Tuesday, May 04, 2021

Cancel Culture: Three Examples

Res ipsa loquitor.
"For someone who wants to completely understand what we are putting their name next to and signing off on, I hate to have to even hear the word racist or anti-racists," Kolligian said. "It bothers me, it pains me that we still live in a society that we have to discuss those terms for people who are minorities and again, challenging, to discuss for an individual that is not one. I just ask for an opportunity to understand the true definition of anti-racist language and actions."

Borman demanded to know "what exactly are we doing" if the board agreed to "anti-racist language and action" in school district policies, and fellow board member Natalya Lakhtakia, who's working with the district's 44-member Equity and Inclusion Committee's policy arm, tried to explain.

"Anti-racism is actively fighting to make things better for our kids, our students, our staff, our teachers, our administrators and we will do what it takes within our school system to end systems of oppression," Lakhtakia said.
 
But Kolligian, who was elected with Borman in 2019 as part of a push to rearm school monitors, complained the proposed language was too harsh -- and Lakhtakia told him that was the point.

"Racism is harsh," she said.

A local Facebook group warns that schools will teach white students that they're "born racist" and "colonizing oppressors," which civil rights activists and supportive parents have tried to explain is inaccurate.

"Anti-racism literally means being against racism," said elementary school parent Rebecca Lynch, who serves on the Equity and Inclusion Committee. "There is some sort of confusion about what anti-racism might mean or entail. What the district is working toward, advocating for is anti-racism. It shouldn't be a controversy."

Which leads me almost directly to this: 

This week, Senate Bill 2202 by State Sen Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), legislation to stop Texas teachers from being compelled to teach controversial critical race theory, passed in the State Senate.

The legislation passed on an 18-13 party-line vote. 

SB 2202 “promotes the adoption of a curriculum that promotes the understanding of the moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the country, the processes of governance at the local, state, and federal levels, and the founding documents of our nation.”

The bill states that a teacher may choose to discuss current or controversial topics in class, but school policies should not compel teachers to do so, and a teacher should promote “all diverse viewpoints on the issue.”

Among the required state curriculum materials for the State Board of Education, the bill adds understandings of America’s founding documents, such as letters between the Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers.

The bill also prevents teaching that any race or sex is superior to another.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued a statement after the passage of Creighton’s bill. 

“Texans reject critical race theory and other so-called ‘woke’ philosophies that maintain that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex or that any individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive. These divisive concepts have been inserted into curriculums around the state, but they have no place in Texas schools. SB 2202 will ensure that they cannot be taught,” said Patrick.

“When Texan parents send their children to school, they expect their students to learn to think critically without being forced to consume misinformation about our country’s founding and the biases of advocacy groups that seek to belittle our democracy and divide us. I congratulate Sen. Creighton and the Texas Senate for passing this critical legislation for our children and our schools.”

Which I quote almost in full because it is so fookin' hilarious.  The first thing you should know is the author of these paragraphs "is a 2021 Texas Scorecard Fellow from Round Rock. She is freedom-loving and had an early interest in liberty and politics."  So there, you freedom-haters!

Now, read the language of that bill carefully, especially these parts:

The bill states that a teacher may choose to discuss current or controversial topics in class, but school policies should not compel teachers to do so, and a teacher should promote “all diverse viewpoints on the issue.”

Among the required state curriculum materials for the State Board of Education, the bill adds understandings of America’s founding documents, such as letters between the Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers.

The bill also prevents teaching that any race or sex is superior to another.

Admittedly that's hardly statutory language, and it's pretty vague; but if you can't teach one sex or race is superior to another, you can't teach that one sex or race is inferior to another, either.  (Yes, we can argue the point of "sex" v. "gender," but this is public school; calm down.)

So what does this bill do?  Nothing.  It doesn't ban Critical Race Theory because CRT doesn't teach that one race is superior to another.  Indeed, CRT examines the idea that law has been used to create inequalities and implictly establish the superiority of one race over another.  What was the murder of George Floyd except white supremacy in action.  Derek Chauvin seemed quite secure in his power to kneel on Mr. Floyd's neck in full view of a crowd of citizens, because he's white and Mr. Floyd was black. It doesn't take any education in CRT to understand that message.

Why is this bill in existence?  To assure the FoxNews/OAN viewing audience in Texas that the state GOP is keeping the elephants away.  Why does it “promote[] the adoption of a curriculum that promotes the understanding of the moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the country, the processes of governance at the local, state, and federal levels, and the founding documents of our nation” and why does Dan Patrick, who couldn't think critically about anything even with a gun to his head, say “Texan parents...expect their students to learn to think critically"?  Two reasons:  so the Lege doesn't scare off business (even Patrick learned something from the bathroom bill debacle, although Texas never had to suffer any boycotts because that one never became law), and Patrick was scared electorless two years ago when the teachers almost rose up against him in the primaries.  The more well-heeled parents in Texas (the ones who give Patrick money so he can stay in office) want their kids well-educated without having to pay for private schools.  So they want to think public schools are teaching "critical thinking skills" (but not too critical, mind!) I will say things have improved since my days in school, when the Texas Revolution was linked to freedom and Davey Crockett was John Wayne fighting for liberty at the Alamo, rather than for slavery and the Southern slave economy Texas colonists so desperately wanted a piece of.

My daughter learned differently, and her public high school actually had Howard Zinn's history book on its reading list.  Zinn was far too radical and dangerous for my high school days (I didn't hear of him until well past college).  Yet nobody even in my school district is objectin to Zinn on the reading list, largely because the ones who would don't know who Zinn is (anymore than they know what CRT is), and haven't been told to fear him.

Patrick and the GOP are walking a tightrope, in other words.  They don't want to piss off business executives and their employees with any influence by teaching the most retrograde and worthless history and civics lessons possible (i.e., the kind of stuff I was taught in the early '70s'), but they have to throw a bone to the FoxNews/OAN-addled crowd.  So Patrick can brag this law "bans" the teaching of CRT (it doesn't, because it doesn't come close to describing CRT) and reassure corporate executives Texas is still a "safe" place to educate children.

Cancel culture cancelled, in other words; without actually cancelling anything.

(Which is not to say SB2022 is benign or even beneficial.  It provides fodder for nusiance complaints with language like this:

(4)  a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a

  state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school

  may not:

                   (B)  require or make part of a course the concept

  that:

                           (vi)  an individual, by virtue of the

  individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions

  committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

                          (vii)  an individual should feel discomfort,

  guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on

  account of the individual's race or sex; or

                          (viii)  meritocracy or traits such as a hard

  work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a

  particular race to oppress members of another race.

Though many of these read like "white feelings protection" clauses, vi is viable in cases of the "blood libel," at least; and really quite fair otherwise, too.  vii seems to me impossibly subjective and legislating "snowflakes," especially if those snowflakes are white (well, aren't all snow flakes?).  viii really gets me.  It seems the most obviouly aimed at CRT; but again, has nothing whatsoever to do with CRT, so....

I can see some parents latching onto these provisions to make life difficult for some school district somewhere in Texas, and sooner or later one of them will take the case to as high a court as they can reach.  So really, we'd be better off without this bill; but all things considered, it's pretty much a talisman to keep the elephants away, and nothing more.)

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)