Ron DeSantis, Black History and CRT
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 167 commentsBy: The Editorial Board (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When parents complained that Critical Race Theory was creeping into their children's classrooms, the left argued that CRT is strictly college material and isn't actually taught in K-12 schools. So how can progressives object now that Gov. Ron DeSantis is blocking a new high-school AP course in Florida on grounds that it's stuffed with CRT?
Florida rejected a planned Advanced Placement class in African-American Studies because it "lacks educational value" and "is a vehicle for a political agenda." In response, NPR quoted an academic "involved in creating the curriculum," who explained again that CRT is too advanced for high-school students. "There's nothing particularly ideological about the course," he added, "except that we value the experiences of African people in the United States."
The chattering class had already committed to that narrative by the time a draft of the AP framework leaked. It starts innocuously enough, with topics on Africa’s linguistic diversity and the history of the Songhai Empire. But keep reading until Unit 4 , which includes:
• “The Reparations Movement,” a topic that “explores the case for reparations,” in which students “may examine House Bill H.R. 40 and a text by Ta-Nehisi Coates.”
• “Movements for Black Lives,” which “explores the origins, mission, and global influence of the Black Lives Matter movement,” some of whose adherents have called for the abolition of prisons and police.
• “Black Queer Studies,” which “explores the concept of the queer of color critique, grounded in Black feminism and intersectionality, as a Black studies lens that shifts sexuality studies toward racial analysis.”
• “‘Postracial’ Racism and Colorblindness,” which “explores concepts such as postracialism, colorblindness, racecraft, or inequality.”
The political dispute over such coursework sometimes devolves into a tedious semantic debate over whether asking teens to contemplate intersectionality and read Ms. Crenshaw technically constitutes “teaching CRT.” In any case, Florida’s complaint about an underlying political agenda hardly looks frivolous.
Does an AP class that’s exploring “the case for reparations” also discuss the case against, including the fact that 21% of black Americans are first or second generation , and 18% of black newlyweds in 2015 married someone of a different race or ethnicity? The AP document has a topic on exploring the “diverse experiences and identities of Black communities in the U.S.” Somehow we doubt that this involves readings from Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas.
More to the point, does anybody think that if this kind of curriculum were put to a vote in Florida, it would get anywhere close to majority support? Mr. DeSantis’s administration is responsible for overseeing what happens in the state’s public K-12 schools. “We believe in teaching kids facts and how to think,” the Governor said, “but we don’t believe they should have an agenda imposed on them.”
Florida’s Education Department told the College Board, which runs the AP program, that it would “reopen the discussion” if the curriculum were revised. The College Board said Tuesday, without mentioning Florida, that it soon will release an “official” course framework to supplant the current pilot version. Meantime, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has urged no changes, saying his state expects history lessons that cover “the role played by black queer Americans.”
Critics of Mr. DeSantis argue that there’s an AP course in European History, which he apparently doesn’t mind. Maybe that’s because it appears to cover, uh, European history: the Reformation, the Congress of Vienna, the Iron Curtain. At a rally in Tallahassee, meantime, a chant rings out: “Black history is American history!”
That last sentiment is exactly right, which is why black history isn’t an elective. Florida mandates instruction on “the enslavement experience,” “the civil rights movement,” and the contributions of black Americans. Three years ago, Mr. DeSantis signed a law to teach the 1920 Ocoee massacre, in which a white mob killed dozens of black Floridians .
The K-12 curriculum is always a work in progress, but the right approach is to resist Balkanization, not to demand it. African-American history is indeed American history, and that’s how schools should teach it.
Tags
Who is online
24 visitors
As we can see above, the black history course, which is simply a part of American history, goes off the rails when it gets to it's final semester. The left has lied about what it teaches and when it teaches it. It's time to get the radical teachings out of our schools and the leftists out of the classrooms. It can be done. It is being done in the state of Florida.
The "LEFT" are not the liars here.
Afraid to comment on the actual article?
Afraid of what?
Afraid you can't spin it to fit your narrative of course.
You mean the truth?
“We believe in teaching kids facts and how to think,” the Governor said, “but we don’t believe they should have an agenda imposed on them.”
But isn't that what De Santis is doing? Doesn't he have an agenda to not teach kids about real history but to teach "his story", i.e. the Antebellum South? Because if you teach the real history, it will show not only (the continued) discrimination of blacks but also of all races considered but are actually not inferior by him and others like him. It will show how white males, perhaps their ancestors, raped and impregnated non-white women only to disown the child, calling it a bastard, half-breed and then calling it's mother a whore, loose, and other derogatory names.
It would also lead to kids learning about what really happened to the Natives, the Mexicans and how Tejas (what you call Texas), California and the "new" West came into existence, the Grandfather clauses, Poll tax, the Japanese concentration camps, Bloody Sunday...
These "conservatives" are frauds. We all know it! Even children/adults who can not articulate (put it into proper wording) know they are using psychological projection, self-delusion, and outright deception (lying) as a means to running their political party. Such "conservatives" labor under a misguided belief that this nation needs a "patriarch" system ran and entryways guarded by white, anglo-saxon, protestant, CONSERVATIVES primarily. All 'others' outstanding are secondary.
It was a foolish, reckless, system in the past for which the lie goes: this nation apologized and "promised" to see exist no more, but of course, here these "conservatives" are trying to instill "whiteness" (their outdated version of it) as the 'Great Again' - America. Lies, lies, and yes. . . more delusion and lies.
I don't think so.
Doesn't he have an agenda to not teach kids about real history but to teach "his story", i.e. the Antebellum South?
We already teach that. What the good Governor is against, as well as most decent folk is the teaching that one race is evil, while another is always a victim.
Because if you teach the real history, it will show not only (the continued) discrimination of blacks but also of all races considered but are actually not inferior by him and others like him. It will show how white males, perhaps their ancestors, raped and impregnated non-white women only to disown the child, calling it a bastard, half-breed and then calling it's mother a whore, loose, and other derogatory names.
I think you are trying to say that what took place in American history has a lot of nasty episodes. That's true and it is included in the basic teaching of American history. I also think that you and a few others want to go beyond all that. IMO most Americans acknowledge all of what happened, but they don't really need to hear people pounding the drum about it 24/7. How would do you think certain people would like it if I recited the crime statistics which show black crime to be way out of proportion with the black population, every single day?
Think it over.
All white people are not evil. And yes, as we can see with this January 7, 2023 death of Tyre Nichols, black men can be 'ridiculously' stupid and evil as they can be amazing smart and good.
The problem I see is this: Some "good" white folks want to protect their off-springs consciousness even as these same white people (vainly) try to selectively determinate what history is "just right" for little Timmy and Becky. Funny thing is, Timmy and Becky will become just a sick in the head (out of class instruction) when they pick up the truth of the past on the street!
Just like buying marijuana from a legal dispensary is a sounder choice than buying it from 'bootleggers' on the street, it would be better for them to hear this "instruction" in a formal setting than from some gutter mouth who will surely set Timmy and Becky straight. Now then, . . . .
Could it be, that what some conservatives are after is some sick, twisted, messed up some conservative 'youths' arguing over lies, misinformation, and omissions in public discourse for 'generations' as a form of never giving in?
Just pathetic.
Being woke is not a slur, it's idiotic to say that.
Real history is what really happened, not the whitewashed version.
Black crime can be corrected. What Whites are doing to black Americans and people of color can be corrected too! The question for you is when will some conservatives yield to making a 'more perfect union' - together, rather than trying to foist SOCIAL ENGINEERING of a some conservative (not all conservatives) worldview onto the hearts and minds of people who are liberal? (We, liberals, don't want and won't accept selective truth as told by some conservatives as the model of 'perfection'!)
You make no sense, as usual.
Are American high school kids taught the case for socialism ? Somehow I think not.
Black history classes should be oriented around events and issues that have had the most meaning and impact on the black community. It is widely recognized that the GI Bill after WWII resulted in an intended or unintended shortchanging of black veterans.
The impact of the GI Bill on blacks returning from WWII is often cited as one of the causes of the great generational wealth gap between whites and blacks.
What does this have to do with reparations? You figure it out.
Beyond that, we dont know that the case against reparations wont be made in these classrooms, although such a case can probably be summed up in a couple sentences. First of all many people say the mistreatment of blacks occurred over 150 years ago and so no one alive today is responsible. And secondly there is no money in the national treasury to pay black communities billions of dollars. That pretty much covers the case against reparations.
"Black history" by definition will emphasize the unique conditions that arose over the course of centuries pertaining to black people in America. Since virtually all of that history involves prejudice , personal and institutional, against blacks it is inevitable that it will make some white people unhappy.
Teaching students about the GI Bill, and many other things , will lead to the question of why wasnt anything done about it? In other words the question of reparations is ingrained within the exploration of black history, and cannot be otherwise.
The good , conservative , white people of America want a "black history" taught where no one is at fault. In this mindset although slavery happened in America it was no one's fault because slavery existed back to ancient times.
If slavery was not a white against black thing, how come when slavery ended in 1865 it took another 100 years for black rights to be recognized?
The evidence that slavery in America became completely intertwined with racism is overwhelming, but I bet you there isnt a conservative white person in America who wants to have their kids taught that whites kept black slaves BECAUSE of racism.
Where do you think the "states rights" argument came from ?
I think that racism came after slavery as a way to justify it.
Race based slavery in America was developed in the mid 17th century, after some people were being held as slaves, so in that sense you are right. But I'm not sure what the practical difference is in this chicken or egg equation when race based slavery persisted for another 200 years.
Wrong. Race based slavery in the British colonies in North America, ie, British citizens, was developed in the mid 17th century, brought to you by Africans, the Dutch and the British.
Accuracy and understanding.
So if the people who created race based slavery in America were not Americans, how come the practice wasnt ended on July 5, 1776 ?
lol
Because it was a deeply established practice with economic benefits by then. It ‘s like you have little understanding of history.
What is funny about slavery and racism?
That's something you will have to ask your ancestors about.
The United States of America did not exist until July4, 1776, putting slavery in the US at about 90 years. Everything before that is the responsibility of Africans, Dutch and British citizens.
So every non American who had lived in Virginia and perpetrated slavery for those "90 years" disappeared on July 4, 1776?
Hardly, they were the same people.
What is you point in this silly discussion?
The past cannot be reconstructed for our present. This isn’t a natural science. History isn’t any more simple than humans are.
Nope. They were still there, but were not officially referred to as Americans until July 4. Before then they were British colonists...ie, British citizens.
The debate about critical race theory is informed, on the part of some whites, by racism.
I watched a video last year of a woman who was the head of a group called Moms For Liberty in the state of Virginia. She objected to "critical race theory" and all the rest because , as she ultimately admitted, she didnt want her children being taught about racism. According to her they were not old enough to handle it.
People like her, and there are tens of millions, will agree to teaching slavery, Jim Crow, etc, as long as no one (like her) is blamed. In the eyes of people like that the mistreatment of people of color is something that just happened. This is the easiest way for her to move on - no foul no harm.
And all the rest?
At what age should we educate children on this postmodernist thought, skepticism of the idea of universal values, objective knowledge, and individual merit.
lol
get lost
And following, in July 4 1776 (the week of) the Committee of the Whole, a congressional panel with state representatives from the colonies, led by its president John Hancock, sought a vote against slavery's continuance among a people seeking independence from England, but two colonies: Georgia and South Carolina would not permit the clause to go forward. So it was not in the Declaration of Independence as a grievance amongst other listed grievances against the King of England, George III.
So who's fault was that?! England's or the newly formed republic? Which continued to keep slaves even on plantations belongings to officials who otherwise would see slavery ended.
I can't resist: Dennis Smith, what did LBJ do that would have "N***** voting for Dems for 100 years"? And once you share with us what THAT was, do you think it was worth the effort for Blacks?
If you carry this conversation forward answer the question? If you walk away or let it lapse, then we will know you were not sincere with its mention. Just being provocative and stirring around in 'old $hit.'
Yes. Now if I have answered your question; can you step out of the way and let Dennis Smith prove his independence and answer, please. Because I am pretty sure all I will get from your is empty rhetoric.
Don't worry about it, Texan1211.
I won't suppose what happened between southern and northern democrats, Texan1211. If you know, perhaps it may be helpful if you enlighten those reading this thread.
Empty lazy rhetoric. So sad. A waste. Where's Dennis Smith?. . . . . . DENNIS!
You can refer your snark to Texan1211, as I ain't impacted by that. As for your Biden whataboutism - what about him? You call yourself throwing LBJ under the bus so you must know what/why it was necessary. So again I ask you directly:
Probably for the same reason they didn't burn down all the buildings in existence at the time.
One, why didn't Republicans pushed their Northern and Southern brethren to make sure all slaves were actually freed with the Proclamation and not over 4 years later? Oh, I know, that war stuff got in the way, one thing at a time.
Two, why didn't the Republicans stop Jim Crow from becoming the law of the land after Reconstruction, when the former slaves were being denied their recently granted rights. Plessy v Ferguson anyone?
Three, if Republicans and Dems did what they were supposed to, there would not have needed to be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Voting Rights Act, do you not agree? I didn't see Republicans rushing to push it through either.
Granted, while there were those blacks that registered as Republican it was due to Lincoln being a Republican, not the overall party.
At the end, both sides have a lot to answer for in the history of this nation, and continue to do so; this one-sided sh!t has to stop.
Don't worry yourself, Texan1211.
How interesting the pendulum of time can be! Because now these "southern Republicans" are in majorities now with power; and yet, we all can count bigotry within the republican culture of southern "red" states. How pathetic it is that bigots can't shake the brand even when they try to mask it as fairness and equality.
Nope. Just don't worry about it.
I take it we are done. Bye.
Don't worry about it, Texan1211. I only humor you, anyway. As talking to you is like spooning rain drops on a stormy day. 99.99 percent of what you write (back) is empty rhetorical content, and you work really 'hard' to be consistent at delivering it.
Don't worry about it, Texan1211. Really. It's all going to be over sooner or later.
good , conservative , white people of America want a "black history" taught where no one is at fault.
do you think it’s the job of school teachers to assign blame for events based on race? Blaming entire races for things seems like it went out of style in the 40s, seems like bringing it back is a bad idea.
Today we are going to talk about 9/11 and how Muslims are too blame for it.
“If slavery was not a white against black thing, how come when slavery ended in 1865 it took another 100 years for black rights to be recognized?”
Exactly. And a point that cannot be ignored…and a sad chapter in our history that should be taught, lest we in some unimaginable way implicitly condone it in ignoring it, or worse, explicitly excuse it through legislation.
What makes you think that African slavery has ended?
Top 10 Countries with the Highest Prevalence of Modern Slavery (by slaves per 1000 residents) - Global Slavery Index 2018:
Interesting the list does not mention Qatar, Saudi Arabia or any of the Emirates.
Because white democrats did not let it happen.
That's not true but what else is new?
Really?
Who had control of southern states from after the Civil War to approximately the 1980s?
Wasn't Republicans.
[removed]
“Wasn't Republicans.”
Flip your Whig.
Typical revisionist history from some.
Denial of reality by some. Remember what the "Solid South" was?
Democrats resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Look it up
“…Southern Democrats…”
Such a stale argument when discussing our history of oppression.
Who didn’t even have the right to vote? Who couldn’t go to any school, or ride in the front of a bus, or sit at any diner, or stay in any hotel, or drink from any water fountain?
And who, to this day, diminishes those atrocities for political expediency? And who, to this hour, is opposed to the teaching of facts, and who, to this minute, will deny we have a long way to go if bridging the divide is even important.
The answer is black and white, not party affiliation from half a century ago.
I'm always amazed by the education liberals claim to have gotten. It bears no resemblance to anything I was exposed to. They apparently went to school in the 1870s. Otherwise its hard to understand their complete lack of exposure to what's been taught in schools for generations.
Rhetorical…but perhaps you failed that particular lesson. Shallow, tex.
It is not we who are denying reality. That would be you.
They are still doing it today in the form of social welfare, affirmative action and other programs to keep blacks tied to the democrat plantation.
Because of white democrats.
There. I finished the sentence for you.
Better than the republican plantation, where some conservatives are booting out real republicans into the fields and walled themselves inside the "Big House." Anyway, social justice is needed, because it is clearly evidenced that some conservatives don't know how to play fair with each other (the republican party is splitting itself down the middle without any assist from democrats) at-known liberals.
Poor old broken down and delusional republican party; who can put it back together again?
LBJ did a great thing and the fact that some conservatives think he didn't and dare to twist his words about to suit some foulness in the conservative eco-system means nothing to democrats and independents. Some conservatives y'all have no brand as you stand for nothing worthwhile unless it is meddling and holding other people down and with that lack goes your brand and its credibility.
Well, I am a Black homosexual man and I assure you I UNDERSTAND quite a bit about what LBJ did and said. And for your information, black Americans have had to take less from white Americans (conservatives anyway) than LBJ offered with a smile on our faces.
I was very much alive during the presidency of LBJ! We expected nothing too much from him, because we were never given any hope or certainty of receiving anything we asked. So. . . if a repentance racists wants to help black people (finally), to do 'right' by us, why should we be overly concerned about some wise-crack he may have delivered while 'breaking the bonds of our oppression'? Why Dennis?
Could it be that you are sitting in judgement of a LBJ comment, because it offended you that a racist did not behave with racial indignation against us? Analyze why some conservatives 'taunt' the deceased LBJ rhetoric today. Keeping in mind, LBJ is not in this threat-you introduced him. WHY?
And for the record, I vote every time I 'the door is open" partially on the strength of what LBJ did with the Voting Rights ACT. Indeed, when I go vote or now days mail in my vote. . . my mind brings up the Voting Rights Act 1965. Additionally, I vote every time, because for the most peculiar of reason I find it odd that the Voting Rights Act has to be revisited/renewed by Congress every so often—though, one would think it would have needed only done once! Why do minorities (Black people) have a separate "dispensation" to vote free and clear of bullshit factors dredged up in individual states for 'them'?
Finally, just like President Lincoln and every other president-no matter who it is or will be-evolution takes time and when s/he does evolve it won't stop them from making unacceptable or -assbackward- of the cuff commentary which will be caught and trapped in time for her/his critics to repeat. Thus, I don't care that LBJ was a racist (he honored JFK by sticking with "the plan" to make Black American lives better than they were at the time. I don't care that Lincoln critics can point to he was after making black men free in a way that would not OFFEND white Americans of his day. I can imagine both presidents had their heated discussions with their. . . detractors. . .who were 'swearing' to make both their political careers short (and did so) and yet they did the "impossible" for people of color.
Lastly, why does it offend you that LBJ helped people of color-even when other democratic congressmen and senators were telling him-warning him not to help us in any way shape or fashion?
So what? Does that invalidate my stating my racial classification and sexual preference? Just because you can't bother to care does not mean that being both has not affected my entire life at the hands and policies of a white/Anglo-saxon/protestant/straight majority!
Okay, I am aware that LBJ lied about Vietnam (and that is on you as a Vietnam Vet). That is a move of the goalpost from "N****** voting for 200 years for dems" to presidential lies about war policies, nevertheless. And incidentally, it matters to you to make mention of your role in Vietnam. Similarly, my experiences as a black American living under presidents before and after LBJ matter and are relevant too! Either both of our lives/conditions under LBJ matter or neither matter.
One last important statement. Thank you for the service you provided to the United States and President LBJ. What he did in lying may have indirectly been responsible for your injuries and for this I can say presidents should consider the 'cost' in manpower and this will fall flat no matter how I add it: Just tell the truth as best they can! I respect your service and any residual pain you may carry from the LBJ 'years.'
Don't worry about it.
“I do not worry about trifling things.”
That is the single most unaware statement ever uttered hereabouts.
That's true.
When have you ever supplied a fact, any fact????????????
“…are you just assigning some hidden meaning to the sentence due to not comprehending it?”
Trifle much?
I am a veteran as well. I volunteered, And all my young adult life I 'fell in' with many people mentally even if not literally. That is, it 'took' the military to bond me to time and space next to and touching other races/ethnic groups. Yes! It was a 'mash-up' of whites, blacks, yellows, red, and the occasional homosexuals. I have 'fond' memories for various reasons of what I expected to happen being surrounded by men all the time—because as it turned out it was years of the best time in my life. There were mistakes, there were shortcomings, but I still remember them all overall as the greatest bunch of guys ever—even the 'rocks' who could not get their jobs done without 'needy' assists.
One more thing: the big 'surprise' was military men as it turns out are not offended by having homosexuals in the ranks. . . just as long as it is kept 'respectable' and tactful. At least, back then it didn't matter too much.
Therefore, I know what you mean on a personal level.
Regarding LBJ, I signed up to join the service and at the time I remember a book that I can't quite place the name of now, about him announcing he was 'suing' for peace with North Vietnam war while he was actually (it got reported later) 'firebombing' escalating the war. I can still remember praying before I went into boot-camp that I would not lose my life in some meaningless political controversial happening ("lie), but now my life was signed over and in the hands of God and the government at the time. The closest similarity to what LBJ did in Vietnam with lying that I can come is 9/11 when Tillman left professional football, joined up to go to Afghanistan - got shot by 'friendly fire' and died. A waste of a special guy and a special life.
I mention LBJ's lie being on you, because you brought the 'nam perspective into a discussion about state-side civil rights and voting rights—a 'war' of a different kind. No matter. No harm. No foul.
Thank you for reaching out to the other side. I can 'reach back' too. We don't have to be bitter and raw just because we see political matters differently. Indeed, I am boning up on the differences between our poltiics in a big way these days. I see the 'straight-lines' and the boxes conservatives check for what they are now. The thing is, liberals and progressives simply can't be boxed in and sometimes our lives are defined by being outside the lines. But, . . . .
That only speaks to why we need each other. Why we are in the "trenches" of this nation 'drawn together' in spite of what has become political irreconcilable and taut. We need each other on a deeper level. We're nothing as a partial country and do great damage to ourselves and our brand by these internecine political upheavals, and social media attacks done for "the cause."
All for now. It's late. Good night. God bless America and God bless you, sir!
One more thing, Dennis. Being president as we can all imagine is hard. Understatement, of course. Standing in between domestic and international political parties determined to have a conflict or 'perpetual' war, or that just has not had their 'fill' of conflicts and war can lead to some interesting/distressing moments of decision-making. . . . . Some not pretty. All such decisions affecting people up and down the line.
The above does not help much with the issues of your life caused by war policy-making.
And, in my case, stigmatizing LGBTQ service-members by barring us from service or 'tossing' us out of the armed forces by claiming, for an indefinite number of years, LGBTQ folks would be 'easy' subjects for blackmailing into espionage/treason/etceteras acts, when as we see today the 'fix' simply was to take away the stigma and armed forces policy against allowing LGBTQ in the service. Instantly, the capability to blackmail when "poof"! It took a lot of work, lost years/generations of LGBTQ not being able to serve their country or benefit from such service, and it stigmatized permanently a great many people.
Such are the hard decisions presidents must make which get some people injured/killed/disfigured/left out.
We've gone from progressives denying CRT could be possibly taught in schools, to claiming it's exclusion is unconscionable.
It's like clockwork.
“It's like clockwork.”
…more like a ‘clockwork orange’…
An interesting movie about governmental power in the name of progressivism.
“…in the name of progressivism.”
….in the name of controlling every aspect of our lives.
Yes, that’s progress, right?
No, that is regressive…when personal freedoms are restricted or even eliminated and ultimately controlled by the state.
Clockwork Orange had absolutely nothing to do with progressivism
The use of drugs and aversion therapy to fight crime is very progressive as compared to prison, no?
So anarchy is progressive, laws are regressive.
Add a heaping dash of nihilism and you have defined Steve Bannon.
Both were popular techniques in the conservative/religious world to 'cure' homosexuality.
Interesting how extreme opposites come together.
Indeed. The novel was set in a dystopian society, while ours is entirely dysfunctional. The similarities are frightening and a cautionary tale.
The fact that a traitor like Donald Trump can be considered a viable candidate for the next presidential election is, in itself, more than ample proof that our society is dysfunctional.
If you believe this, you would be bashing both sides equally.
You are the one claiming that restrictions of personal freedoms are regressive. That's exactly what laws do. Or you are arguing you and Bannon are ideological twins?
Where did I do that? Unlike Bannon I do not believe everything must be destroyed in order to build some inane farm in which I am a top pig. Bannon is a Trotskyist Dystopian (a.k.a. pig) in search of a fiddle, I am a Libertarian Monarchist who would abdicate on day 1 to take harmonica lessons.
Where did I do that?
My bad, I thought I was replying to Afrayedknot.
Not to worry, in one of my abridged dictionaries 'forget' is immediately followed by 'forgive'.
I should create a equal bashing quota system.
Do that, I am talking from experience, and both sides will line up to lop off your head QEI style.
CRT is being taught in college, but not grades K-12
It shouldn't/t be taught in high school at all, if so, then only as an elective...for those who give a shit.
Where did I say it was taught in high school?
I didn't because it isn't.
So basically this piece states that DeSantis has control over K-12 yet this is a college course.
So he is threatening a college.
So a college kid is old enough to go off and die in war yet in Florida they are not old enough to take a class on Black studies...
The claims of indoctrination ring hallow when they are not even using their own parameters...
It about teaching kids who are in high school..
An advanced placement class that sounds optional...
Then the article goes on to say they should teach what they want instead...Goes on to ask, why not teach this or this instead...
Also, why does the things listed bother you so much? They don't bother me.
I'm late to the party.
This looks like a lot of "debates". No one takes the time to define the applicable vocabulary, everyone is soon talking past each other. Exactly what does CRT mean in this context? I presume that Florida law defines it.
That would be a good place to start.
Fancy meeting you here! Small 'world.' Believe it or not I was thinking about you just last week (I do that about several 'missing' commenters). Welcome back. Hope you stay. Of course, we're talking pass each other and its sad and unfortunate too. Partly, because some here are simply here as 'place-holders' doing there damnest to fill the space-cut a shallow trail, but not deepen the path! So what can others do? It's a form of psychological 'warfare' meant to frustrate the 'room.' I guess 'they' want us to give up and just 'quit'!
Welcome back, Bob Nelson!
My intention is to ignore the chid's play, and try to initiate conversations.
Yeah, probably hopeless... but I'll try.
Why would this writer doubt Sowell, Thomas, or [Tavis] Smiley, Ben Carlson, and conservative activist Candace Owens "writings" would be left out of a balanced AP class. Afterall, it is an advanced class which by definition means it ought to engage the mind with clear critical thinking.