Do We Need Some Kind of "Godwin's Law" For Mentioning Creationism?

This is the central problem with the "academic freedom" argument against critical race theory bans: In order to make that argument, as @JeffreyASachs does here, you have to implicitly concede that CRT serves a *legitimate pedagogical purpose* – as distinct from, say, creationism. pic.twitter.com/6NigBTjZjE

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) June 9, 2021

I struck on this "argument" because of the comparison of the validity of CRT with creationism.  It's an odious and indefensible comparison.

First, creationism arises out of a literal reading of scripture that is unsupported by scripture itself.  Genesis 1 and 2 don't provide a first-hand observers account of the origin of the universe, this planet, or the life and environments on it.  It was only read that way in the early 20th century as a reaction against the sciences that began creating their boldly un-Biblical theories in the 19th century (say what you want against Descartes, but his "ghost in the machine" was firmly rooted in Catholic teachings because, well, he couldn't disagree that completely with Catholicism or Christianity at the time.).  Ironically they did this because the grip of the Catholic church, and of Christianity in general, had been weakening since the Reformation.  The effort of the biblical literalists was, in part, to recover what they imagined as a time when Christianity (but not the Roman church) controlled "right thinking."  It was more a remnant of American Puritanism than anything, but there we are.

So creationism is not grounded in even a critical theory.  It is a defensive posture, meant to create supremacy for a presupposed point of view (that God is Creator, and that relationship to all that is can be established scientifically, the better to make science serve what is, ultimately, just a crabbed and broken soteriology uber alles.  But again, I digress.)  Critical race theory, on the other hand, is a school of postures for trying to do what Orwell called the hardest thing of all:  seeing what is right in front of your nose.

Critical race theory is an approach, or more likely a series of approaches, to the way law has been used since before there was a United States (1619, by the examination done by the New York Times; slavery in the "New World" actually goes back to Columbus' first landing here) against groups based on 19th century ideas of "race."  If you want to truly be critical, you start with the accepted concept of race, and critique that.  But even such a critique can't eliminate the reality of race and racism (which is the point of having a concept of "race" in the first place) in history and law down to this day (and well into the future).  It's not a theory I have studied, but I imagine it covers as diverse a ground as the philosophical terms "Existentialism" or "phenomenology."

"Existentialism," especially when it was in vogue, covered philosophers from Kierkegaard (intensely religious) to Sartre (determinedly atheist).  I've seen it applied to Heidegger, though he's more properly a phenomenologist, and to Samuel Beckett. Carolyn Jones, the actress I first knew as "Morticia Addams" in my childhood, won her only Academy Award nomination for her role in "The Bachelor Party," in 1957.  Her character was identified only as "The existentialist."  She didn't play a philosopher.  It was, in other words, a very flexible term; and a term flexed and stretched to the breaking point when "existential threat" was briefly in vogue in every internet comment on a national or international issue.  Phenomenology similarly covers a lot of ground, from Heidegger to Levinas to Derrida, and several others, including Sartre.  It is the better description of "Continental philosophy," as opposed to Anglo-American philosophers, especially as German Idealism had its day in the 19th century.  But the distinction describes the initial approach of these philosophers.  Anglo-American adherents might criticize phenomenologists as being wrong from the start, or point out Heidegger's unsavory connections to Nazi Germany, but those are valid grounds for argument.  Complaining that CRT teaches the superiority of the "black race" over the "white race" is simply complaining that you fear your racism is about to be replaced by "their" racism.  Comparing CRT to creationism is not the way to avoid that naked appeal to white privilege; which, ironically, is probably a concept coming out of work done under CRT.

Part of the argument here is whether bans on teaching CRT should be imposed, and on that Ari Cohn is right:

That's simply incorrect. The academic freedom argument rests on the proposition that schools and their faculty should be making the decision on pedagogical soundness/worthiness, instead of a legislature simply dictating the answer in the negative.

That's a big difference. https://t.co/eKrM8BMi2Q

— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) June 9, 2021

The decision should be left to schools. But there is also a legitimate distinction between "public" schools, that is, those to which the general public has access, and those to which there are entry requirements.  the public schools within walking distance of where I sit are open to all.  But even the community college where I teach has entry requirement; and the University of Texas has entry requirements so restrictive people have sued over a denial of entry for them.  Academic freedom is not a concept much discussed in high school teachers' lounges, where the curriculum is set largely by the state, and, in Texas at least, schools are judged every year on the percentage of their students that pass state mandated tests for certain grade levels.  The burdens of that assessment make "teaching to the test" almost a necessity.  I've taught in high schools, I've taught in private schools, and I've taught now in a community college for over 20 years. In none of them do I have the "academic freedom" to teach what I want, although I am as free as I wish to be in how I approach my course and my lectures in my community college.  If there was a reason to include it, I feel certain I could work CRT into my courses without much push-back from my department.  On the other hand, as complex as the subject is, covering history, sociology, law, and even philosophy as it must, I think I'd be better off trying to teach deconstructionism.

Do you know what deconstructionism is?  Probably not. I first encountered it in graduate school, when it was a new thing (Derrida's Of Grammatology had just been translated, and the translator served a brief stint at UT when I was there.  The entire staff was in awe of her, but she made it clear the entire staff had no idea what Derrida was talking about.  She was right. I still think most people don't know what he was talking about.  I'm not sure I do.).  40 years later Derrida is no longer the new kid on the block, and probably academia has moved on to the next "new thing."  But while most people, 100 years later, think they understand Einstein's work (they don't), nobody pretends to teach Derrida to anyone but philosophy and English majors, and that only in the last two years of an undergraduate degree, if at all.  Derrida is hard to teach, still, much below a senior level class.  In high school?  What would be the point?  You might as well assign Godel's actual Theorem, or Einstein's actual General Theory of Relativity.  It would be as successful as trying to teach CRT.

And as educational.

Hochman extends his argument a bit, so let's do him the courtesy of considering his point:

In the same piece, responding to @realchrisrufo, Sachs says he's just defending "academic freedom," not CRT per se. But as we saw above, opposing bans on CRT *are* an endorsement of the view that – at the very least – CRT is legitimate enough to be taught in tax-funded curricula. pic.twitter.com/QGdwYhg9jw

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) June 9, 2021

So, the issue is what should be taught in a "tax-funded curricula."  Set aside objections of Creationsim as simply a weird set of notions grounded in weirdly truncated version of Christianity (which I, as a Christian, would object to my daughter being forced to learn, just as I'd object to her being forced to learn, say, Roman Catholic catechism in a public school), and focus on that notion of what can, and cannot, be legitimately "tax-funded."

I'm quite sure I could go to the University of Texas at Austin and find courses on Marxism and even study stridently atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russell (there aren't that many atheists who write an essay like "Why I Am Not A Christian.")  That's a "tax-funded curricula."  Is that okay?  Why, because no one is complaining about it on FoxNews?  Or does it make a difference that it's being taught at the college level, and not in a "public school"?  UT was established by the state to be a "university of the first degree" (I think I have that term right).  It has always been a bit concerned with its standing among the Harvards and Oxfords of the world, and prided itself on being the "Harvard of the South" (I don't know if that goes too far, or not).  Can a university seeking that status limit itself to what some group considers appropriate for "tax-payer funded curricula"?  And who settles that issue?  Me?  Or the creationists?

It's not that simple, is it?  But is "tax-payer funded curricula" really a legitimate measure of what can, and cannot, be taught in publicly funded schools?

The better measure is to consider what the students are able to learn and understand.  We don't teach algebra to first graders, beceause they barely know simple mathematics of addition and subtraction.  For the same reason we don't expect them to elucidate the fundamental plot elements (introduction, initiating action, rising action, climax, resolution) in all 7 volumes of "Harry Potter," because they can't even read yet.  Every year's advancement to another grade is based on what was, or should have been, learned in the lower grade.  Nobody is ready for deconstruction until at least the last two years of college, and then only in very specific programs.  The same is true of CRT, but the last two years of college are still, for many, years in a tax-payer funded institution.  Should the Texas Legislature dictate what professors can teach in each classroom at UT-Austin, down to the textbooks and what's in the lectures?  How far does this notion of "tax-payer funded" extend?

All of this is obviated, in Mr. Hochman's mind, by the "fact" CRT is fundamentally racist.  That is indisputably the argument of someone trying to preserve their privileged place in a racist system, even as that analysis of the argument is probably itself a product of CRT.  Ironic, no?  But why, then, does Mr. Hochman protest so much?  What is he so concerned about?  Change?  Change of what?  I can only conclude he fears a change of his identity, as society decides white privilege is not a privilege it can sustain.

And probably it isn't; but then I'm an adherent to the Christian principle, even Biblical principle, that the first of all shall be last and servant of all.

"It's pretty simple what most families in America are teaching their kids and that's the Golden Rule, to love others as yourself," Earhardt opined. "Don't see people for skin color. We look to the Bible in my house. We love everybody. Everyone was created by God and we live in this great country where you can be anything that you want to be and you can be an individual."

"They're trying to lump them in a group based on race," she added. "I want my daughter to be autonomous. She can stand on her own two feet. She can be an individual and be exactly who she wants to be and using the desires that God has given her for a bright future."

One of the things observing race in America critically teaches you is that this is the posture of a white person who can afford to think she doesn't see skin color.  Blacks in America, as well as any "non-white" group, can quickly tell you otherwise; if you're willing to listen.  One of the things my studies in Christianity have taught me is that it is far too easy to make an idol of your preferences, your privileges, what you think God has given you, and that God favors you especially just because you are you.  Which is perhaps the hardest idol of all to knock down.  Because most people don't think that "bright future" God has given them includes being the last of all, and servant of all.

But Jesus made it perfectly clear that it does.