teaching CRT.
So highlight where is says that NWM.
Or you can just admit what we can all see for ourselves. It doesn't say any such thing.
You quoted ONE page it just happens to be the ONE page that agree with what you propose... why don't you quote some of the other pages? or some of the other links other than the ONE page that agrees with your position...
Like I said, cherry picking a small piece and ignoring the rest...and EVERYONE can see that...
Weak argument... but that is typical.. people can accept your weak analysis of all the info there, or they can choose to read it themselves... Doesn't matter to me..
But the info is there... Can't help you choose to ignore it..
I quoted ONE page that just happens to be the ONE page that it the TOPIC of the article you linked. YOUR article LIES about that ONE page NWM. Deflecting from that FACT doesn't make it any less a FACT.
What 'everyone' can see is that YOU linked a hack article that LIED about the content of the document it disparaged.
I didn't post any 'analysis' NWM, I posted the document verbatum and asked YOU to support YOUR posit based on its actual content. It has to be obvious to anyone reading this 'discussion', that you are deflecting because you cannot.
Yes it is NWM and rather than ignore that information, I actually posted it in full.
Now YOU can keep tapdancing and trying to pretend that the document says what you say it says but I will rely on 'our readers' to decide for themselves.
Yeah you did, in your typical debate style, you took ONE page analyzed it as dismissing EVERYTHING else in the article then claim your right and I'm wrong...
I'm not tapdancing a damn thing, your dismissing with little fact... obviously you haven't read the article, haven't followed the links to the actual proof and probably can't be bothered... Cause your not here to actually discuss a damned thing just blindly argue and make it personal...
Probably cause your politics won't allow you to handle the truth....
I already did this LOONG before you did... so lets wait to see what they say... do they play the same childish game you do, or do they look at facts...
LOL
That's utterly delusional NWM.
Here is the sum TOTAL of my contribution to post 7.3.1:
You know something, I know you haven't read it, any of it, you picked one item and wish to dispose of the whole based upon that one item...
You really want to know how I know?
I've used links and quotes from other sections of that article to prove my point....
Here..
and here...
This was yesterday, they come straight out of that article you wish to dismiss out of hand and they absolutely prove your claim bogus... And my statement of your intent right on the money...
I'll restate it for you...
You, in typical fashion took one small piece of an entire article that supports your position and claims it destroys all the rest of the information in the article without even reading it...
Your done, exposed, Finis... political hate outweighs facts... proven beyond any shadow of doubt with your own words..
You own it...
I especially like the last paragraph from the first link.
Pure irony.
You mean the ONE item that is the TOPIC of the article NWM? The 'whole' is a LIE since it's title and posit are predicated in the ONE memo. The rest are just shiny objects, JUST like all your whining about what you think I have read because you are incapable of supporting your claim with FACTS.
All you had to do was block quote something that supports your claim from the actual content of the memo. Thanks for pointing out that you failed to do so for over 24 HOURS, though you've blathered a crap load of deflection in that same time period.
Neither of which proves a fucking thing about the memo from the Puyallup School District. Neither you nor your article PROVE that the School district was being misleading in ANY way.
Innuendo isn't PROOF.
I don't give a fuck about 'all of the rest of the information in the article' since the PREDICATE for it is a LIE.
That's an utterly delusional and frankly quite hilarious comment NWM. Own it.
I more prefer where she say this...
Question: Is my school teaching CRT? It depends. If your school or district has committed to diversity, inclusion, equity, social justice, or anti-racism, there are probably some elements inspired by or built on the foundation of critical race theory as conceptualized by the originators, even if no one has called it that.
So what your saying is she talks out both sides of her mouth correct? or you didn't read it all either, preferring to only read what you wanted to read...
Got it...
Try reading this one in it's entirety...
As you say, Pure Irony...
Of course you don't!!
What have I been saying all this time!
Thank you for admitting it!!!
One page and the WHOLE article is a LIE... It could be 200 pages of facts and data and to you it's all a lie cause the first paragraph agrees with your pre-conceived conclusions...
[Deleted]
[deleted]
You're really going to stand on "If" and "probably"?
Got it...right back at you.
A 40 year old "theory" about the facts of institutionalized racial discrimination, red lining and such,
that starting with Plessy and the horribly flawed "separate but equal" BS
has been codified into law over and over by none other than the guardians of that law, the SCOTUS.
Neither the theory or the real life consequences of SCOTUS decisions or deliberate refusal to hear obvious
cases of discrimination exist in a vacuum without victims, non white victims.
The sooner it's acknowledged by the whole country the better.
Call it CRT or whatever you want for convenience but like slavery,
discrimination was protected at the highest levels of our government
and there are still laws on the books and phrases in housing contracts not yet addressed.
As recently as 2015 Obama made enforcing the 1968 Fair Housing Act a priority.
In July of 2020 Trump rolled back the Obama program.
Just this month, just down the road...the City of Arlington TX, home of the Dallas Cowboys and AT&T stadium
is attempting to settle a feud with the Feds for housing discrimination
with the feeble excuse that because it has a policy of supporting Low-Income Housing Tax Credit developments only for seniors -- those 55 and older
it should be exempt from actually supporting and licensing affordable housing projects for other age groups.
No one should be prevented from living where they can afford to live.
And to address your "other issue" yes reality and the facts of the same are slowly creeping into all parts of society.
I think we all have to learn to deal with it, not pass more bad laws outlawing books, theories and what we can teach
in one state vs another.
It's foolish.
Wow, that there's some really delusional bullshit NWM.
Again, even the learning impaired now know that the premise of your WHOLE article is a LIE.
The Controversial History of Levittown, America's First Suburb - Untapped New York (untappedcities.com)
Trump Moves to Roll Back Obama Program Addressing Housing Discrimination - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Arlington settles federal housing discrimination lawsuit (msn.com)
BANK OF AMERICA CORP. ET AL. v. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA | FindLaw
At this point your only deluding yourself... and the good part is everyone with a fair minded brain can see it openly and plainly...
You did it to yourself.... More insults only makes the situation appear worse for you... that's all you got is insults.... The premise of the article is absolutely right on the money and one of the preachers of CRT and current originators admits it... So you may not like it I suspect, but it's there and there is nothing you can do about it... Plain to see for everyone...
Thank you very very much...
So now it's 'I know what you are what am I'?
Agreed, problem is there are too many people that hold dear to their own set of "Facts" unwilling to look at anyone else's position having any validity at all... ALL sides have some validity, that's what makes the issue particularly hard to resolve...
Things like housing discrimination and CRT do nothing but inflame passions and raise more injustices on top of long strings of such...
But then like was just illustrated, some won't give an inch off their long held beliefs.... As partisan and incorrect as they may be...
THAT'S where we need to start figuring out a way to come to some kind of consensus... problem is, when we find a leader willing to take on the job of leading us to consensus, they usually wind up dead... (like the good DR, who we are supposed to be honoring today)
AS usual, stories about CRT are filled with strawman and deflections about what it actually is that so many people find objectionable. It's not objections to teaching "what happened" or that slavery existed. Or technical claims that CRT is a legal theory and not taught in classes.
Andrew Sullivan cuts through the bullshit as well as anyone. As he said,
"
anti-racism requires that the truth be told. Put your big boy pants on.
There are anecdotal stories that a few teachers are telling children that white is bad or whatever. I havent seen anything that shows this to be the case on a widespread basis. Is that worse , in any case , than telling children that African slaves were "workers" who were treated well, or that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, or that claiming that confederate statues should stay up for their "historic" value? lol.
So you want kids to be taught "anti-racism?"
It's like you are making my case for me.
You need to post a link for your block quote Sean.
Justice prevails. The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation won a case stopping the California Department of Education from forcing students to pray to the Aztec God of Human Sacrifice as part of its "ethnic studies" curriculum.
So there's that at least.
Thread @5.1 locked for slap fighting.
[deleted]