DiscussMormonism.com

This morning the discussion on Meet the Press was on Critical Race Theory. School boards are getting attacked for promoting because it might make white kids feel bad. \
Idaho and Utah have passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... o-Mormons/
90% of the legislature are Mormons.
Teenagers are not stupid they have IPhones can get the informantion of for example Tulsa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

Yeah, these bills are a lot of empty gesturing on the Right. Create a panic about something that was never a problem to begin with. Very rare would be the case of a K-12 teacher in Utah or Idaho teaching critical race theory. I doubt many if any even know what it is, and of those they are probably cowed into not bringing up stuff that will drive the wilting flowers of the GOP out of their minds.

Critical race theory is unfortunately often discussed but rarely read. Supporters think it's harmless, without having read it. Detractors think it's the end of the world, without having read it.

Having read the textbook, Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction, I can say that I personally think the ideas contained in there are very radical and it would be a mistake to accept them without criticism. However, they're not the boogey-man that the right thinks they are, and they're not a scapegoat for all the ills of the world.

I asked my conservative LDS friends who were decrying Critical Race Theory to point to a specific school that was teaching critical race theory. They never responded.

The Idaho legislative prohibition is as follows in the quoted materials:

(a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
(i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;

I support this neutrality provision.

(a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets
* * *
(ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or

I support this neutrality provision.

(a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets
* * *
(iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

I support this no-sins-of-their-fathers provision. However, I do think that reparations (or at least affirmative action) by society at large--not by any specific individuals by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, color, or national origin--for the lingering, negative effects on certain minorities is appropriate. For example, by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the U.S. paid $20,000 to each survivor of the WWII Japanese American internment. That there are lingering, statistically significant disparity of African Americans vis-a-vis the rest of U.S. population suggests that slavery and then Jim Crow laws and then societal disdain down through the generations suggest that there needs to be more affirmative action to rectify the remnants.

(b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color.

I support this neutrality provision.

(c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the tenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school.

I have looked up the Idaho legislation and set it forth here because it is a conservative legislature's attempt to define the Fox News straw man: critical race theory. This shows how slippery it is to try to define critical race theory in the public arena. It is an extremely fine line, if not a nonexistent one, that, for the most part, simply reiterates the 14th Amendment anyway.

Exactly. We have hard fought and won neutrality provisions in law, and those are consistent with human rights.

We stray away from them with reparations, affirmative action, or any form of discrimination (positive or negative) at our peril.

Here as well in quoted passages is the Utah legislation

31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Representatives strongly
32 recommends that the Utah State Board of Education review standards for curriculum and
33 ensure that no curriculum or instructional materials in the state include the following concepts:
34 < that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another race;

Just like the Idaho legislative concept of race neutrality. The only educators that I have heard of spouting inherent superiority or inferiority are those that promote white supremacists.

35 < that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment
36 because of the individual's race; or

Similar to Idaho's, but limited to race. I have not heard reported that any Utah educators are suggesting that any race, not even Caucasions, outh to be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment vis-a-vis any other race.

37 < that an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race.

While I have in society heard disparaging remarks that 'you can't trust X' (X being usually people of darker shades of skin or Jewish), I did not experience it in going through public schools in the 1960s and 1970s, and have never heard tell of such happening.

38 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Representatives strongly recommends
39 that no training or training material that the Utah State Board of Education or a local education
40 agency provides include the concepts described in this resolution.

This and the Idaho legislative effort are about the weakest legislative sauce I've ever seen. They show difficulties defining critical race theory as something that the prohibition of would not run afoul of the 14th Amendment. Further, my understanding of critical race theory is to add to historical analysis and discussion the inquiry of what, if any, impact did past racism in the U.S. have on the course of events. Nothing in the legislation of Idaho or Utah would even purport to stop such inquiries.

I support this no-sins-of-their-fathers provision. However, I do think that reparations (or at least affirmative action) by society at large--not by any specific individuals by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, color, or national origin--for the lingering, negative effects on certain minorities is appropriate. For example, by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the U.S. paid $20,000 to each survivor of the WWII Japanese American internment. That there are lingering, statistically significant disparity of African Americans vis-a-vis the rest of U.S. population suggests that slavery and then Jim Crow laws and then societal disdain down through the generations suggest that there needs to be more affirmative action to rectify the remnants.

This. It is astounding to me that people look at the generations of acts of oppression and theft aimed at Black Americans and think that removing the more egregious ones makes everything hunky dory moving forward. Any lingering bad feelings or sense of injustice on the part of Black Americans is viewed as divisive. Who would not feel aggrieved in their place? The pain and substantive harm doesn’t magically disappear when the attacks end, especially when nothing is done to repair the damage. Restitution of some kind for generations of theft and economic oppression is in order.

Many whites just don’t want there to be any real acknowledgment of wrong or restitution. They just change the game in order to skate out of accountability of any kind. They only seem to like being the ones who force accountability on others.

I don’t have the answers to these problems because they are more complicated than simply teaching more accurate history, but of course many white people don’t even tolerate that. It’s quite a trick to say that race shouldn’t matter when it may harm you, after you benefitted from generations of stealing from people on the basis of racial categories your people created.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:58 pm

It’s quite a trick to say that race shouldn’t matter when it may harm you, after you benefitted from generations of stealing from people on the basis of racial categories your people created.

This is why it was such a profound thing for Dr. King to say.

If you are interested in just how unnecessary legislation prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory is, take 20 minutes and listen to this interview by Marc Lamont Hill of Steve Christiansen, the Utah legislator who sponsored the legislation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzYNRFQ2R7s Although pressed repeatedly over 20 minutes for examples, Christiansen offered one that does not even hold any water. He talked about an exercise at a high school in his legislative district where a teacher had the students line up laterally and for each question answered right, the students took a step forward, for each answered wrong, the students took a step back. Christiansen did not say what the questions were, but said there was a black student that got answers wrong and was thus after the steps were taken, standing behind the other students. That black student reportedly felt inferior because standing behind the others. That was the only specific, concrete example that in 20 minutes of questioning Christiansen offered up in the interview as justification for needing critical race theory-blocking legislation. Quite the straw man set up, so that the valiant legislature could vanquish it. Very Quixotic.