It is hardly surprising. California's woke governor, Gavin Newsom, having waited until he survived a recall vote, has now signed California's version of Critical Race Theory that will result in this divisive and false theory being taught to California schoolchildren.
In spite of letters and petitions from outraged parents and Jewish groups who foresaw an increase in anti-Semitism in California schools (Features of this bill would teach that Israel is oppressing Palestinians and that Jews are merely nothing more than "privileged whites"-thus, "oppressors".). So now, in addition to the myriad of anti-Semitic problems that reign on California university campuses, Jewish students in secondary schools will now be exposed to additional harassment.
And make no mistake: The California Teachers Union supported this measure, and now their more "woke" members will be able to spread their poison against white students and Jewish students just as Palestinian-supporting professors/students do on our university campuses.
My friend and colleague, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin of the AMCHA Initiative, who lobbied hard against this measure, has an article breaking the bad news.
19 comments:
You "conservatives" are starting to use Critical Race Theory the same way you use the words socialism and communism - as a catch-all for everything you don't like.
Just read the actual bill. I didn't see anything about CRT in there.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB101
Anonymous, I suggest you read this article:
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/322152/the-anti-zionism-of-critical-ethnic-studies/
As currently constructed ethnic studies course and departments tend to be very chauvinistic, victim-oppressor oriented. Making these propaganda tools mandatory for students who are otherwise not interested in taking them is asinine in my view.
Look, I'm citing the actual bill as it is written. That's an opinion article that adds a whole lot that isn't even there in the bill.
If you're concerned with anti-Semitism, I'd be more worried about what's going on in Texas. Their anti-CRT hysteria has led to teachers being told to teach "both sides" when it comes to the Holocaust. (I feel safe thinking that you agree with me that there is no "both sides" to the Holocaust. It happened, end of story.)
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046389474/texas-holocaust-opposing-critical-race-theory-southlake
Anonymous,
I am well aware of the efforts by some in Texas to "teach both sides" of the Holocaust. I see no indication in the NPR that the anti-CRT side was involved in the effort to teach "both sides" of the Holocaust. I would bet that the opposite is true. Those who championed CRT in California wanted language and teaching to the effect that Israel is oppressing Palestinians, and that Jews are merely "priviliged whites".
As I understand the California issue, the new bill allows individual districts, schools and teachers to teach points that were in the original bill that Gov Newsom actually earlier vetoed.
What Israel is doing in Palestine has nothing to do with CRT. It's a separate issue entirely. Personally, I don't see how anyone can see the situation over there and think that that Israeli government is some innocent party that does nothing wrong. It doesn't mean that there aren't bad actors on the other side, but there certainly is a better case for teaching "both sides" than there is the Holocaust. After all, it's the Israelis who are in power there, and questioning those who are in power is always a legit thing to do.
Again, just like the word "socialism", CRT is becoming a catch-all for anything that conservatives don't like.
As for Jews being "privileged whites", that requires a lot more nuance than you're allowing for. Nobody is saying that by "privilege" it means that things like anti-Semitism doesn't exist.
This is what's really frustrating with so many of today's "conservatives". Instead of arguing against something on its own merits, you argue against what you think that the opposition is saying. (Usually a false definition that's been put out there by right-wing media.)
I absolutely believe in white privilege. I also believe that many Jewish people benefit from it. However, I don't think that privilege means what you think it means. It just means that white people don't have to worry about a lot of things that people of color have to worry about on a daily basis.
You are correct that Israel-Palestinian issue has nothing to do with CRT. Yet, in California, it includes teaching on how Israel is oppressing Palestinians (something I disagree on). Why is that part of the program? Why are Jews simply classified as "privileged whites" as if all Jews were white?
CRT is designed to divide white from non-white, victim vs oppressor. At least in California, CRT will increase anti-Semitism.
As for what the opposition is saying, I know what they are saying because I go to their events, I read what they write. I spent 18 years at UCI listening to the opposition.
Look, I recognize our history and I am old enough to remember how things were in the 50s and 60s. Today there are still great problems in the black communities, drugs, gangs, crime, and single parent families-which is really the biggest problem of all. Racism and oppression are far down on the list.
As for teaching both sides of the Israel issue, the problem is that only one side is being taught in our universities, and that is the Palestinian narrative.
Drugs, gangs, crime, and single parent families are the biggest problems in the black communities? I think that's a comforting lie that white people like to tell themselves so they don't have to look toward their own communities and attitudes for any change to come.
Interesting that you bring up drugs, for instance. Black people are no more likely to use drugs than white people. From what I understand, they actually use them slightly less. However, they are far more likely to be arrested for it. Also, drugs that are more likely to be used by black people (crack) are penalized far worse than drugs that are likely to be used by white people (pure cocaine). (Funny considering that crack is just a form of cocaine - but if you have something that's more pure then your punishment is less? Make sense of that for me, Mr. Former DEA.)
It's also worth noting that when white people have drug problems, it gets called "the opioid epidemic" and they're met with sympathy instead of being called dirty drug addicts.
Do you ever ask yourself why we even have separate black communities? Do you think that it just magically happened that way? Ever hear of redlining?
The whole point of CRT is to understand the connection between what happened in the past and what's going on today. It's much easier for white people to just say, "That's all in the past, and black people need to fix their own problems" than for us to say, "How am I contributing to a system that continues to discriminate against people?"
I swear, so many of you Boomers act like the Civil Rights movement happened and then the Monopoly board was cleared so we could start a new game. It certainly improved things, but until white people (like me and you) are willing to take a deep look at ourselves and how we still benefit from the corruption of the past, we're not going to move forward.
"Drugs, gangs, crime, and single parent families are the biggest problems in the black communities? I think that's a comforting lie that white people like to tell themselves so they don't have to look toward their own communities and attitudes for any change to come."
-All of our communities have problems. I subscribe to the idea pushed by black conservative commentator Larry Elder that the biggest problem facing black Americans is the lack of two-parent families. 60-70 years ago, during the worst of the Jim Crow era, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks was about 25%. Now it is about 72%. How is that? The reverse should be true-except if you factor in a welfare system that discourages two-parent households. The out-of wedlock birthrate for whites and Hispanics has also increased but not to the extent as in the African-American community.
You don't know much about crack cocaine, do you? Crack, which historically was produced in the black communities, is a highly concentrated form of cocaine hydrochloride (that smuggled into the country in powder form). In making crack, the impurities found in the cocaine making process are filtered out resulting in a more potent form of cocaine that is smoked rather than snorted. The "high" is quicker, more intense but goes away faster than Cocaine HCL. The result is a much quicker addiction process. The reason crack was punished more harshly is that it is a much more insidious drug than cocaine in powder form. I hope that this former DEA agent has made sense of that for you.
DEA's emphasis is on dealers and traffickers as opposed to users. There is a simple possession charge in the federal statutes under Title 21 of the US Code, but it is basically a plea bargaining tool. AS a DEA agent, I arrested people across the entire racial spectrum, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. No apologies. All groups deal and all groups use. And I need no lectures about drug addiction. LIke most people, it has impacted my family as well. Drug addiction is a disease, and I am a big believer in rehabilitation and treatment. Traffickers, however, belong in prison whatever their race.
WE don't need CRT to teach our youth about our dark past. WE have been doing so since the 60s. CRT teaches that the past is the present-that America is a racist, oppressive country still. It teaches that whites are racist, privileged and oppressors and that non-whites are automatically victims. It also reaches into the foreign area as well to teach that Israel and Jews are oppressing Palestinians. That Jews are just privileged whites. We have enough anti-Semitism without CRT creating more.
And don't talk to me about the Civil Rights Movement. I lived through it. I recall the assassination of ML King and others. I saw how my own generation was educated that racism was wrong.
As for why we have segregated neighborhoods, I make no excuse for that nor for redlining, I am a believer in integration-not segregation. I also realize that many people were left behind by the Civil Rights Movement, and that is evidenced by what we see in inner cities today. Any decent person wants everybody to succeed. At a certain point, however, each individual has to take responsibility for his or her mistakes and failures.
Let's say I agree that the main problem with the African American communities is the lack of two-parent households. Why do you suppose this is? Again, if we look at CRT, we can talk about the systemic reasons behind it. (Poverty is a big factor, from what I understand - and the two feed on each other.)
I looked up what Larry Elder had to say, and he actually compared it to the days of slavery - which is wrong-headed in so many ways. I don't care if he's a black man himself; that is a white supremacist talking point. (You seem to be educated, so I'm guessing that I don't need to explain to you how black families were torn apart upon the slavemaster's whims.)
To your credit, you didn't say that, so I'll just level that accusation at Elder, but it's pretty consistent with what he's said in the past - with his suggestion that slaveholders were owed reparations as well if slaves were. (Please tell me that I don't need to explain why that's disgusting.)
I am aware of the way that crack is more likely to become addictive than cocaine. It doesn't really change my point though. Once again, everything is connected. Why were black people more likely to use crack? Because poor people could afford it, and poverty affects black people more than white people. And why is that? Again, we have to look at what happened in the past and how it affects us now. (You seem to know what redlining is - surely you can see how that can carryover through the generations, right?)
I strongly disagree that we have been teaching about the racism of the past since the 1960s. We have gotten a whitewashed version of it. I'm sure you were told that Columbus "discovered" America, right? Also, schools have downplayed the role of slavery in the Civil War. I mean, we're only now taking down Confederate (traitors who fought to preserve slavery) statues (which were erected during Jim Crow) and renaming places that were named for them.
Plus, I just recently learned about the massacre of "black Wall Street" in Oklahoma. Do you know about it? Were you taught about it, and other, similar episodes? Why do you suppose this is?
I also reject the notion that learning CRT will lead to more anti-Semitism, or that it's inherently anti-Semitic. I can accept that there are those who will choose to interpret it that way - both those who are in favor and against - but saying that white Jews have white privilege is not mutually exclusive with the idea that anti-Semitism is real and exists.
I don't think that you're a racist, Fouse, but I do think that you're not willing to look at the bigger picture here because the talking points that you give are more comforting than doing so.
"Let's say I agree that the main problem with the African American communities is the lack of two-parent households. Why do you suppose this is? Again, if we look at CRT, we can talk about the systemic reasons behind it. (Poverty is a big factor, from what I understand - and the two feed on each other.)"
Given the disparity in the out-of-wedlock birth rates (25% back in the days of Jim Crow etc) vs 72& today, I can only conclude that the problem is due to a well-intentioned, but faulty welfare system that discouraged two-parent families in the home.
As for the quotes you attribute to Larry Elder, I have never heard them and I would disagree with them. What I have heard him say is that racism is far down the list of problems facing black Americans today. The most serious problem is the lack of fathers in the home-which leads in turn, to the gangs, drugs, poor educational achievement etc. I agree with that.
"I strongly disagree that we have been teaching about the racism of the past since the 1960s. We have gotten a whitewashed version of it. I'm sure you were told that Columbus "discovered" America, right? Also, schools have downplayed the role of slavery in the Civil War. I mean, we're only now taking down Confederate (traitors who fought to preserve slavery) statues (which were erected during Jim Crow) and renaming places that were named for them."
I don't know how old you are, so I am not sure what you have been taught. I can state that since the late 1960s-70s, our kids have been taught (rightly) about slavery, Jim CRow and discrinination. I support that teaching, and in addition, it has dominated the diuscourse about race in America since the late 60s.
Yes, I am aware of what happened in Tulsa many decades ago. Horrible. Does that define Tulsa today? No.
"I also reject the notion that learning CRT will lead to more anti-Semitism, or that it's inherently anti-Semitic. I can accept that there are those who will choose to interpret it that way - both those who are in favor and against - but saying that white Jews have white privilege is not mutually exclusive with the idea that anti-Semitism is real and exists."
I support the continued teaching about our history, but I do not supporet teaching children that America today is a racist, imperialistic endeavor, all whites are racist and privileged, and all non-whites are victims. What point is there in further dividing our people? WE should also teach about the civil rights movement, ML King and the changes that have been made and the laws in place that forbid discrimination.
"I also reject the notion that learning CRT will lead to more anti-Semitism, or that it's inherently anti-Semitic. I can accept that there are those who will choose to interpret it that way - both those who are in favor and against - but saying that white Jews have white privilege is not mutually exclusive with the idea that anti-Semitism is real and exists."
I know from first-hand observation that teaching that Israel is oppressing Palestinians leads to anti-Semitism. It has happened in our universityes, which I have seen first-hand, and it will happen in the lower schools. Dismissing all Jews as priviliged whites (not all Jews are white) is only combining the anti-white narrative with anti-Jewish narrative, to use the phrase of the left-a form of intersectionalty.
"I don't think that you're a racist, Fouse, but I do think that you're not willing to look at the bigger picture here because the talking points that you give are more comforting than doing so."
I have been trying to look at the big picture my whole adult life, and I don't have the solution. All I can hope for is a reconciliation and a determination not to repeat the errors and injustices of the past. It is obvious that the solutions of the far left have failed. Elder would say that turning to conservative values instead of being on the Democrtac "plantation" would be a good start. I agree.
This basically gets back to my original point. Your definition of CRT is so nebulous that it means whatever you want it to mean. Instead of debating what CRT actually is, you're lumping in all sorts of ideas in there that have nothing to do with it.
Let me be clear - I am also against the kind of teaching that you're describing. However, that's not CRT.
I also think that there are some good, legitimate criticisms of CRT. However, these are getting lost in the anti-CRT hysteria. It'd be nice to actually have a discussion of it on its actual merits and not the pretend boogie man that it's made out to be.
So what is your definition of crt and what do you think it teaches?
Dictionary.com gives a pretty good definition:
"CRT is a common abbreviation for Critical Race Theory, which refers to a way of analyzing systems, institutions, and power through a lens of race and racism.
Central to Critical Race Theory is the idea that many institutions are built on and enforce systemic racism and oppression of people of color, that this racism and oppression have a long history in the US and the world (including slavery and its legacy), and that they are ongoing and driven by white supremacy.
As an academic, intellectual, or philosophical discipline or school or thought, Critical Race Theory is broad and encompasses the discussion and use of many related concepts and terms, such as implicit bias, intersectionality, and white privilege."
The thing is, this is such a broad concept that it can depend on who's doing the teaching.
Can a teacher use this idea to say that white privilege means that white people never have to struggle and black people have zero opportunities? Yes. And I would be against that.
But "white privilege" can simply mean that white people don't have to worry about things like racial profiling and the long-term consequences of things like redlining. It can also acknowledge the existing stumbling blocks that people of color have to overcome that white people generally don't (despite what Larry "I wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act" Elder has to say).
Ideally, CRT can be just one way of looking at the way this nation's history affects its current situations. I think it's pretty useful, but it has its limitations and shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of how history is examined.
Instead of asking if teachers are teaching CRT, we should look into exactly what it is that they're teaching. From what I'm getting from you, I think that you wouldn't be opposed to certain interpretations. However, there are people who would get upset if kids were taught about things like the Tulsa massacre, etc. (You say that you know about it - but did you learn about it in school? I didn't. It seems pretty significant, as it counters the racist talking point of "Why didn't black people use their freedom to create their own successful communities?" (In other words, I think that what's more important than learning about the massacre is learning about how black people were, in fact, able to be successful and prosperous - but the powers that be put an end to that.)
I think that is a very sanitized definition of CRT. Wait until all these left-wing professors get into the classroom with their own lesson plans and teaching points. It will be everything I say it will be.
Okay, but what I gave you is the actual definition of what it is. Your definition is what you think people will interpret it as.
What you gave me is one definition by a source that wants to put lipstick on a pig. A used car salesman will tell you a car is "a beauty:.
Are you saying that Dictionary.com is some kind of biased source?
What source would you accept?
I am totally unfamiliar with dictionary.com? Is it like Wikipedia?
It's not like Wikipedia in the sense that anybody can edit it. It's compiled by actual lexicographers just like Merriam Webster. (Their definitions is pretty much the same thing.)
Post a Comment