"the idea that teachers cannot present students with ideas that might make them feel negative emotions"
I'm not sure this is true. Or at least, I'm not sure this is how it started. I think the issue with CRT, which is far from just a right-wing issue, is the message of disempowerment and collective guilt that some teachers are so careless…
"the idea that teachers cannot present students with ideas that might make them feel negative emotions"
I'm not sure this is true. Or at least, I'm not sure this is how it started. I think the issue with CRT, which is far from just a right-wing issue, is the message of disempowerment and collective guilt that some teachers are so careless about.
Plenty of black parents object because they see how it makes their children feel as if the world is eternally against them. Plenty of white parents object because they don't want their children taught they're complicit in evil things that happened before they were born.
I firmly believe it's possible to teach children history fully and honestly without making them feel bad.
"I firmly believe it's possible to teach children history fully and honestly without making them feel bad."
I might slightly reframe this, as I don't think we can competely avoid anybody feeling bad; it's part of life.
I'd say "it's possible to teach children history without intentionally making them personally responsible for it, or deliberately making them feel guilty or resentful". The neo-progressive playbook feels that inculcating those emotions and attitudes into the next generation is the path to equity; they WANT this kids to feel guilty or resentful, depending on the race of the child. It's not a side effect, but a purpose.
I agree with your last sentence. I also agree that some parents are objecting b/c there are some aspects of high school ethnic studies or history curricula that are inflected with Affropessism, white guilt and other bizarre and counterproductive concepts like "white supremacy culture." I totally get parents objecting to that. What I think is also happening is that there are right-wing people, some of them ethno-nationalists, who are using the extreme examples in order to try to tamp down on teaching anything that departs from the American exceptionalism narrative, city on a shining hill, beacon of democracy, yada yada. B/c there are so obviously parts of American history (and contemporary events) that paint the US in a negative light, they've inserted language into some of the bills that bans material that would/could/might make a student feel uncomfortable, resentful or guilty as a way of sidelining or minimizing the teaching of those inconvenient truths. I see this type of language as an incredibly broad overreach that will have a chilling effect on teachers and school boards afraid of getting sued. There are gonna be so many lawsuits these next few years as these CRT bans get implemented (or not implemented).
I have a simple question: have you read the actual text of the bills?
I ask because a centrist youtuber (alas, I've forgotten who) I watched said that he had slogged through the actual texts of all the bills submitted to the state legislatures (at that time). He said that of all the bills, the only one that explicitly mentioned CRT was Idaho's and it was not a prominent focus. Perhaps he was lying, and certainly it's likely that bills have been amended or new ones introduced since then. I'm not asking you to take my word on this, I'm just introducing a point...
Very frequently if I take the time to investigate deeper, the story in the mainstream and/or liberal press on neo-progressive issues tends to be mis-reported to significant degree. For example, EVERYTHING in the current round of bills about voting are being portrayed as going back to Jim Crow, but many of the bills do appear to be less drastic than portrayed. Studies show that the "voter suppression" tactics make very little different in the outcomes, but they are being portrayed as the end of democracy in America.
(The biggest real concern is about the ones which could give leverage for corrupting the electoral college system, and there is bipartisan support for some change in the Congress in regard to that, regarding the 1976 counting act, but that's an aside).
Anyway - until I see the various texts or an impartial analysis of them, I'm going to be wary of trusting a neo-progressive partisan's description of what's in them. I'm tired of being stampeded by distorted information. In this polarized country, we cannot trust any side to accurately portray legislation of the other side.
All that said, I don't agree with trying to prohibit schools from teaching something; we need more to empower parents rather than impose a form of censorship by state government. But I'd have to know more about the text to comment meaningfully on any particular bill. (And to be honest, this may not rise to the top of my todo list - there are so many other things I want to read or digest).
I share your critique of how MSM has presented a lot of this stuff. The person I've been following on the "anti-CRT" bills is Jeff Sachs who does a very objective deep-dive IMO. See https://pen.org/steep-rise-gag-orders-many-sloppily-drafted/
The bills described in that article (most not yet passed) sound pretty bad, and I hope they can be defeated.
This is part of why I think that neo-progressive censors who weaken support for free speech are ill advised; they are assuming that they will forever be the ones doing the restricting, so it will only be applied to what *they* consider "bad" ideas. Neo-progressives are no longer reliable allies on free speech - unless they happen to be on the restricted side rather than the restricting side.
I expect the ACLU to be all over some of these conservative bills, both from the residues of their traditional civil liberties focus, and from their new progressive activism focus. However, I don't know how the courts will react.
At your link, I'm not as sure about the objectivity.
Background. One of the most common partisan tactics today (by all sides) is to cherry-pick the most outrageous examples of "the other side", and try to portray those as typical rather than make any effort to put them in context. The left will seize upon the most extreme Trump supporter and try to assure their audiences that is pretty much what all 70 million Trump voters believe too. The right picks up on the most zealous progressive statements and policies, and tries to get their audience to believe that all democrats believe similarly. This gets views and clicks and is a good business model, but bodes poorly for the future of our democracy.
The linked article appears to be trying to highlight the worst portions of the worst examples it can find (passed or proposed). I see no attempt to analyze a range of bills, including the worst as well as some that may not be extreme. And I see no generosity of interpretation of motives, or recognition that there might be any problem stimulating such (ill-advised!) reactions.
Of course, that approach is their right; advocacy is acceptable in publications of course! But I question whether it's objective.
I sympathize with PART of the motivation for SOME of the legislation, as I believe that many teachers have decided that they have the moral role of creating a brave new society by inculcating their own personal political values on the next generation. There do appear to be cases where, for example, kids are being taught that police are their enemies (these may be isolated and rare, but it's VERY hard to know how much so). I think that parents have a right to know about this, and to push back democratically; they have not bought into any social contract which so empowers teachers.
But I don't think that coercive bans and censorship from the state are an appropriate tool - for the right or for the left. Free speech is the keystone right in a democracy - if any side gets near full control of information, they control elections and power, and they can suppress any dissent or feedback. Which in turns means their policies can jump the rails without corrective feedback. In the area of information control, power corrupts and more power corrupts more thoroughly. First it's used "to protect the vulnerable", but if you have the power to suppress opposition, it ALWAYS will then be used to remain in power and suppress even well deserved criticism.
"the idea that teachers cannot present students with ideas that might make them feel negative emotions"
I'm not sure this is true. Or at least, I'm not sure this is how it started. I think the issue with CRT, which is far from just a right-wing issue, is the message of disempowerment and collective guilt that some teachers are so careless about.
Plenty of black parents object because they see how it makes their children feel as if the world is eternally against them. Plenty of white parents object because they don't want their children taught they're complicit in evil things that happened before they were born.
I firmly believe it's possible to teach children history fully and honestly without making them feel bad.
"I firmly believe it's possible to teach children history fully and honestly without making them feel bad."
I might slightly reframe this, as I don't think we can competely avoid anybody feeling bad; it's part of life.
I'd say "it's possible to teach children history without intentionally making them personally responsible for it, or deliberately making them feel guilty or resentful". The neo-progressive playbook feels that inculcating those emotions and attitudes into the next generation is the path to equity; they WANT this kids to feel guilty or resentful, depending on the race of the child. It's not a side effect, but a purpose.
I agree with your last sentence. I also agree that some parents are objecting b/c there are some aspects of high school ethnic studies or history curricula that are inflected with Affropessism, white guilt and other bizarre and counterproductive concepts like "white supremacy culture." I totally get parents objecting to that. What I think is also happening is that there are right-wing people, some of them ethno-nationalists, who are using the extreme examples in order to try to tamp down on teaching anything that departs from the American exceptionalism narrative, city on a shining hill, beacon of democracy, yada yada. B/c there are so obviously parts of American history (and contemporary events) that paint the US in a negative light, they've inserted language into some of the bills that bans material that would/could/might make a student feel uncomfortable, resentful or guilty as a way of sidelining or minimizing the teaching of those inconvenient truths. I see this type of language as an incredibly broad overreach that will have a chilling effect on teachers and school boards afraid of getting sued. There are gonna be so many lawsuits these next few years as these CRT bans get implemented (or not implemented).
I have a simple question: have you read the actual text of the bills?
I ask because a centrist youtuber (alas, I've forgotten who) I watched said that he had slogged through the actual texts of all the bills submitted to the state legislatures (at that time). He said that of all the bills, the only one that explicitly mentioned CRT was Idaho's and it was not a prominent focus. Perhaps he was lying, and certainly it's likely that bills have been amended or new ones introduced since then. I'm not asking you to take my word on this, I'm just introducing a point...
Very frequently if I take the time to investigate deeper, the story in the mainstream and/or liberal press on neo-progressive issues tends to be mis-reported to significant degree. For example, EVERYTHING in the current round of bills about voting are being portrayed as going back to Jim Crow, but many of the bills do appear to be less drastic than portrayed. Studies show that the "voter suppression" tactics make very little different in the outcomes, but they are being portrayed as the end of democracy in America.
(The biggest real concern is about the ones which could give leverage for corrupting the electoral college system, and there is bipartisan support for some change in the Congress in regard to that, regarding the 1976 counting act, but that's an aside).
Anyway - until I see the various texts or an impartial analysis of them, I'm going to be wary of trusting a neo-progressive partisan's description of what's in them. I'm tired of being stampeded by distorted information. In this polarized country, we cannot trust any side to accurately portray legislation of the other side.
All that said, I don't agree with trying to prohibit schools from teaching something; we need more to empower parents rather than impose a form of censorship by state government. But I'd have to know more about the text to comment meaningfully on any particular bill. (And to be honest, this may not rise to the top of my todo list - there are so many other things I want to read or digest).
I share your critique of how MSM has presented a lot of this stuff. The person I've been following on the "anti-CRT" bills is Jeff Sachs who does a very objective deep-dive IMO. See https://pen.org/steep-rise-gag-orders-many-sloppily-drafted/
Interesting.
The bills described in that article (most not yet passed) sound pretty bad, and I hope they can be defeated.
This is part of why I think that neo-progressive censors who weaken support for free speech are ill advised; they are assuming that they will forever be the ones doing the restricting, so it will only be applied to what *they* consider "bad" ideas. Neo-progressives are no longer reliable allies on free speech - unless they happen to be on the restricted side rather than the restricting side.
I expect the ACLU to be all over some of these conservative bills, both from the residues of their traditional civil liberties focus, and from their new progressive activism focus. However, I don't know how the courts will react.
At your link, I'm not as sure about the objectivity.
Background. One of the most common partisan tactics today (by all sides) is to cherry-pick the most outrageous examples of "the other side", and try to portray those as typical rather than make any effort to put them in context. The left will seize upon the most extreme Trump supporter and try to assure their audiences that is pretty much what all 70 million Trump voters believe too. The right picks up on the most zealous progressive statements and policies, and tries to get their audience to believe that all democrats believe similarly. This gets views and clicks and is a good business model, but bodes poorly for the future of our democracy.
The linked article appears to be trying to highlight the worst portions of the worst examples it can find (passed or proposed). I see no attempt to analyze a range of bills, including the worst as well as some that may not be extreme. And I see no generosity of interpretation of motives, or recognition that there might be any problem stimulating such (ill-advised!) reactions.
Of course, that approach is their right; advocacy is acceptable in publications of course! But I question whether it's objective.
I sympathize with PART of the motivation for SOME of the legislation, as I believe that many teachers have decided that they have the moral role of creating a brave new society by inculcating their own personal political values on the next generation. There do appear to be cases where, for example, kids are being taught that police are their enemies (these may be isolated and rare, but it's VERY hard to know how much so). I think that parents have a right to know about this, and to push back democratically; they have not bought into any social contract which so empowers teachers.
But I don't think that coercive bans and censorship from the state are an appropriate tool - for the right or for the left. Free speech is the keystone right in a democracy - if any side gets near full control of information, they control elections and power, and they can suppress any dissent or feedback. Which in turns means their policies can jump the rails without corrective feedback. In the area of information control, power corrupts and more power corrupts more thoroughly. First it's used "to protect the vulnerable", but if you have the power to suppress opposition, it ALWAYS will then be used to remain in power and suppress even well deserved criticism.
Well said