[Terry McLaughlin is a regular columnist for The Union. This column, posted here by permission, appears in the 17jun21 Union and its online edition (here). This piece is the first of a three part series. gjr]
Terry McLaughlin
Parents are becoming aware of the use of critical race theory in their children’s instruction, particularly as distance learning has given them a window into their classrooms.
Since the California Department of Education in March adopted an ethnic studies curriculum based upon critical race theory, (the fourth version, after more than 100,000 earlier objections), we have seen parents sending open letters to schools and passionately speaking up in protest at school board meetings across California and the nation.
The curriculum presents the view that our legal, economic and social institutions are inherently racist. Critical race theory advocates for, among other things, “liberating” students from capitalism, patriarchy, and settler colonialism.
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the second version of the curriculum, much to the dismay of critical race advisers, some of whom resigned.
The 100,000 objections resulted in some of the most egregious material being removed from successive versions of the curriculum, such as convicted murderers of police being portrayed as positive role models and a benign narrative presented about Pol Pot, whose regime murdered as many as 30 percent of Cambodians.
Documents from the Santa Clara County Office of Education, obtained by journalist Christopher Rufo, indicate a series of teacher-training sessions were held on deploying ethnic studies in the classroom. The leaders encouraged teachers to hide materials from parents. One panelist said, “We have to be extra careful about what is being said, since we can’t just say something controversial now that we’re in people’s homes {with remote learning}.”
In Missouri, a teacher encouraged other teachers to remove from school websites accessible to parents any classroom materials that promote ideas such as “white privilege.”
Attendees at a training session in Wake County, North Carolina, received a handout that read, “You can’t let parents deter you from the work.”
Media and supporters have given us the impression that critical race theory is a harmless idea which, as described by a CNN columnist, “seeks to understand and address inequality and racism.” But if these ideas are harmless, why are some teachers and school officials attempting to hide the content from parents? What kind of education program suggests materials be hidden from parents?
In California, apparently even mathematics “upholds capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.” This statement is from “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” a set of six instruction books for California math teachers.
The workbooks offer “critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms.” Examples given of white supremacy in math include when “students are tracked,” when “the focus is on getting the right answer,” when “students are required to show their work,” or when “control of classrooms is valued over students’ agency over their learning.”
There are some ideas of value within the 82 pages of workbook No.1, such as addressing errors by students not as failure but as an opportunity to expand upon their understanding of the math concept. But these methods would be of value to all students, regardless of race, economic status, or ability.
Yet the workbook’s focus is clearly and repetitively on how “white supremacy culture shows up in the math classroom.”
Are these workbooks being used to train your child’s teacher? Check it out at https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf
Disguising her voice for fear of retaliation, a California public school teacher recently called a radio program to lament about how she was required by school administrators to attend a critical race theory seminar, and was told that “facts, data, and the scientific method are white concepts.”
“So,” she said, “if you use facts and data to disprove an argument against an oppressed person, you are proving you are racist because facts and data are the result of whiteness.”
As part of her training, this teacher was given a 20-page handout published by Epoch Education, a training center in Oakland. The first page instructed her to “Express skepticism toward dominant legal claims of neutrality, objectivity, color blindness, and meritocracy”.
The document included articles about white privilege and how racism will never end. The Epoch Education website displays a video narrated by program specialist Nicole Kukral from the San Juan Unified School District, east of Sacramento, in which she explains how she created an “equity audit rubric” for use by California districts to evaluate social studies curriculum being considered for adoption.
Kukral instructs teachers to evaluate history textbooks in a positive light only if the narrators were “people of color and other diverse communities.” There seems to be no concern regarding whether the history is accurate, only that history told by western white men should be considered suspect.
The fourth version of critical race theory curriculum is riddled with inaccuracies and omits facts that are at variance with its narrative of oppression, imperialism, white supremacy, and exploitation.
Nonetheless, the California Department of Education approved this version, one which The Wall Street Journal calls “radical indoctrination.” Has this curriculum been implemented in your child’s school district?
Gov. Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign into law Assembly Bill 331, which would make it a requirement of graduation for every public high school student in California.
Left to their own devices, children are naturally color blind. We are desecrating the legacy of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King with curriculum that teaches our kids to judge themselves and each other based upon the color of their skin — the very definition of racism.
Ms McLaughlin lives in Grass Valley.
[Addendum] "A question needs to be put to the left in America. If your adversaries in politics are indeed fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and bigots, as you describe them, why would, or should, such people accept and embrace your rule over them—simply because you managed to rack up a plurality of ballots in an election? Free elections to decide who governs are, it is said, the central sacrament of democracy. But why should people who are described with every synonym for "deplorable" not reject the politics of compromise and instead work constantly to overthrow the rule of people who so detest them?" Patrick J. Buchanan (more here)
A more comprehensive critique of CRT can be found here. (H/T to reader)
‘For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes …’
[I was gratified to receive this book report from a dear and very astute friend who now lives in Florida. For years he was a prominent developer and successful businessman in Nevada County. A Stanford engineering graduate, he too joined the California exodus as our monopolist one-party socialist revolution became too much to bear. By permission his email is posted here with minor edits for clarity. gjr]
Tony Medler
Just finished For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (1993, 1999), and still believe it should be required reading for politicians and students. A couple of observations:
It is so obvious that so many empires, countries and civilizations encountered the same issues caused by the conflicts between monetary “needs” and resources. Almost all gave way to excesses that resulted in loss of vigor or rebellion. Our country is well down the road, losing competitiveness and leading to, I believe, eventual rebellion.
Charles Adams writes a wonderful history of taxation and the mechanisms that cause it promote energy within a system or create adversity toward business and prosperity. He is somewhat weak on how to correct or preclude the problems. History indicates that it is extremely difficult to fix the problem. Obvious solutions usually involve separation of spending control from taxing power.
I believe that there is a root cause that precludes any of these attempts at control. Our founders were aware of the problem and envisioned a legislature that was composed of citizens who would serve, not be subject to rules except those applicable to everyone, serve for limited periods, and then return to the general citizenry. We have evolved from that concept to having professional politicians who forget that it isn’t “we and they” but rather us. You can’t have equitable and fair taxation and spending unless the electoral system delivers properly motivated persons, and I think most would agree that our (accurate) view currently of politicians places them either slightly above or below lawyers as entities that are somehow needed but not admired.
How different could it be if we had a system where our legislators had in mind only the national good and not special interests, and worked only to provide those services most narrowly defined in the Constitution? A less inclusive set of services would also reduce the size of the self-serving bureaucracies. Place limitations on terms and preclude multiple services such as going from mayor to senator to president.
Somehow, we must get motivated, educated people to serve. Probably wouldn’t hurt to try to attract more business people into service. Most current politicians have little or no business experience and can’t properly relate to business issues. This hurts all of us.
Not optimistic that anything will change as we are well down what has previously proven to be a one-way road. Thanks for suggesting the read.
Posted at 09:57 AM in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Culture Comments, Current Affairs, Our Country | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0) | |