I never thought I'd call a high school valedictorian metal but that was before this kid called for school board members to resign over their participation in racist and queerphobic oppression targeting students during his valedicory address.
The kids are out there putting it all on the line, fighting not to be dragged into a theocratic future. Adults could learn a thing or two.
Calling for the school board to resign at graduation. Fuck yeah he did.
@kumarvibe @e_urq @mhoye I believe you’re thinking of the Orange County in CA, although one district there did ban CRT. This Orange County is in VA.
@tweetsjen @kumarvibe @e_urq @mhoye And typically they don't ban "CRT", that is lazy reporting or political rhetoric. They specifically ban things like teaching that "An individual, by virtue of the individual's nationality, color, ethnicity, race, or sex, is inherently racist, sexist," etc
I am super curious about the specific policies/etc that led to this speech.
@ech @kumarvibe @e_urq @mhoye they did actually state CRT in the one I mentioned, a school district in Orange County, CA. The speech in the OP was about Orange County, VA.
From the CA one, “Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks will not be used as a source to guide how topics related to race will be taught;”
https://4.files.edl.io/6bf9/03/30/22/193209-3b2df49c-8afe-4f14-81c4-defb08b214f2.pdf
@tweetsjen That document borders on incoherent. I wonder how it plays out in practice.
@ech I assume it’d be difficult to teach parts of US history, such as Jim Crow laws, and discuss current events considering it “… defines Critical Race Theory as a practice of interrogating race and racism in society. CRT recognizes that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It acknowledges that racism is embedded within systems and institutions that replicate racial inequality—codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy.”
@tweetsjen Well, I think you could: "racism is ... codified in law" is present tense, so you could teach about past tense racist laws.
When we talk about "racism is embedded within systems and institutions" we usually don't mean the normal-english meaning of the word "racism", so that doesn't seem like much of a problem, you could still teach about how legal, financial, etc institutions work together in unintended ways to make life hard for poor or marginalized people.
Or can you? I don't know how this policy is applied.
@ech it’s not about what you can get away with, but whether you want to risk losing your job. No, I don’t think you can teach about un/intentional present day consequences without risk. “I don’t know how this policy is applied” is part of the point, it’s like McCarthyism. Racism that’s embedded within systems and institutions is indeed a normal English meaning of racism and still happens. The KKK and other white supremacy groups still exist. A current event example: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-30/sheriff-clique-compton-station-executioners
@tweetsjen has anyone lost their job in that district? Have they stopped teaching about Jim Crow?
"Racism that’s embedded within systems and institutions is indeed a normal English meaning of racism" <-- depends what you mean by "racism", of course...
@ech teachers have been fired. You seem to be an apologist for these policies, but do you have any evidence that anyone was actually teaching that “An individual, by virtue of the individual's nationality, color, ethnicity, race, or sex, is inherently racist, sexist”? Yet, all this effort spent to combat imaginary insults and undermine teachers.
What do people mean by racism? Please see Merriam-Webster’s definition #2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism. I think it’s clear why you are picking this fight
@tweetsjen Thanks
Let me start with this: "Merriam-Webster’s definition #2" – this definition appears to assume intent, so yeah, I would think most people would think of that as racism. What I was getting at above is like how Kendi talks about racism, and I think his definition has held sway in a lot of literature/etc – no intent needed: if a policy or system has a disparate *effect*, then that is *by definition* racist, to him. Regardless of why. (It's almost a category error to talk about the "intent" of a systemic outcome, so he has a point; also "magical intent" applies.) To DiAngelo, defining racism like your Webster's link (discrete actions with intent) is one of "the pillars of whiteness". I'm annoyed by the rhetorical confusion, but again, she has a point: the main problem today isn't someone's intent, it's these kinds of systemic interactions.
So: to my point above: you could teach about the unintended consequences of laws and systems that seem to inevitably have a bad outcome for non-white people. Drug sentencing guidelines from a few years back are a great example: they were actually set up with the best of intentions, but they have had a wildly bad outcome for people of color. That isn't normal-english "racist", but it is Kendi-definition "racist". So, I think you could teach about this sort of thing given the guidelines you linked to. (I am no lawyer, though.)
70 years ago we had redlining and Jim Crow, those were not only Kendi-definition but also normal-english definition racist. But, past tense, so you could teach about those.
So I'm wondering what practical impact these guidelines had in that OC school district.
"teachers have been fired." In that southern CA school district we're talking about? for violating these guidelines? Can you link me to news about this? I would love to read more.
"You seem to be an apologist for these policies" Well, I'm certainly against teaching children that they're inherently (normal-english definition) racist, but of course I am, that is silly and cruel. But is that happening with any frequency? Not that I know of? I suspect a lot of this is moral panic. I'm generally not in favor of policies that ban something that ~never happens. You hinted at some of the problems with that earlier! (I almost feel you don't need a policy for this specific thing anyway: if a teacher tries to do that, it should be covered by "don't be cruel or stupid".)
"I think it’s clear why you are picking this fight" I hope so! I'm trying to understand what impact these guidelines are having "on the ground". I don't want struggle sessions where we shame white kindergartners, and I don't want districts to ban teaching about Jim Crow, Tulsa, and the bad health & economic outcomes black people still face today. I suspect neither of those things happens with any frequency, though: most normies get the nuance between those two extremes :)
