RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2021/07/02/yes-we-should-ban-critical-race-theory-from-our-schools-n259192

As we head toward this weekend’s 245th anniversary of American independence, critical race theory has emerged as the dominant subject gripping and dividing the nation. The threshold question, itself the subject of rancorous and oftentimes disingenuous debate, is what the term “critical race theory” even refers to. When this semantic debate surfaces, proponents usually attempt two things at once.

First, they accuse their CRT-skeptical interlocutors of being bigots, white supremacists or apologists who want to deliberately muddle and whitewash America’s complex — and at times tragic — history of race relations. This first step involves CRT proponents grilling CRT critics as to why they are so “scared” to “discuss racism” or “discuss slavery,” as if that applied to anyone other than a truly infinitesimal and politically powerless fringe subset.

Second, while publicly seizing the moral high ground, CRT proponents simultaneously work behind the scenes to advance what it is that they actually believe. Consider this forthright (and harrowing) admission from “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” a 2001 book from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: “Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

CARTOONS | Pat Cross

View Cartoon

CRT proponents, in line with the “anti-racism” movement and vogue notions of “equity,” candidly advocate for discrimination — as long as it is anti-white, anti-Asian, anti-Christian or anti-Jewish. As leading CRT “anti-racist” intellectual Ibram X. Kendi wrote in 2019’s “How to Be an Antiracist”: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

In practice, as courageous investigative journalists such as the Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo have laid bare for all to see, CRT takes the form of crass racial indoctrination that ascribes collective and historical guilt to white Americans, urging white parents of schoolchildren to seek “white abolition” and accusing schools of wantonly “spirit murdering” black children. The two-step CRT apologia described is thus willfully dishonest. It is a bad-faith argument, pure and simple. In formal logic, we would recognize it as a prototypical motte-and-bailey fallacy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/one_way_schools_could_fix_education_that_theyll_never_take.html

What motivates a child to succeed?  That is the central question that should be asked on matters of education.

Since at least the inception of the Department of Education in 1980, the emphasis on education is always placed on socializing the components that go into the quality of instruction.  Whether it’s the instructor, the classroom size, demographic makeup, funds allocated, resources available, etc., government tends to focus on those things that are tangible and within its purview.  But when all funds have been exhausted and we find that our education system fails to keep pace with the rest of the world, our only solution is to look for ways to throw more money at the problem.

It comes as no surprise that the lagging trajectory in the educational performance of American students follows a misallocation of motivators.  Motivation most often comes from outside the walls of the school, and that is one area that is not historically within the scope of government responsibility.  Of late, the government has been overrun with activists who have attempted to fold the greater culture into academia, and as a result, we’ve begun to impart activist ideology that not only doesn’t motivate students, but disincentivizes excellence and de-motivates them.

Adopting ideology like Critical Race Theory that tells children they are inherently inferior because of their race or sex is child abuse, and the abusers should be called out for what they are doing.  On one end of the spectrum, you’re tearing down children for inherent traits that they get no say in and creating self-imposed ceilings in the name of equality.  On the other end of the spectrum, you’re tearing down children by telling them their peers are the reason that life will throw adversity at them and creating those same self-imposed ceilings.

Trade race for sex, and we can see the effects of decades of throwing boys under the bus in the name of sex equality.  They’re lagging in near every facet of society behind their female counterparts.  Activists are aware of this and the successful playbook that they have utilized to tear down the patriarchy is being deployed in the name of tearing down white supremacy.  These are boogeymen of their own creation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/07/12/political-discrimination-as-civil-rights-struggle/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

Viewpoint neutrality should be legally mandated

When a sample of nearly 1,500 female Ivy League students was asked whether they would date a Trump supporter, only 6 percent said yes (after excluding the small minority of the sample who support him). So finds a survey of 20,000 university students that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted in 2020. While people are free to discriminate however they wish in dating, this attitude bleeds into problematic spheres such as hiring and social toleration.

This reveals the predilection among many young elite Americans for progressive authoritarianism, a belief system that justifies infringing rights to equal treatment or free speech in the name of the emotional “safety” of historically marginalized race, gender, and sexuality groups. In this left-modernist worldview, conservatives’ resistance to racial, gender, and sexual progressivism mark them as moral deviants. As Millennials take power, this generational earthquake is set to shake the foundations of the cultural elite to its core, leading to pervasive discrimination against, and censorship of, conservative views.

Apart from the military and police, which have little cultural influence, the only important elite institution that conservatives have a chance of controlling is elected government. As J. D. Vance, Michael Lind, and Richard Hanania suggest, conservatives will have to overcome their squeamishness about government to have any chance of holding back the woke domination of American institutions. To counteract the rising threat that progressive authoritarianism poses to freedom of expression and conscience, conservative policy-makers will need to lose their 1980s libertarian blinders and embrace government-led, civil-liberties-focused intervention in the elite institutions of society. If conservatives persist with utopian fantasies about creating a new ecosystem of universities, schools, corporate cultures, and technological platforms while believing that cuts to university budgets will win the culture war, they will only hasten the rise of progressive authoritarianism.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/unc-grants-nikole-hannah-jones-tenure-after-1619-project-backlash/

The University of North Carolina (UNC) Board of Trustees gathered for a special meeting Wednesday and voted 9–4 to approve the tenure application of Nikole Hannah-Jones, author of the “1619 Project” published by the New York Times.

Some demonstrators congregated inside to watch the meeting, which was supposed to be a closed session, as is standard procedure for a tenure vote. However, this information was reportedly not communicated to the student body, so several people were forcibly removed by police, according to the Daily Tar Heel.

Jones criticized the officers’ conduct with the students in a Twitter statement.

“It should have been communicated how this meeting would go, that tenure proceedings are always held in closed session, and an attempt made to de-escalate. Instead Black students were shoved and punched because they were confused about the process. This is not right,” Hannah-Jones wrote.

All Our Opinion in Your Inbox

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.

A majority vote confirmed Hannah-Jones to be a tenured professor, with trustees Dave Boliek, Haywood Cochrane, Allie Ray McCullen, and John Preyer voting against her candidacy.

https://dianebederman.com/influencers-and-your-children/

Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : sway: the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command:  corrupt interference with authority for personal gain

According to a 2019 survey from Common Sense Media and Survey Monkey: “Teens get their news more frequently from social media sites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) or from YouTube than directly from news organizations. More than half of teens (54%) get news from social media, and 50% get news from YouTube at least a few times a week. Fewer than half, 41%, get news reported by news organizations in print or online at least a few times a week, and only 37% get news on TV at least a few times a week.” Among teens who got their news from YouTube, two-thirds reported learning about the news from celebrities and influencers, rather than news organizations.

So what is an Influencer? The figure of an influencer is supposed to change how we behave, to be a spokesperson who should show a deep sense of appreciation (for something), rather than appropriation. It’s an influencer’s responsibility to create experiences, ideas and ways of thinking that entice crowds to follow them.  Many of these influencers have from hundreds of thousands to millions of followers.

These Influencers are speaking to your children in their bedrooms, without you there to mediate, teaching them morals and values that may not be yours but fit in with today’s cancel culture. They are like pedophiles and bullies who come after your children on line.

I remember people of influence. They did not have the title Influencer. They didn’t need the title. They just influenced by example. They certainly were not given the responsibility to create ways of thinking! What a sense of self-importance!

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/06/28/stop_gaslighting_parents_on_critical_race_theory_783202.html

Proponents of Critical Race Theory are resorting to semantic gaslighting to defend a dogma that most Americans instinctively abhor.

Some pundits claim that CRT is exclusively a school of thought taught in legal academia. On her MSNBC show, Joy Reid claimed that “law school is really the only place it is taught. NBC has looked into everywhere.” Former Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway tweeted: “I don’t think critical legal studies should be taught in elementary schools, and I am ready to die on that hill[.]”

Some journalists, informed by other “experts,” contend that CRT is synonymous with “talking about racism.” NPR defined CRT as “teaching about the effects of racism”; the New York Times called it “classroom discussion of race, racism.” NBC News labeled it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.” 

These definitions are, of course, mutually exclusive. But they both serve to paint parents into a corner. If CRT is defined just as talking about racism, then parental objections to it must be rooted in racism. If CRT is defined just as a thesis discussed in law schools, then parental objections to it must be rooted in ignorance.

There’s no doubt that CRT has become a politicized term. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo forthrightly explained his strategy on this issue as follows: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

Liberal writer Freddie DeBoer has argued that CRT is now a “completely floating signifier.” Conservatives label a host of things they don’t like as CRT. Liberals, then, “feel compelled to defend CRT because conservatives attack it,” and defend it by claiming that it has nothing to do with any of the bad things conservatives say.  

https://www.theepochtimes.com/majority-of-voters-reject-teaching-children-that-

About two-thirds of Americans believe that children should not be taught in school the claim that the United States is a “structurally racist” nation dominated by white supremacy, a new poll revealed.

The findings were published last week as part of an online survey (pdf) conducted by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and The Harris Poll between June 15 and 17, among 2,006 registered voters. The survey asked participants whether they “believe that kids in elementary school should be taught that America is structurally racist and is dominated by white supremacy.”

In response, 61 percent of participants answered children “should not be taught this,” while the remaining 39 percent said children “should be taught that America is structurally racist.”

When it came to another question regarding the teaching of the First Amendment in schools, an overwhelming 81 percent of participants said elementary school students should learn about the First Amendment and the importance of free speech, compared to 19 percent who said they should not.

The results of the survey echoed those of an online poll conducted by Economist and YouGov poll between June 13 and 15, among 1,500 adult U.S. citizens. Participants were asked if they had “a good idea of what critical race theory (CRT) is,” to which 54 percent responded “yes,” 23 percent said “no,” and 23 percent said they are “not sure.”

Those who said they knew about CRT were then asked whether they have a “favorable or unfavorable” opinion of it. Of these participants, 58 percent said they at least have a “somewhat unfavorable” view of CRT, while 38 percent say they are in favor of the Marxism-rooted ideology, which deems the foundations of the American system to be inherently and irredeemably racist.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/28/ivy-league-university-teaches-class-claiming-that-black-holes-are-tied-to-racism/

Cornell University, one of the elite Ivy League schools, is introducing a new astronomy class that claims there are “connections between the cosmos and the idea of racial blackness,” according to the Daily Caller.

The class is called “Black Holes: Race and the Cosmos,” and will focus on the work of “theorists [who] use astronomy concepts like ‘black holes’ and ‘event horizons’ to interpret the history of race in creative ways.” At the same time, the class will address “artists and musicians [who] conjure blackness through cosmological themes and images.”

Despite its explicit focus on race, the class will still count towards Cornell students’ science requirement in their general education classes. According to the class’s official description on Cornell’s website, the course “will introduce students to the fundamentals of astronomy concepts through readings in Black Studies.”

The course’s introduction is the latest blow to the integrity and credibility of Cornell’s astronomy department. The university had previously announced that applicants for the astronomy graduate program will no longer have to submit their scores on the physics GRE, as minority students were more likely to get poorer grades on the exam than White students.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/07/12/dewey-defeats-critical-race-theory/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=top-of-nav&utm_content=magazine&utm_term=title

CRT is not just an attack on the American inheritance of political institutions; it is an attack on the social function of public schools.

Moms are rising up in counterrevolutionary revolt. I’ll say it again, moms are rising up in counterrevolutionary revolt against critical race theory, “anti-racism,” the introduction of the 1619 Project into high-school curricula, and the suddenly invasive demands of diversity, equity, and inclusion consultants who are being hired by their school districts. Although progressives wish, in vain, that this movement were an Astroturf operation run by shadowy right-wing donor networks, it has been springing up in school districts in reaction to initiatives led by administrators themselves.

Tatiana Ibrahim stood up in front of the Carmel school board in Putnam County, N.Y, and denounced what she termed the “communist values” that teachers and administrators in the district are promoting. “Stop indoctrinating our children. Stop teaching our children to hate the police. Stop teaching our children that if they don’t agree with the LGBT community, they’re homophobic,” Ibrahim demanded. “You have no idea of each child’s life,” she said, before announcing, in an only-in-America moment, that she is a Christian and her daughter is a Muslim.

She’s far from alone. “Telling my child or any child that they are in a permanent oppressed status in America because they are black is racist — and saying that white people are automatically above me, my children, or any child is racist as well,” said Quisha King, a mother in Duval County, Fla. “This is not something that we can stand for in our country.” Other revolts — as in Southlake, Texas, and Loudoun County, Va. — have been even more dramatic.

As with the Tea Party movement a decade before it, Fox News, Republican-run legislatures, and the institutions of conservatism are only just catching up to a political movement that has already gone viral. And again, as with the Tea Party, one of the reasons conservative institutions are only just catching up is that this movement — a defense of public schools as they were until recently — is not entirely conservative. But we’ll get to that.

Progressives, seeing the backlash, are feigning ignorance. They snort that critical race theory is a technical discourse that developed in law schools, and that it obviously isn’t taught in public schools. But Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado, in their 1995 book trying to define that rising movement of legal scholarship, do give a definition that seems suitable for describing the ideas now filtering down to other schools under a variety of names. “Unlike traditional civil-rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress,” they write, “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/sociology_professor_claims_shelter_dogs_killed_due_to_white_supremacy.html

Do you know why some dogs in shelters end up perishing? Simple neglect? The sad status of being unwanted? Global warming?

Nope. According to Katja Guenther, a professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of California-Riverside, these canine deaths are due to “capitalism, anthroparchy, white supremacy and patriarchy.”

Of course.

Guenther says, for example, that people of color who abandon their dogs are likely victims “ensnared in the legal system,” forced to leave their animals behind “under the duress of sudden eviction or deportation or arrest.” She even claims that such people believe what they are doing is for the best, because of “the constraints of their knowledge and resources, both of which are limited by the nexus of their class, status as immigrants, and ethnicity.”

Incredibly, Guenther avers that if, say, a Latino man on a bicycle happens to drop a dog “while escaping from mall security officers … after stealing a pair of Wrangler jeans,” it is simply the result of his “status as marginalized.” Moreover, should a woman leave her dog to die at the pound after she has finished breeding her and selling her puppies to buy drugs, it is probably the fault of her “status as a poorly educated queer woman of color.” Wow.

Yet, in her book, “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals,” Guenther claims that allowing your dog to sleep inside your house is actually a manifestation of white privilege. She wants Fido to be locked outside when it’s twenty-below-zero or during violent storms? Doesn’t sound very tolerant and inclusive.