CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman

[James R]

Bells:

Dude!

Come on!

Is this really a hill you want to die on?

No. It's not important.

Have you not been aware that in red states in the US, a certain revision is taking place when it comes to American history?

Well, that really depends on what you mean. The US is a diverse place. Lots of different groups are constantly fighting to try to mandate the teaching of their own preferred versions of history, religion, politics etc. Referring to "red states", I assume you mean that certain Republican legislators and/or governors have introduced or want to introduce laws that constrain what is taught to students in their states. If that's what you're talking about, then yes, I have been aware of that for some time now. Thanks for asking.

And it is not just in the US. John Howard:

John Howard ceased to be Prime Minister in 2007. He is no longer in a position to directly influence what is taught to Australian students.

The British colonisation of Australia was one of their most brutal and deadliest in their history. They were certainly more successful than other European countries when it came to their attempts to take everything, deny First Nations Peoples their human rights and any rights, not to mention a couple of centuries of policies that were genocidal. In that regard, he is correct, they were "more successful". But would First Nations Peoples consider it "lucky"? No.

Why are you telling me this, like I'm unaware? Perhaps if you don't immediately leap to conclusions about what I believe or think or know, it might be better. You could always ask, for instance, if you want to know.

But let's go back to the US and Florida in particular.

I have some knowledge of DeSantis and his "anti-woke" legislation. The knowledge that I have was one reason I expressed the desire to know more about some details. You don't need to start with an assumption that I'm ignorant, Bells. Doing so is waste of your my time and, actually, more of a waste of yours as you try to tell me how to suck eggs.

Attempting to erase history by rewriting it is a tried and true method, particularly for despots.

I'm so glad I have you here to tell me these things. (Seriously?)

But let's consider what they want to teach children and students at all levels of education in Florida:

This is where you could have started, saving yourself some time and effort.

A teacher told a Jacksonville television station that one part of the curriculum suggested that “the founders, quote, ‘did all they could,’ on the issue of slavery, that was what they were trying to convince us of.”

I was hoping for a first-hand account of the legislation, actually, not a fourth-hand account. Here we have a rather long chain: legislation -> curriculum -> teacher -> television report -> article about television report -> Bells -> James. I would have preferred something more along the lines of: legislation -> Bells -> James. Just saying.

By late 2021, DeSantis had fully leaned into his persona as the Republican battling “wokeism,” whatever that meant at the moment. He advocated the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which would, among other things, “[take] a stand against the state-sanctioned racism that is critical race theory,” as he said in a statement. “We won’t allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other.”

I'm actually aware of all this background. What I wrote was "I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?"

Admittedly, I could have been more specific about what I was looking for.

Once signed into law, Florida’s Board of Education was tasked with revising the overall social studies curriculum in the state. Those revisions were made public last week, immediately triggering outcry over the way in which slavery was addressed. At one point, for example, the curriculum recommends that a discussion of the work performed by enslaved people consider “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

See, the kind of thing I'm wondering is whether this curriculum item stems from a specific provision in the legislation, or whether the Board of Education has its own agenda, or whether it has been captured by people pushing a particular (racist) agenda.

They have literally outlawed critical thinking and addressing the realities of US history in that state.

Literally outlawed critical thinking, eh? Are you sure about that? Or is that just a bit of an exaggeration?

Please note: I don't disagree with you about attempting to obscure the realities of US history etc.

Here is a link to Florida's State Academic Standards for Social Studies for 2023: https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

These are the subjects that fall under that banner as per their standards ....

Do you know how many times the word "racism" appears in that document? Three times.

Thanks. That's more the sort of thing I was after.

If we consider US history, the history of racism, the manner in which racism has affected all minorities, from the time of colonisation, through to slavery and beyond, to how minorities and particularly African Americans have been impacted by entrenched systemic racism in US society at all levels (from affecting their fundamental human rights, their over-representation in the criminal justice system, access to housing, education, healthcare, employment).. A curriculum on social studies only mentions the word "racism" 3 times and does not instruct to discuss systemic racism that persists in the US to this day.

Does the curriculum instruct not to discuss systemic racism? Or does it seek to downplay it by pretending it doesn't exist?

In fact, they are very clear and set out what can be covered.

I'd like to know more about that. What, specifically, can and can't be covered?

As for the text that you are questioning because you do not seem to believe it.

Excuse me?

How could I "question" a text I had not seen?

What on earth gave you the impression that I "don't believe it"?

You're way ahead of yourself here, Bells. Don't buy into Tiassa's bullshit about me. That man is a hate-filled unrepentant liar.

From the curriculum standards for social studies for this year in Florida that I linked above. Here is a screen shot:

View attachment 5514

These are instructions to schools on what students are to be taught.

I hope this clears up any of your confusion.

What confusion?

Again, just to remind you, I wrote: "I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?"

Did somebody make it a crime to request information, while I wasn't looking, or something?

If this is the reception I'm going to get whenever I ask a question on a sensitive topic, I think I might be better off looking elsewhere for answers.

Right now James, you are kind of standing out.

That happens when the forum has low traffic. All posters stand out.

 

[James R]

This push to rewrite US history and how it is taught in the US is based on the right's angst at "critical race theory". The reason why that curriculum on social studies only mentions the word "racism" 3 times, is because it is a direct response to critical race theory. This might make it make sense for you:

Fox News has mentioned “critical race theory” 1,300 times in less than four months. Why? Because critical race theory (CRT) has become a new bogeyman for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s racist history and how it impacts the present.​

This description of the Fox News coverage is not, itself, unbiased. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you. But it does make assumptions, including about where a reader's sympathies will most likely lie. It is useful to aware that politics happens on both sides.

Or consider this from the same link:

The approach of some Republican-led state legislatures is a method for continuing to roll back racial progress regarding everything from voting rights to police reform. This is a horrible idea and does an injustice to our kids. Laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism, would put a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss in the classroom and provide cover for those who are not comfortable hearing or telling the truth about the history and state of race relations in the United States. Ironically, “making laws outlawing critical race theory confirms the point that racism is embedded in the law,” as sociologist Victor Ray noted.​

This talks of "laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism".

What I want to know is: are there any such laws, in fact? If so, what do the laws actually say?

I hope it isn't just political rhetoric, intending to enrage those of a non-Republican political persuasion, to claim there are laws forbidding the mention of race/racism etc.

Besides, wouldn't any such law be in breach of the First Amendment to the Constitution in the United States? My impression is that Americans, in general, aren't too keen on censorship of speech, although I am, of course, aware that special-interest groups often attempt to get things they don't like censored, which is bit ironic, seeing as they rely on the very "free speech" they want to quell in order to push their agendas.

I am also interested in the quoted sociologist's claim that "racism is embedded in the law". What does he mean? Which laws are explicitly racist? Are there examples of explicitly racist American laws? Or does he mean something like the effect of some laws is racist, in practice? Is critical race theory actually "outlawed" anywhere? Lots of people seem to be talking about it.

Now, go back to that curriculum standard for Florida and how it mentions the word "racism" 3 times. Two of which were for essentially the exact same thing and the third time to explain scientific racism in connection to the Holocaust.

Do you understand what it has to do with critical race theory now?

Is there a Florida law that says something along the lines that "The teaching of Critical Race Theory is a crime, for which the punishment is ..."? Or, if not a crime, some kind of civil offence? Why wouldn't such a law be struck down on First Amendment grounds?

 

[James R]

billvon:

And given that the curriculum in question was American history, then yes - our version of slavery was racist.

Yes. Like I said.

Not in Florida. In Florida students will be taught that the act of keeping a slave is sometimes a positive.

Surely the curriculum relating to slavery covers more than just teaching the "skills learned" by slaves? Or doesn't it?

The change to the curriculum is pretty straightforward. In the new Florida State Academic Standards (i.e. the approved state curriculum) there is this notation under the African American History strand*:

SS.68.AA.2.3 :

Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).
Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

(* - they call different history units 'strands' in Florida.)

Thanks. So this is item SS.68.AA.2.3. Are there are other items relating to slavery? It would be very strange if this was all there is, in my opinion. Is there, for example, a SS.68.AA.2.2? What does that one say?

Critical race theory is the study of structural racism. Structural racism is racism that is not promulgated by any one person, but rather by structures in society and/or government. One example would be redlining, a practice where banking institutions (not the bankers themselves) routinely denied mortgages to African-Americans. Another example would be a government requirement that children be taught that American slaves learned skills that benefitted them personally.

Thanks. I believe this was covered earlier in the thread, though.

 

[billvon]

Surely the curriculum relating to slavery covers more than just teaching the "skills learned" by slaves? Or doesn't it?

Of course. That is one part of it.

Thanks. So this is item SS.68.AA.2.3. Are there are other items relating to slavery? It would be very strange if this was all there is, in my opinion. Is there, for example, a SS.68.AA.2.2? What does that one say?

I am not going to post the entire Florida state curriculum here; indeed, you would likely scold me if I did. It is trivial to Google it, but if not here is the entire document:

Microsoft Word - 6A-1.09401 Social Studies (fldoe.org)

 

[James R]

...critics say teachers are unlikely to do that for fear of being singled out and possibly punished for being too 'woke.'" And it is true, despite other injunction, the "Stop Woke Act" remains in effect for K-12.

What are the punishments in Florida for being "too woke"?
What does the "Stop Woke Act" actually do?

Probably these questions are off-topic for this thread, unless that Act has something to do with critical race theory. Does it?

 

[James R]

I am not going to post the entire Florida state curriculum here; indeed, you would likely scold me if I did. It is trivial to Google it, but if not here is the entire document:

Microsoft Word - 6A-1.09401 Social Studies (fldoe.org)

Thanks. Very useful, and worth a read-through to get some perspective on where item SS.68.AA.2.3 fits into the overall scheme.

There are many other items listed on the topic of slaves and slavery. For instance, we could pick one at random, say SS.912.AA.1.7, which prescribes the teaching of the following:

• Compare the living conditions of slaves in British North American colonies, the Caribbean, Central America and South America, including infant mortality rates.

This one also includes some "clarifications":

• Clarification 1: Instruction includes the harsh conditions and their consequences on British American plantations (e.g., undernourishment, climate conditions, infant and child mortality rates of the enslaved vs. the free).
• Clarification 2: Instruction includes the harsh conditions in the Caribbean plantations (i.e., poor nutrition, rigorous labor, disease).
• Clarification 3: Instruction includes how slavery was sustained in the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana and Brazil despite overwhelming death rates.

This curriculum, read as a whole, doesn't leave me with the impression that it was great to be a slave because you had the opportunity to learn some new skills.

How about you?

 

[billvon]

This talks of "laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism".

And prohibits kids from talking about it.

What I want to know is: are there any such laws, in fact?

The law that applies to sexual orientation/gender is HB1557.

If so, what do the laws actually say?

The law prohibits “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” and also states “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”

Besides, wouldn't any such law be in breach of the First Amendment to the Constitution in the United States?

Yes. However, we now have a Supreme Court that is being paid to make decisions that promote republican causes. Thus any republican laws will tend to be found constitutional.

I am also interested in the quoted sociologist's claim that "racism is embedded in the law". What does he mean? Which laws are explicitly racist? Are there examples of explicitly racist American laws? Or does he mean something like the effect of some laws is racist, in practice?

None say "arrest all black people" or anything like that. They, instead, attempt to target black (or other) people by their characteristics.

For example, a Mississippi law passed in 1890 did not ban blacks from voting - even though that was the stated goal of lawmakers. They knew that they could not get away with simply banning blacks from the polls, due to them being the losers of a war in 1860 over a similar issue. So instead they required all voters to pass a literacy test and pay a poll tax. Recently freed slaves generally could not read (since they were never taught) and could not afford poll taxes. It worked - the law prevented over 90% of blacks from voting in Mississippi.

That law is still on the books, although it is now superseded by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Is critical race theory actually "outlawed" anywhere? Lots of people seem to be talking about it.

Yes. 16 US states have passed laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory.

Is there a Florida law that says something along the lines that "The teaching of Critical Race Theory is a crime, for which the punishment is ..."? Or, if not a crime, some kind of civil offence?

In Texas, HB3979 (passed into law) states (in part)


No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: . . . meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

(bolding mine)
This has been interpreted by courts in Texas to include the study of institutional racism (i.e. CRT.) For example, under that law, teaching that the Mississippi legislature passed the 1890 law with a goal of suppressing the black vote is not legal.

Why wouldn't such a law be struck down on First Amendment grounds?

Again, see above. The US Supreme Court is now under control of republicans.

 

[billvon]

This curriculum, read as a whole, doesn't leave me with the impression that it was great to be a slave because you had the opportunity to learn some new skills.

How about you?

I think requiring teachers to teach that slavery had benefits is horrendous.

Imagine, for example, a middle school teacher teaching about current events being required to teach that modern day human sex trafficking teaches girls valuable real life skills.

 

[James R]

And prohibits kids from talking about it.

Seriously? Difficult to police, I would think.

What is the penalty if you're a kid who gets caught talking about racism or sexism?

The law that applies to sexual orientation/gender is HB1557.

The law prohibits “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” and also states “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”

Does this level cover all classrooms from K-12, or are there specified age brackets? Does the law cover classroom discussions in universities and other tertiary institutions, or adult education more generally?

Yes. However, we now have a Supreme Court that is being paid to make decisions that promote republican causes. Thus any republican laws will tend to be found constitutional.

Laws that blatantly violate the first amendment have been found constitutional? Do you know of any specific examples of that?

None say "arrest all black people" or anything like that. They, instead, attempt to target black (or other) people by their characteristics.

For example, a Mississippi law passed in 1890 did not ban blacks from voting - even though that was the stated goal of lawmakers. They knew that they could not get away with simply banning blacks from the polls, due to them being the losers of a war in 1860 over a similar issue. So instead they required all voters to pass a literacy test and pay a poll tax. Recently freed slaves generally could not read (since they were never taught) and could not afford poll taxes. It worked - the law prevented over 90% of blacks from voting in Mississippi.

That law is still on the books, although it is now superseded by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

So it is the intent behind making the laws and practical effects of the laws that is at issue, and not that the laws are framed in a way that directly and overtly discriminates on the grounds of race? This is why the laws are referred to as "racist"? Because the people who made them wanted a racist outcome, and the effects of the laws as written were racially discriminatory?

Is this what Americans usually mean when they talk about "racist" laws these days, then?

Yes. 16 US states have passed laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory.

In Texas, HB3979 (passed into law) states (in part)

No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: . . . meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

What are the omitted words before "meritocracy"? Because without them this doesn't make much sense to me. The word "or" seems to be referring back to something you have omitted.

This has been interpreted by courts in Texas to include the study of institutional racism (i.e. CRT.) For example, under that law, teaching that the Mississippi legislature passed the 1890 law with a goal of suppressing the black vote is not legal.

It would seem that this would make it impossible that a law concerning, say, historical racial segregation, could be discussed in a classroom because clearly such laws were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race. In these circumstances, teaching any history of race in America would seem to be impossible.

Again, see above. The US Supreme Court is now under control of republicans.

The Supreme Court is definitely a broken institution, given its current constituency. Along with its partisan decisions goes the respect and status the court previously had.

American democracy is facing dangers on multiple fronts at the moment. The most pressing dangers are found within rather than outside.

 

[James R]

I think requiring teachers to teach that slavery had benefits is horrendous.

The item in question seems to be one item out of hundreds. I don't know why that particular "clarification" was included, or by whom. It seems like a very odd thing to emphasise, there. However, in the context of the entire document, I think it would be difficult to take away the impression that slavery was a good thing. The curriculum document isn't written to teach the material, either; it is there to direct the teachers, who are supposed to already know the subject well enough to teach it to others.

As a general point, I don't think that teaching anything that is true is necessarily a bad thing. It would follow, therefore, that if slavery had some benefits, I don' t think it should be impermissible to discuss those benefits in a classroom. To prohibit such discussion would be just as much an act of censorship as prohibiting discussion of the evils of slavery. Mandating the discussion of the benefits of slavery, on the other hand, is a somewhat different matter.

Imagine, for example, a middle school teacher teaching about current events being required to teach that modern day human sex trafficking teaches girls valuable real life skills.

I'm with you on the "being required to teach..." part.

Usually, school curricula are meant to give schools a common framework and to set standards of what children are expected to learn. They are not typically framed as punitive or restrictive. The usual aim is to set minimum expectations of what is to be learned.

The Texas law certainly seems to go beyond that, and I expect the Florida one does too. The mandated curricula in those cases seem to include items and restrictions motivated by ideology rather than pedagogy and scholarship.

However, from what I've seen of this Florida curriculum so far, I'd say that if the thing about the skills slaves learned is the worst example its critics can find of "racism" or a "pro-slavery" stance, then I think the moral panic about this might be a little overblown.

 

[billvon]

Seriously? Difficult to police, I would think.

Of course. It's nearly impossible to police individual speech. However, if an LGBT club tries to form, they have ammunition to shut it down.

What is the penalty if you're a kid who gets caught talking about racism or sexism?

Up to each school.

So it is the intent behind making the laws and practical effects of the laws that is at issue, and not that the laws are framed in a way that directly and overtly discriminates on the grounds of race? This is why the laws are referred to as "racist"?

They are referred to as racist because they disproportionately affect specific races. Sometimes this is intentional (as in the Mississippi law) and sometimes it's unintentional. Again, CRT is the study of exactly that.

Because the people who made them wanted a racist outcome, and the effects of the laws as written were racially discriminatory?

And again, this is what CRT studies. And what CRT realizes is that many modern-day enforcers of such laws (or procedures, or rules) are not themselves racist or biased. The structure of the system is what makes it affect specific races.

I'll give you a few examples from my hometown.

Robert Moses was a city planner for the New York metropolitan area, which at that time included Long Island. He planned many of the roads, bridges, beaches etc on Long Island. He was also quite a racist. His vision for his "parkways" were tree-lined roads that the good people of the day could use for commuting and pleasure drives. They also were the only way to get access to many of the South Shore beaches, since the barrier beaches were accessible only via bridges.

He designed these roads with intentionally low overpasses so trucks and buses could not fit under them. So black people - who were at the time much, much poorer than the average Long Island white - could not take the bus to the beach. That lead to an outcome that is unfair to one group of people (poor people) which were overwhelmingly black.

He is long since dead. But the bridges (literally the structure of Long Island) remain. Today, of course, it's not as big a deal since almost everyone has a car.

A second example - when he was building the Northern State Parkway, there was much opposition to his building his parkway through Wheatley Hills, a rich community in Nassau County. So he went around them to placate them. When you look at the Northern State today, there is a big detour that has no good reason for being there, other than protecting that community.

However, the Southern State, routed through much poorer (and also predominantly black) communities, went straight as an arrow, often bisecting towns and dramatically changing them.

Again, he's gone, but his roads remain.

A different planner was tasked with siting public park facilities. And 75% of the pools in that plan went into the predominantly white areas. And today that's where they remain, since it's difficult/expensive to put new pools in now when a single house on a quarter acre goes for over a million.

So what effect does all that have on the black community today? Is it responsible for some of the different outcomes we are seeing? Or are those things no longer factors? Again, that's what CRT studies.

What are the omitted words before "meritocracy"? Because without them this doesn't make much sense to me.

It doesn't make much sense with them either. If you would like to see for yourself:
https://www.edweek.org/policy-polit...ting-classroom-talk-on-racism-hb-3979/2021/07

It would seem that this would make it impossible that a law concerning, say, historical racial segregation, could be discussed in a classroom because clearly such laws were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race. In these circumstances, teaching any history of race in America would seem to be impossible.

That is correct. How such laws work is that enforcement is dependent on topic.

If, for example, a Muslim parent disagrees that the school should teach that Muslims were behind 9/11, the official reaction would be "it is patently absurd to claim that history teachers cannot teach factual history."

If a Christian parent disagrees that school is teaching that the predominantly white South was keeping predominantly black slaves, then the official reaction would be "that violates the law, and we will make sure that the school stresses that both black and white Americans were enslaved, and both black and white Americans were the enslavers, so as to ensure there will be no racial oppression in the curriculum."

It was Orwell who claimed that "he who controls the past controls the future." By controlling what history can and can't be taught, and controlling what history is taught, that gives politicians much more power over the future.

 

[billvon]

Usually, school curricula are meant to give schools a common framework and to set standards of what children are expected to learn. They are not typically framed as punitive or restrictive. The usual aim is to set minimum expectations of what is to be learned.

OK let's take the "required" part out, since the curriculum we are talking about did not require it.

Consider a curriculum that contained guidelines on teaching, one of which was to emphasize that modern day child slaves often learn valuable skills that could serve them later in life.

Do you think that's appropriate in a public school curriculum?

 

[parmalee]

As a general point, I don't think that teaching anything that is true is necessarily a bad thing. It would follow, therefore, that if slavery had some benefits, I don' t think it should be impermissible to discuss those benefits in a classroom. To prohibit such discussion would be just as much an act of censorship as prohibiting discussion of the evils of slavery. Mandating the discussion of the benefits of slavery, on the other hand, is a somewhat different matter.

I see it as a bit like saying that a child who is routinely beaten by their parents likely learns some valuable skills about avoiding or evading violence done unto them. It's probably true, sure, but why would anyone bother to point this out other than to diminish the nature and severity of the harm done unto said child?

 

[parmalee]

OK let's take the "required" part out, since the curriculum we are talking about did not require it.

Consider a curriculum that contained guidelines on teaching, one of which was to emphasize that modern day child slaves often learn valuable skills that could serve them later in life.

Do you think that's appropriate in a public school curriculum?

This matter reminds me very much of those weird "why doesn't anyone ever talk about the good things Hitler did?" discussions that crop up occasionally. For one, they do (sometimes), but more pertinently, because it's about as useful as pointing out that a broken clock is correct two times a day.

 

[Tiassa]

Curriculum Notes

John Knefel↱ looks into a curriculum being adopted in Florida:

A cartoon Booker T. Washington distorting the history of the Civil War. A narrator explaining that embracing climate denialism is akin to participating in the Warsaw Uprising. An instructional video telling girls that conforming to gender stereotypes is a great way to embrace their femininity. A dramatization of the supposedly civilizing, benevolent era of British colonial rule in India.

These are just some of the episodes of PragerU Kids — an offshoot of right-wing propaganda organization PragerU — that Florida has just approved for use in its public school classrooms, reflecting and potentially accelerating the state's hard conservative turn.

"The state of Florida just announced that we are now becoming an official vendor," said PragerU CEO Marissa Streit in a video heralding the news. She claimed that schools have "been hijacked by the left" and "used by union bosses" to pursue an agenda "not for our children."​

It's a hell of a telling:

Another series sees animated characters Leo and Layla traveling back in time to learn from historical figures. In one episode, the pair discuss slavery with a fictionalized Booker T. Washington.

"I hate that our country had slavery," Layla says. "Mr. Washington, sometimes do you ever wish you could have lived somewhere else? Like a different country?"

"That's a great question, and I hate slavery too, but it's been a reality everywhere in the world," Washington responds.

The fictional Washington then elides the reality of the U.S. Civil War by adopting the passive voice. This flattens the process through which enslaved people freed themselves — alongside the Union Army — into an undifferentiated joint venture of the entire country.

"America was one of the first places on earth to outlaw slavery," Washington says, getting the timeline completely reversed. "And hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives in a war that resulted in my freedom."

"When you put it that way, it totally makes sense," Leo responds.

Washington's comforting account of history adds up to a conclusion squarely in line with DeSantis' anti-critical race theory agenda. "Future generations are never responsible for sins of the past," Washington reassures the children.​

And that's pretty much what this is for. See #4↑ above, in re "making a student feel 'guilt or anguish' because of past actions committed by their race or sex", and also #9↑ above:

Is it true that a man's salary offer is, by habit, higher than the woman who would be doing his job? In these United States, it is likely true. If it is true, does that make him feel bad? And to what degree is that bad feeling his own infliction upon himself? And does he teach it to his son? Does the history of wage discrimination make his son feel badly about being a boy?

And have you heard the one about chasing out the black people and putting a lake where they used to live? What if the history of Lake Lanier, or Central Park makes some white person feel badly about being white?​

And, like I said, those ought to be silly questions. But, here we are, and Florida has become about as subtle as a Sciforums thread, like the part about how, when we learn the history of how Americans treated the slaves, and how Americans treated the tribes, and just how much Americans loathe women, yes, we're supposed to feel badly about it. But instead of learning from the tragedies of history, we might instead simply change the curriculum.
____________________

Notes:

Knefel, John. "The lessons Florida public school students will learn from PragerU Kids". Media Matters for America. 27 July 2023. MediaMatters.org. 27 July 2023. https://bit.ly/4753HuZ

 

[Bells]

No. It's not important.

Then perhaps you should refrain from such comments, no?

Well, that really depends on what you mean. The US is a diverse place. Lots of different groups are constantly fighting to try to mandate the teaching of their own preferred versions of history, religion, politics etc. Referring to "red states", I assume you mean that certain Republican legislators and/or governors have introduced or want to introduce laws that constrain what is taught to students in their states. If that's what you're talking about, then yes, I have been aware of that for some time now. Thanks for asking.

Which is what this discussion is about. Which made your comments eyebrow raising to say the least.

John Howard ceased to be Prime Minister in 2007. He is no longer in a position to directly influence what is taught to Australian students.

But he has a lot of influence on the right and a lot of political sway. Hence why his comments were important in a political context, particularly with the referendum that is fast approaching. From an education point of view, his comments can be quite influential. When the conservatives regain power, and at some point they will, it will absolutely mean more than you think it does. His comments do not exist in a vacuum.

Why are you telling me this, like I'm unaware? Perhaps if you don't immediately leap to conclusions about what I believe or think or know, it might be better. You could always ask, for instance, if you want to know.

I have to check, since someone who comes out with this:

I assume that Tiassa did not mean to imply that slavery is always racist. Certainly the American experience of slavery was racist, but historically there are plenty of examples of slavery in which race was neither a motivator nor was it advanced as a justification.

Would make me question what you are aware of.

I have some knowledge of DeSantis and his "anti-woke" legislation. The knowledge that I have was one reason I expressed the desire to know more about some details. You don't need to start with an assumption that I'm ignorant, Bells. Doing so is waste of your my time and, actually, more of a waste of yours as you try to tell me how to suck eggs.

Oh?

Middle school students in Florida will soon be taught that slavery gave Black people a "personal benefit" because they "developed skills."

I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?

If you have some knowledge of DeSantis' anti-woke legislation and what he is doing in Florida, perhaps you could explain why you feigned ignorance?

You seem to be very defensive James. And I don't know why. You made some overly spurious comments that would raise eyebrows, not just for their content, but from what I would now describe as feigned ignorance. You should not accuse me of wasting my time pointing out what you were asking for because you apparently already know this, when you basically asked to see details, because apparently you weren't aware of this.

I'm so glad I have you here to tell me these things. (Seriously?)

So glad to be of service James...

This is where you could have started, saving yourself some time and effort.

Well I apparently did not need to, since you knew it already?

I was hoping for a first-hand account of the legislation, actually, not a fourth-hand account. Here we have a rather long chain: legislation -> curriculum -> teacher -> television report -> article about television report -> Bells -> James. I would have preferred something more along the lines of: legislation -> Bells -> James. Just saying.

Let's see, I provided you with a link to their curriculum for social studies in Florida. The laws are well reported on.

I'm actually aware of all this background. What I wrote was "I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?"

Admittedly, I could have been more specific about what I was looking for.

Or admittedly, you shouldn't have complained about someone describing slavery in the US as being racist and pulled a 'what about-ism' in the process, then feigned ignorance of what was happening in Florida and then queried what any of this has to do with CRT (it has everything to do with CRT and how it is being addressed in many parts of the US).

See, the kind of thing I'm wondering is whether this curriculum item stems from a specific provision in the legislation, or whether the Board of Education has its own agenda, or whether it has been captured by people pushing a particular (racist) agenda.

DeSantis and the Republicans passed 'anti-woke' laws (the Stop Woke Act as it is commonly referred to), which meant that what they deemed to be 'woke' (eg racism, gender) could not be taught or discussed in schools, and the curriculum was changed to essentially erase teaching about racism, systemic racism, etc.

Literally outlawed critical thinking, eh? Are you sure about that? Or is that just a bit of an exaggeration?

Please note: I don't disagree with you about attempting to obscure the realities of US history etc.

It is absolutely not an exaggeration. Critical thinking would entail questioning the laws and policies in place and how they have impacted groups historically and currently in social studies. They are not only allowed to teach children and students to ask those questions, because such questions are now banned under the curriculum.

Does the curriculum instruct not to discuss systemic racism? Or does it seek to downplay it by pretending it doesn't exist?

Both. The law states that they are not allowed to discuss or teach systemic racism. The curriculum is abiding by the law.

 

[Bells]

I'd like to know more about that. What, specifically, can and can't be covered?

I provided you with a link of their curriculum for social studies. You can clearly see there what can and cannot be taught. It doesn't start or end with social studies. Other areas of education are also affected. For example:

The Florida Department of Education recently rejected 54 of 132 submitted math textbooks from being used next school year, citing reasons that include “references to critical race theory” and “the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics.” Some of the “problematic elements” in textbooks identified by the department included graphs of data on racial prejudice by age and political leaning, and a page that said students should “build proficiency with social awareness as they practice with empathizing with classmates” during a lesson on identifying numbers.

Social-emotional learning strategies are commonly used by schools to promote mental health and to help students cope with stress, which can hinder their ability to focus and learn in school. But, like critical race theory, the subject has become a target of conservative critics, who argue it focuses on discussions about identity and racial and gender equity.​

Excuse me?

How could I "question" a text I had not seen?

What on earth gave you the impression that I "don't believe it"?

You're way ahead of yourself here, Bells. Don't buy into Tiassa's bullshit about me. That man is a hate-filled unrepentant liar.

James, in your zeal in the war you have with Tiassa, you made a complete bullshit post that I would only classify as an attempt to troll. I haven't been around for a couple of weeks and frankly, your war with him is your own. I've kind of washed my hands of it. And it may surprise you to learn this, but I am fully capable of reading your posts and taking them at face value without anyone's influence.

You feigned ignorance, queried the validity of his comments, but in your response to me, you declared that you knew what was happening in Florida. Since you do not seem to believe what was being posted, I could only assume that you would not believe what was being presented. Given you just again asked for specifics, despite my providing you with a link to their criteria for you to peruse, I still query whether you believe "it". Your post was terrible and deserved to be called out. Not because of Tiassa.

What confusion?

Again, just to remind you, I wrote: "I would be interested to see some details about this. Are there certain prescribed texts or curricula that will mandate this teaching?"

While apparently already knowing what was happening in Florida...

This description of the Fox News coverage is not, itself, unbiased. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you. But it does make assumptions, including about where a reader's sympathies will most likely lie. It is useful to aware that politics happens on both sides.

Was that statement wrong? No, it wasn't.

You can't 'both sides' a push to deny racism exists, James. There's no both sides to this debate.

This talks of "laws forbidding any teacher or lesson from mentioning race/racism, and even gender/sexism".

What I want to know is: are there any such laws, in fact? If so, what do the laws actually say?

Yes. Here is a summary of the Bill in question: https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2022/html/2809

Think of it this way. Say a teacher is teaching their students about racist laws, such as the Jim Crow laws that existed in the US. They would be prevented from discussing how such laws have benefited certain groups in the US (eg white people).

I hope it isn't just political rhetoric, intending to enrage those of a non-Republican political persuasion, to claim there are laws forbidding the mention of race/racism etc.

Besides, wouldn't any such law be in breach of the First Amendment to the Constitution in the United States? My impression is that Americans, in general, aren't too keen on censorship of speech, although I am, of course, aware that special-interest groups often attempt to get things they don't like censored, which is bit ironic, seeing as they rely on the very "free speech" they want to quell in order to push their agendas.

I am also interested in the quoted sociologist's claim that "racism is embedded in the law". What does he mean? Which laws are explicitly racist? Are there examples of explicitly racist American laws? Or does he mean something like the effect of some laws is racist, in practice? Is critical race theory actually "outlawed" anywhere? Lots of people seem to be talking about it.

As Billvon pointed out, the US Supreme Court is now conservative. So Republican led states who pass such laws won't be prevented from doing so. And there are laws that are quite racist in the US. For example, the more recent voter suppression laws in the US distinctly target minorities, particularly African Americans. Here is a round-up of these laws and what they have done to suppress votes in areas that are predominately African American: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023

Is there a Florida law that says something along the lines that "The teaching of Critical Race Theory is a crime, for which the punishment is ..."? Or, if not a crime, some kind of civil offence? Why wouldn't such a law be struck down on First Amendment grounds?

Yes James. There is. I linked the Bill summary above. This news article has the Bill in full: https://www.wptv.com/news/education/floridas-governor-to-sign-critical-race-theory-education-bill-into-law#:~:text=HB 7, formally called the,race because of historical events.

 

[Tiassa]

Blazing

It's better to just click.​

The twitline observes:

BlazeTV podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey says that Jews benefitted from the Holocaust and Japanese people benefitted from internment camps, calling them "trials" by God ....

(Horowitz↱)​

It's one of those infamous bits when, yes, the report is correct↱, but for whatever reason someone wants to pretend↱ they didn't say it.

So, first, what happened?

Blaze TV producer Allie Beth Stuckey decided to post in support of Florida curriculum standards, and targeted Javon A. Price↱ for retort; the Black Republican hand disagreed with the Florida curriculum standard:

In no world would any sane person argue that Jews benefitted from the Holocaust or that Japanese-Americans benefitted from internment camps. So why is it somehow okay to suggest that Black Americans benefitted from slavery?​

He didn't even say it to her, but she picked that one out for response. Stuckey↱ angrily explained:

Yes, a sane person would. If a Japanese person learned how to sew clothes in an internment camp and then became a successful tailor after being freed, he would have benefited from a skill learned there. That doesn't make internment good, for crying out loud! It's stating a fact and speaks to the person's own industriousness.​

This morning, Justin Horowitz posted screenshots of the exchange, and the description above. Stuckey responded↱ with an indignant lie:

Oh hush, you degenerate liar. The screenshot doesn’t even match your comments, but you rely on the illiteracy of your followers to gin up outrage​

And, you know, maybe it felt good to say that, to scold someone who disagreed with her, but the problem is she's wrong. "The screenshot doesn't even match your comments," she fumes, except it does. The screenshot shows three tweets; Price's tweet is embedded in Stuckey's, and then Stuckey responds to herself. And maybe she missed that last. The nearest thing I can figure is the word "trials", which does not appear in Stuckey's highlighted post, but at the bottom of the screenshot, in smaller text, in her follow-up↱:

Guess what? Sometimes God allows you to develop useful skills during trials. Does that make the trials fun, or an injustice you endured just? No. It just means God can bring good out of evil, and people have an incredible ability to overcome unbelievable difficulty.​

And maybe it's an American thing that doesn't translate outside our borders, but that, "Guess what?" stands out for being so mundane. While a common phrase in general, it is known in particular contexts to be vicious, because someone takes satisfaction in prompting themselves, and the next thing they say is going to be vicious. That is, Stuckey is not gravely recounting the tragedies of history, but taking satisfaction in talking down to Price and other Black people; she is condescending↱ from the outset: "I can't believe people are still debating the Florida slavery curriculum thing".

Consider, for a moment: Horwitz works for a liberal media analysis and messaging group; Price is a Black Florida Republican, a seasoned professional politico; Stuckey is a producer for a major right-wing media organization. Inasmuch as these aren't average Joes and Jane, this is what the political discourse in Florida comes to. And it's going so well that the great Florida hope, Ron DeSantis, culture warrior extraordinaire, the anti-woke champion, faltered↱, trying to distance himself from the curriculum, saying, "I didn't do it," and, "I wasn't involved in it," before trying to support it: "I think that they’re probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into, into doing things later in life."

The difference between now and, say, the Tea Party midterm in 2010, is not in conservative thought itself; they've long believed this stuff. The main difference is that they are not hiding it, anymore.

An indecent joke goes here, about parlaying into doing things later in life. But the risk is not its indecency; rather, the danger is that it will turn out to be not a joke. These are conservatives, after all, and in Florida.

Part of how we got here, how this is what it comes to, is by a certain manner of presuming otherwise nearly regardless of the evidence before us. Thirty years ago, calling them Nazis would have been regarded not simply as hyperbole, but beyond the pale. Nonetheless, we probably ought not be surprised that it comes to this.

And we ought not call them Nazis, today, especially with actual Nazis in the mix. We can wait for them to make themselves a little more clear on that count, but regardless of what they want us to call it, we can see clearly what they are after, and it is dangerous to customarily presume otherwise.
____________________

Notes:

@conservmillen. "I can't believe people are still debating the Florida slavery curriculum thing ...." (thread) Twitter. 27 July 2023. Twitter.com. 28 July 2023. https://bit.ly/3DzDoQc

—————. "Oh hush, you degenerate liar. The screenshot doesn’t even match your comments, but you rely on the illiteracy of your followers to gin up outrage". Twitter. 27 July 2023. Twitter.com. 28 July 2023. https://bit.ly/3QmZxsJ

@JavonAPrice. "Some of y'all gon be mad at me, but oh well...The DeSantis team has got this one wrong ...." (thread) Twitter. 26 July 2023. Twitter.com. 28 July 2023. https://bit.ly/3YsgjZv

@justinhorowitz_. "BlazeTV podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey says that Jews benefitted from the Holocaust and Japanese people benefitted from internment camps, calling them "trials" by God (h/t @mount_bees)". Twitter. 27 July 2023. Twitter.com. 28 July 2023. https://bit.ly/3q89qQc

Garrity, Kelly. "Christie says DeSantis has only himself to blame for Florida education controversy". Politico. 23 July 2023. Politico.com. 28 July 2023. https://bit.ly/3YdNP5t

Spoiler

 

[parmalee]

Blaze TV producer Allie Beth Stuckey decided to post in support of Florida curriculum standards, and targeted Javon A. Price↱ for retort; the Black Republican hand disagreed with the Florida curriculum standard:

In no world would any sane person argue that Jews benefitted from the Holocaust or that Japanese-Americans benefitted from internment camps. So why is it somehow okay to suggest that Black Americans benefitted from slavery?​

He didn't even say it to her, but she picked that one out for response. Stuckey↱ angrily explained:

Yes, a sane person would. If a Japanese person learned how to sew clothes in an internment camp and then became a successful tailor after being freed, he would have benefited from a skill learned there. That doesn't make internment good, for crying out loud! It's stating a fact and speaks to the person's own industriousness.​

Republicans seem to have this uncanny ability for turning things which were once fodder for oft-times decent comedic bits--like the notion that slaves acquired valuable life skills during their tenure as slaves--into horrific realities. And yet, at the same time, such jokes always seem to fly over their heads.

 

[Tiassa]

And yet, at the same time, such jokes always seem to fly over their heads.

There is one coming, and it ought to be the sort of thing I should never expect to hear in public, but it's coming, and I don't know who, and I don't know when, and I hope someday to be able to smile and say, no, I won't tell because, thankfully, I was wrong and it never came to pass.