Space Force Officer Relieved After Denouncing CRT/Marxism

[Griz882]

As far as I can tell from reading this thread and some varied sources that school districts are considering how they teach and address equity. Some of this includes providing non-white perspectives in the classroom and some included attempts to identify and address individuals and groups who may need extra resources. Somewhere in the national discourse the word equity was linked to CRT* so now it's become a dog whistle for local groups to engage with their school districts on what they're presenting to students and whether it's teaching or indoctrination of the wrong sort.

*CRT in it's "traditional" definition is a legal approach/framework that attempts to address systemic racism. It seems to be upsetting because of the notion that there may be systemic racism and that power structures might be built to advantage some and not others. Apparently this is shocking to people. In addition some seem to not understand how the idea of acknowledging systemic racism can coexist with treating people equally. Because CRT was already viewed negatively and it relates to equity the right has attempted to make CRT an umbrella term and make it into the next hill to die on in the forever culture wars.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. CRT is a serious and well-followed academic field of study (and one I find inherently dangerous). it has very specific educational goals and they are not the silly stuff of "culture wars." To start with - equity vs. equality. Equity sounds non-threatening (like calling the AGM-119 a Penguin, cute, but very deadly) and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is quite important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists in academia meaning it must be rejected in pre-secondary and secondary education. Every CRT theorist, every one, states openly in their writings that equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

On the other hand, here are some actual examples of equity as seen by CRT scholars;

1. UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

2. Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.” This is rather radical when you consider that Kendi wrote; “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” Put simply, weaponizing skin color is the means and Marxism is the end.

But it is fair to ask how this Ivory Tower silliness has filtered down to public schools. Here are some factual examples:

1. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

2. In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school required teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”

3. In Philadelphia, an elementary school required fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder.

4. In Seattle, the school district sent a letter to white teachers reminding them that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

Please, tell me how any of these ideas is good for the children of our country, and keep in mind that fascism promotes a variation of these exact same themes. But let's be even more exact. This isn't just an academic experiment in belly-button gazing, this has reached into the highest levels of science. Papers have been published in hard science journals demanding that practitioners of physics stop using the term "Black Hole" since it was based on racism (not remotely true) and some departments have complied. Several school districts in the US is required to incorporate an "antiracism" objective into their curriculum, but I have to ask the smart fellows here...what might be an effective antiracist objective for physics, trigonometry and chemistry and engineering? Always remember, tomorrows public school standards are being tested in colleges and universities today.

I believe in my heart of hearts that racism is horrible. I believe that every person in this country is (or absolutely should be) my equal in the eyes of the law - zero difference. I was just a boy, but I remember MLK's call to judge a person by the content of their soul over the color of their skin (and you can toss in just about all other differences). But most of all I am certain, as in 2+2=4 certain that creating more racism will cure what racism we have now.

 

[RoarkJr.]

As far as I can tell from reading this thread and some varied sources that school districts are considering how they teach and address equity. Some of this includes providing non-white perspectives in the classroom and some included attempts to identify and address individuals and groups who may need extra resources. Somewhere in the national discourse the word equity was linked to CRT* so now it's become a dog whistle for local groups to engage with their school districts on what they're presenting to students and whether it's teaching or indoctrination of the wrong sort.

*CRT in it's "traditional" definition is a legal approach/framework that attempts to address systemic racism. It seems to be upsetting because of the notion that there may be systemic racism and that power structures might be built to advantage some and not others. Apparently this is shocking to people. In addition some seem to not understand how the idea of acknowledging systemic racism can coexist with treating people equally. Because CRT was already viewed negatively and it relates to equity the right has attempted to make CRT an umbrella term and make it into the next hill to die on in the forever culture wars.

I’d disagree on why you think “it seems to be upsetting.” Insinuating that all of these concerned parents and states that have banned CRT/1619 Project are only upset because “there may be systemic racism” is exactly the smug and dismissive attitude that has led to what we’re seeing now; people fed up with being lectured by haughty political ideologues about their unconscious racism, and then going to their school boards and legislators about it.

 

[RoarkJr.]

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. CRT is a serious and well-followed academic field of study (and one I find inherently dangerous). it has very specific educational goals and they are not the silly stuff of "culture wars." To start with - equity vs. equality. Equity sounds non-threatening (like calling the AGM-119 a Penguin, cute, but very deadly) and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is quite important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists in academia meaning it must be rejected in pre-secondary and secondary education. Every CRT theorist, every one, states openly in their writings that equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

On the other hand, here are some actual examples of equity as seen by CRT scholars;

1. UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

2. Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.” This is rather radical when you consider that Kendi wrote; “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” Put simply, weaponizing skin color is the means and Marxism is the end.

But it is fair to ask how this Ivory Tower silliness has filtered down to public schools. Here are some factual examples:

1. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

2. In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school required teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”

3. In Philadelphia, an elementary school required fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder.

4. In Seattle, the school district sent a letter to white teachers reminding them that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

Please, tell me how any of these ideas is good for the children of our country, and keep in mind that fascism promotes a variation of these exact same themes. But let's be even more exact. This isn't just an academic experiment in belly-button gazing, this has reached into the highest levels of science. Papers have been published in hard science journals demanding that practitioners of physics stop using the term "Black Hole" since it was based on racism (not remotely true) and some departments have complied. Several school districts in the US is required to incorporate an "antiracism" objective into their curriculum, but I have to ask the smart fellows here...what might be an effective antiracist objective for physics, trigonometry and chemistry and engineering? Always remember, tomorrows public school standards are being tested in colleges and universities today.

I believe in my heart of hearts that racism is horrible. I believe that every person in this country is (or absolutely should be) my equal in the eyes of the law - zero difference. I was just a boy, but I remember MLK's call to judge a person by the content of their soul over the color of their skin (and you can toss in just about all other differences). But most of all I am certain, as in 2+2=4 certain that creating more racism will cure what racism we have now.

I’m genuinely interested in hearing from those who don’t seem to think any of this is a problem, or aren’t concerned.

 

[wink]

School district politics and policy are grass roots retail civics. Parents who go through election cycles like automatons and have never had a bumper sticker on their car will become seriously activist when they see their children's education threatened or taken advantage of. Parent testimony at school board meetings should not be taken lightly by any politician or policy maker. And remember, in the meeting above, we are talking Laudon County. Laudon is a very liberal county. Takes a lot to piss off liberals with "antiracist" policies.

 

[Pags]

I’d disagree on why you think “it seems to be upsetting.” Insinuating that all of these concerned parents and states that have banned CRT/1619 Project are only upset because “there may be systemic racism” is exactly the smug and dismissive attitude that has led to what we’re seeing now; people fed up with being lectured by haughty political ideologues about their unconscious racism, and then going to their school boards and legislators about it.

You didn't really say what you disagree with other than my choice of words. Which is really a matter of opinion. You are obviously upset by these developments as are others. There are also some who aren't upset. I was trying to walk a polite middle ground while acknowledging the source of friction.

 

[Pags]

School district politics and policy are grass roots retail civics. Parents who go through election cycles like automatons and have never had a bumper sticker on their car will become seriously activist when they see their children's education threatened or taken advantage of. Parent testimony at school board meetings should not be taken lightly by any politician or policy maker. And remember, in the meeting above, we are talking Laudon County. Laudon is a very liberal county. Takes a lot to piss off liberals with "antiracist" policies.

Agree that what public schools teach is like blood in the water. See the Scopes monkey trial and any number of dustups over evolution, books, sex Ed, etc. However, I think the latest YouTube video above is from PA.

 

[Pags]

@Griz882 : those are some good points (no sarcasm).

My thoughts on the less sinister aspects of this discussion can be summed up around redlining. Redlining is the practice of denying services to parts of a community. This practice was used by banks and govts to create rules and policies that made it difficult for certain communities that were often racially oriented to own homes. The argument is that many of the practices are still in place resulting in less equity for the disadvantaged community. CRT was developed to legally address these issues. The fact that these rules were made would probably be enough to say that the folks who enacted them in an earlier time were racists / racially motivated. The fact that these rules are still in effect doesn't make the banks or their current employees racist. But, if the bank wanted to be more equitable, it could review it's policies and remove policies that affect the disadvantaged group. This would be anti-racist. I'd personally struggle to see what the issue would be actions like this other than an institution having to admit to past faults.

Certainly some of the examples you put up are taking it too far and don't seem to be helpful and probably even harmful. As I mentioned before I think too often these discussions are framed as win/lose.

 

[Griz882]

@Griz882 : those are some good points (no sarcasm).

My thoughts on the less sinister aspects of this discussion can be summed up around redlining. Redlining is the practice of denying services to parts of a community. This practice was used by banks and govts to create rules and policies that made it difficult for certain communities that were often racially oriented to own homes. The argument is that many of the practices are still in place resulting in less equity for the disadvantaged community. CRT was developed to legally address these issues. The fact that these rules were made would probably be enough to say that the folks who enacted them in an earlier time were racists / racially motivated. The fact that these rules are still in effect doesn't make the banks or their current employees racist. But, if the bank wanted to be more equitable, it could review it's policies and remove policies that affect the disadvantaged group. This would be anti-racist. I'd personally struggle to see what the issue would be actions like this other than an institution having to admit to past faults.

Certainly some of the examples you put up are taking it too far and don't seem to be helpful and probably even harmful. As I mentioned before I think too often these discussions are framed as win/lose.

I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. I will never deny that racism hasn’t been and occasionally still isn’t a powerful and deadly tool in the US. There is much work to do and we have been doing it for years and are still not done. Still, I find the idea of using racism (CRT) to fix racism a faulty and dangerous tool.

 

[Pags]

I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. I will never deny that racism hasn’t been and occasionally still isn’t a powerful and deadly tool in the US. There is much work to do and we have been doing it for years and are still not done. Still, I find the idea of using racism (CRT) to fix racism a faulty and dangerous tool.

Im still not convinced that the original/traditional CRT is racist. I think many of the ideas that have spun off from it have varying degrees of "possible racism" to out right racism and that these ideas are the ones that conflated in with the original CRT and are now construed as CRT by opponents of the notion.

For example, your example of seizure of all private property may have started with a CRT-derived notion of balancing equity and then just jumped the shark to communism. At it's end state it's no longer CRT and instead a modern example of the disproven utopia of Marxism.

But I don't think all attempts to address equity are necessarily bad and destined to end in communism as is being portended. Yes, addressing equity does have shades of affirmative action but I think we owe it to our fellow Americans to understand if their lives are harder than what many of us have experienced due to attempts of those in the past to purposefully make them harder.

 

[robav8r]

Im still not convinced that the original/traditional CRT is racist. I think many of the ideas that have spun off from it have varying degrees of "possible racism" to out right racism and that these ideas are the ones that conflated in with the original CRT and are now construed as CRT by opponents of the notion.

For example, your example of seizure of all private property may have started with a CRT-derived notion of balancing equity and then just jumped the shark to communism. At it's end state it's no longer CRT and instead a modern example of the disproven utopia of Marxism.

But I don't think all attempts to address equity are necessarily bad and destined to end in communism as is being portended. Yes, addressing equity does have shades of affirmative action but I think we owe it to our fellow Americans to understand if their lives are harder than what many of us have experienced due to attempts of those in the past to purposefully make them harder.

One of the larger issues not being discussed here, is the mandate that the state of VA has placed on the school boards. I'll post the law that was passed and signed by Governor Northam . . .

 

[wink]

However, I think the latest YouTube video above is from PA.

My bad, I think. Just a confused old man. Saw the videos of the Laudon meeting on TV.

But, if the bank wanted to be more equitable, it could review it's policies and remove policies that affect the disadvantaged group.

Issues like redlining are dealt with in the courts by arguing disparate outcomes. There are problems with that when the only disparate outcome they are looking at is racial, ignoring other reasons for the outcome. Thomas Sowell has written extensively about this. Famously, when arguing a case involving disparate outcomes before the Supreme Court, a lawyer when describing the hiring outcomes of a business, was interrupted by Justice Ginsberg to affirm that business was using discriminatory hiring practices. Turns out, the "business" was an analog for Ginsberg's hiring history of staff and law clerks. In the case of redlining home mortgages things like default rates and majority affluent black neighborhoods must be considered.

As an aside, I don't see how one argues systematic or institutional racism and then insist the people that make up the system or are controlling the institution are not racist. That is why these race theorists have to rely so heavy on notions like implied bias and anti-antiracism. I think it is nonsense.

 

[Pags]

As an aside, I don't see how one argues systematic or institutional racism and then insist the people that make up the system or are controlling the institution are not racist. That is why these race theorists have to rely so heavy on notions like implied bias and anti-antiracism. I think it is nonsense.

I can speak to the specific legal stuff beyond that CRT, as initially developed, was another way to argue those sort of cases. Anything beyond that is getting far too legally technical for me as a non-lawyer.

As I said earlier, the way I understand it, is that the rules/procedures, for say a a bank and mortgages, were made years ago. Perhaps they were designed to be specifically racist or they just contain the biases of their time. Then no one takes the time to update them for relevancy because they seem to be working. The rules are upheld by current employees as part of their job. These employees arent racist. Their job isn't to update policy. They just do their job using the tools they're given. But, because of how the rules were developed or the intent behind them, the process results in negative (racist) outcomes.

To use an example that may be more German for this crowd, when HC went from 46s to 60s the squadron SOPs didn't change despite the change in airframes. The old Phrog guys still liked the rules and they still made sense to them. But as the 60 guys got more horsepower and more understanding of the negative impacts of the phrogisms left in the SOP they had to argue to change the SOP. But people could have continued to live with the limits of an anachronistic Phrog SOP if it never bothered how they wanted to use the 60 (old Phrog guys fly the 60 like a Phrog). But as more 60 guys come along the rules change to better match the current reality. Maybe that helps?

 

[Python]

Im still not convinced that the original/traditional CRT is racist. I think many of the ideas that have spun off from it have varying degrees of "possible racism" to out right racism and that these ideas are the ones that conflated in with the original CRT and are now construed as CRT by opponents of the notion.

For example, your example of seizure of all private property may have started with a CRT-derived notion of balancing equity and then just jumped the shark to communism. At it's end state it's no longer CRT and instead a modern example of the disproven utopia of Marxism.

But I don't think all attempts to address equity are necessarily bad and destined to end in communism as is being portended. Yes, addressing equity does have shades of affirmative action but I think we owe it to our fellow Americans to understand if their lives are harder than what many of us have experienced due to attempts of those in the past to purposefully make them harder.

I’ll bite that CRT as an academic discipline as originally intended is not necessarily an evil, racist ideology. The big point is that the extremist spin-offs you mention are becoming the mainstream form of CRT (not in their academic literature, but in the way it’s being presented at schools). That’s the problem. You can call it “radical fake CRT” for all I care, but that’s what is spreading and that’s what the problem is.

 

[Python]

I can speak to the specific legal stuff beyond that CRT, as initially developed, was another way to argue those sort of cases. Anything beyond that is getting far too legally technical for me as a non-lawyer.

As I said earlier, the way I understand it, is that the rules/procedures, for say a a bank and mortgages, were made years ago. Perhaps they were designed to be specifically racist or they just contain the biases of their time. Then no one takes the time to update them for relevancy because they seem to be working. The rules are upheld by current employees as part of their job. These employees arent racist. Their job isn't to update policy. They just do their job using the tools they're given. But, because of how the rules were developed or the intent behind them, the process results in negative (racist) outcomes.

To use an example that may be more German for this crowd, when HC went from 46s to 60s the squadron SOPs didn't change despite the change in airframes. The old Phrog guys still liked the rules and they still made sense to them. But as the 60 guys got more horsepower and more understanding of the negative impacts of the phrogisms left in the SOP they had to argue to change the SOP. But people could have continued to live with the limits of an anachronistic Phrog SOP if it never bothered how they wanted to use the 60 (old Phrog guys fly the 60 like a Phrog). But as more 60 guys come along the rules change to better match the current reality. Maybe that helps?

Your analogy works to an extent. However some of the end states of the extreme (becoming mainstream) interpretations of CRT are much more serious. Instead of the SOP, try the foundations of the United States. As Kendi wrote “capitalism is essentially racist. Racism is essentially capitalist.” Proponents on the more extreme end (and with the loudest voices) would support redoing the US constitution, as it is “inherently racist.” The belief is that the US had a good run for a few hundred years, but it’s failed at its mission of a free society for all; time for a reset. Thats a little deeper than an SOP change for the modern times.

I am onboard that historical policies and people have left minority communities in bad shape. I don’t think anybody denies the US has some dark stains on its soul. But a complete overhaul is not appropriate.

 

[HAL Pilot]

To use an example that may be more German for this crowd, when HC went from 46s to 60s the squadron SOPs didn't change despite the change in airframes. The old Phrog guys still liked the rules and they still made sense to them. But as the 60 guys got more horsepower and more understanding of the negative impacts of the phrogisms left in the SOP they had to argue to change the SOP. But people could have continued to live with the limits of an anachronistic Phrog SOP if it never bothered how they wanted to use the 60 (old Phrog guys fly the 60 like a Phrog). But as more 60 guys come along the rules change to better match the current reality. Maybe that helps?

Did the Phrog guys have to stand up in an AOM and apologize for being Phrog guys, acknowledge the privilege being a Phrog guy gave them and promise to give things to the 60 guys to make up for it?