NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools….

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools.

Something peculiar is spreading throughout America’s schools. A public school system just outside the nation’s capital spent $20,000 to be lectured about making their schools less racist.[1]At a tony New York City prep school, a teacher was publicly denounced by the administration for questioning the idea that students should identify themselves in terms of their racial identity.[2] Educators in California are locked in pitched combat over a statewide model curriculum overflowing with terms like “hxrstories” and “cisheteropatriarchy.”[3]

Source: NEWS YOU CAN USE: Manhattan Institute Offers Toolkit for Parents to Fight Back Against Woke Schools….

Source: Woke Schooling: A Toolkit for Concerned Parents

Five questions for your school on Critical Race Theory

Again, there’s a difference between teaching about Critical Race Theory and teaching in Critical Race Theory.

So how can you tell if a teacher, principal, or school board official tells you that, no, there’s no critical race theory here (as a lone heckler briefly interrupted my remarks in Loudoun County to inform me)? Here is a list (by no means exhaustive) of five key critical race theory principles. If your school or office does anything that includes these ideas, you can confidently call Bovine Manure when they deny it’s critical race theory.

The first and most important bedrock principle of critical race theory is that racism is not an individual, conscious decision to be a racist or act on that belief. No, it’s “systemic.” Racism, according to critical race theory’s purveyors, is written into America’s laws, institutions, and capitalist system. What masquerades as American culture is actually the norms and practices of white people.

“Critical race theory,” writes one of its main architects, Angela Harris, “takes the position that racism pervades our institutions, our beliefs, and our everyday practices.”

A second principle follows from the first: Behaviors and beliefs are inherent in identity categories, and thus the members of these categories must not adopt American culture—which, in their telling, is merely a conspiracy to perpetuate white supremacy. Members of minority groups must never assimilate to standard practices or norms, even those that appear neutral on the surface.

“[M]any Latinos naturally view information about time more generally and simply cannot see the judicial system’s need for specificity and exactitude,” writes Maria Ontiveros, a professor at the University of San Francisco, in her book “Critical Race Feminism.”

A third bedrock principle is that white people receive unearned privilege at birth, while other Americans are denied it. This “whiteness premium” has prevented the union of the working class.

Segregation, wrote the man widely recognized as the “Godfather” of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, “represented an economic-political compromise between the elite and working-class whites [that] gave to the poor the sense of superiority, while retaining the substance for the rich.”

A fourth principle is that meritocracy is myth. Since whites have rigged the system, all the ways we use to measure merit or success in education or work are far from objective. Hiring metrics and workplace benchmarks, and standardized tests for university admissions, must be eliminated.

On this we have, again, the authority of Bell, who wrote in “Popular Democracy,” a chapter in “The Derrick Bell Reader”: “In short, merit serves as the phony pennant of color-blindness, used as justification for opposition to affirmative action.”

The fifth and last tenet is that equity must replace equality. This may surprise those who think they amount to pretty much the same thing, but under critical race theory, the word equity has become corrupted, and has become the functional opposite of equality. Because the systemic racism that critical race theory’s proponents see everywhere has produced disparities under a capitalist system that rewards the wrong criteria, government must step in and treat individual Americans unequally.

Only in that manner will outcomes be equal.

And on this, we have no less an authority than our Vice President Kamala Harris: “Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

Any curriculum or training program that does any of the above is classic critical race theory. Any functionary who denies it has simply not read her Derrick Bell—or may be lying to you.

Daily Signal

Five tenets of CRT and what they mean

What makes discussions of CRT more complicated is that people are conflating teaching about CRT, which happens in law school, with teaching in CRT, which happens in grade schools and high schools.

When people say CRT isn’t being taught in grade schools, guess which sense they’re referring to.

One of the problems with discussing and debating CRT is that it’s a complicated set of teachings and beliefs about which people know very little, and which probably vary at least somewhat according to who is doing the trainings. The most pernicious aspects of CRT are often in the details of how the trainings and/or classes go.

Source: Five tenets of CRT and what they mean

Don’t Ban Critical Race Theory. Expose It

There’s a liberal way to fight illiberalism. And it’s beginning to work.

The stories in the mainstream media this past week about the broadening campaign to ban critical race theory in public schools have been fascinating — and particularly in how they describe what CRT is. Here’s the Atlantic’s benign summary of CRT: “recent reexaminations of the role that slavery and segregation have played in American history and the attempts to redress those historical offenses.” NBC News calls it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.” NPR calls CRT: “teaching about the effects of racism.” The New York Times calls it, with a straight face, “classroom discussion of race, racism” and goes on to describe it as a “framework used to look at how racism is woven into seemingly neutral laws and institutions.”

How on earth could merely teaching students about the history of racism and its pervasiveness in the United States provoke such a fuss? No wonder Charles Blow is mystified. But don’t worry. The MSM have a ready explanation: the GOP needs an inflammatory issue to rile their racist base, and so this entire foofaraw is really just an astro-turfed, ginned-up partisan gambit about nothing. The MSM get particular pleasure in ridiculing parents who use the term “critical race theory” as shorthand for things that just, well, make them uncomfortable — when the parents obviously have no idea what CRT really is.

When pushed to describe it themselves, elite journalists refer to the legal theories Derrick Bell came up with, in the 1970s — obscure, esoteric and nothing really to do with high-school teaching. “If your kid is learning CRT, your kid is in law/grad school,” snarked one. Marc Lamont Hill even tried to pull off some strained references to Gramsci to prove his Marxian intellectual cred, and to condescend to his opponents.

This rubric achieves several things at once. It denies that there is anything really radical or new about CRT; it flatters the half-educated; it blames the controversy entirely on Republican opportunism; and it urges all fair-minded people to defend intellectual freedom and racial sensitivity against these ugly white supremacists.

….

And no, 6-year-olds are not being taught Derrick Bell — or forced to read Judith Butler, or God help them, Kimberlé Crenshaw. Of course they aren’t — and I don’t know anyone who says they are.

But they are being taught popularized terms, new words, and a whole new epistemology that is directly downstream of academic critical theory. Ibram X. Kendi even has an AntiRacist Baby Picture Book so you can indoctrinate your child into the evil of whiteness as soon as she or he can gurgle. It’s a little hard to argue that CRT is not interested in indoctrinating kids when its chief proponent in the US has a kiddy book on the market.

The goal of education of children this young is to cement the notion at the most formative age that America is at its core an oppressive racist system uniquely designed to exploit, harm, abuse, and even kill the non-white. This can be conveyed in easy terms, by training kids to see themselves first and foremost as racial avatars, and by inculcating in them a sense of their destiny as members of the oppressed or oppressor classes in the zero-sum struggle for power that is American society in 2021.

….

This is not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory. And it is compulsory and often hidden from parents. It contradicts the core foundations of our liberal society; and is presented not as one truth to be contrasted with others, but as the truth, the basis on which all other truths are built. That’s why teaching based on CRT will make children see themselves racially from the get-go, why it will separate them into different racial groups, why it will compel white kids to internalize their complicity in evil, tell black kids that all their troubles are a function of white people, banish objective measurements of success to avoid stigmatizing failure, and treat children of different races differently in a classically racist hierarchy.

And this is why — crucially — it will suppress any other way of seeing the world — because any other way, by definition, is merely perpetuating oppression. As Kendi constantly reminds us, it is either/or. An antiracist cannot exist with a liberalism that perpetuates racism. And it’s always the liberalism that has to go.

….

What parents and principled teachers of all races can do is protest, show up to school board meetings, demand accountability and total transparency, share and spread the evidence of this indoctrination, demand answers from teachers and principals, and, if all else fails, pull their kids from public schools if necessary.

And what the rest of us should do is support them, come to the aid of fired teachers, shaken students, bullied educators, and intimidated mothers and fathers. And never, ever concede the idea that opposing critical race theory is racist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Insist that you are not attempting to ban CRT but to allow it to be taught as one idea among many in a liberal education. And do not conflate CRT with honest, painful accounts of our history, which can be taught just as well within a liberal context.

The legacy of this country’s profound racism, the deep and abiding shame of its genocidal slavocracy, the atrocities, such as Tulsa, which have been white-washed, the appalling record of lynchings and beatings, the centrality of African-Americans to the story and success of this country: all this must be better explored and understood. There is nothing wrong and a huge amount right about black scholars taking the lead in shining light on what others might miss, building on past knowledge, helping us better account for it. White scholars, like the hundreds of thousands of white citizens who gave their lives to end slavery, have a crucial role to play as well.

But we must also unequivocally insist that all of this is only possible within a liberal system — that sees the individual and reason and equality as our foundations. Liberalism can live with critical race theory; but critical race theory is committed in its foundational texts to the overthrow of liberalism. And this matters.

It’s not just a culture war gambit. It’s a deep defense of our liberal inheritance. Once a generation grows up believing that there is no such thing as reason — just “white thinking” and “black thinking”; once it grows up believing that free speech is a device for oppression not liberation; once it sees our founding documents as cynical lies to perpetuate slavery and “white supremacy”; once it believes that no progress has ever been made in race relations, because the “systems” sustain unaltered “white supremacy” for ever, then we have detonated the foundations of a free society.

Source: Don’t Ban Critical Race Theory. Expose It

R-E-S-P-E- C-T

The other night on facebook, I found myself in a weird argument with someone who thought there really was white privilege because “you can go anywhere and be treated like a human being.” I’m not 100% sure what he means by “being treated like a human being” because casting a long eye to history and how human beings who ain’t from around here are treated, I’m glad to say I’ve never been — on the mild side — run out of town or killed and thrown in an acid pit.

….

My sons don’t appear black (well, the younger if he’s tanned, looks half way there, partly because his hair grows upward) but they appear “mixed race” (Human race. We think. Most of the time.) and are both large, swarthy and male. By the time they were in their mid-teens they found that total strangers skeedaddled away from them backwards. Or — poor older son — that they had to argue for hours to get the “honors cords” for their graduation gowns. Or that their departmental honors and second degree wouldn’t be called out at graduation (while the “honors” of the tiny, bespectacled guys and chicks graduating from studies were.” Or that, when found in an area of school/college reserved for serious pursuits, they were questions and in one case told that “you jocks don’t know this.”

What have they done? They’ve mitigated by dressing in slightly old fashioned ways, wearing their hair short, and talking with old-fashioned courtesy.

White privilege? Well, hell no. “Insider privilege.” And you can fake it.

Source: R-E-S-P-E- C-T

ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW: If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical r…

ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW:

If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical race theory is,” then why don’t Democrats and others communicate the information? Instead, as Blow describes in his column, Republicans use the term to generate anxiety about what those terrible left-wingers want to do to us.

I challenge proponents of Critical Race Theory to speak to ordinary people in terms they can understand and explain the theory, why it’s a theory, and what is meant by “critical.” Don’t just tell us conclusions and demand that we accept them and don’t just introduce another confusing term. That is, don’t just say that there is “systemic racism.” Explain the theory and what is critical about the theory.

Why can’t that be done clearly and straightforwardly? People are right to feel anxious and suspicious about something so big and powerful that can’t be talked about. To say “In fact, I don’t even believe that most people have any real concept of what critical race theory is” is to blame the people for failing to understand what isn’t being discussed clearly. That’s perverse and elitist.

Well, most “woke” stuff is perverse and elitist. And Critical Race Theory can’t be discussed clearly and straightforwardly because if it were, the vast majority of people would reject it. Hence the smoke and mirrors and charges of bigotry aimed at critics in place of reasoned argument.

Related, the Critical Race Theory Motte and Bailey:

Source: ANN ALTHOUSE RESPONDS TO CHARLES BLOW: If “most people” lack “any real concept of what critical r…

The Whiteness of Woke

“If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention” the bumper stickers on a thousand SUVs in the upscale bedroom communities of dysfunctional cities read. “Deutschland Erwache,” the National Socialists used to shout in the streets of Munich. Woke compresses it all to one word.

Wokeness means believing that politics is all there is to life. And nothing is whiter than that.

….

What’s whiteness? As the Smithsonian Museum of African-American Culture’s chart of “white culture” put it, whiteness covers everything from a serious work ethic to self-reliance, rational thinking, delayed gratification, achieving goals, being on time, and, finally, “competition”.

Get rid of academic standards, intellectual seriousness, punish success, and the mediocre woke white elites who first created quota systems a century ago have much more of a shot at the top.

The inherent assumption of class warfare was that the proles were too backward to be a competitive threat. The racist assumption behind critical race theory is that black people can’t compete. If the wokes thought otherwise, they would be denouncing black people as racist the way that Asian-Americans and Jews are repeatedly accused of racism and privilege.

Being accused of group privilege isn’t an insult: it’s a backhanded compliment. Wokes pander to those groups they think of as inferior and attack those groups they see as competition.

Source: The Whiteness of Woke

Biden Falsely Claims “White Supremacist Terrorism” a Greater Threat Than ISIS and Al-Qaeda

Fortunately both Islamic and white supremacist terror are extremism rare in America, never accounting for more than 1% of all homicides in any given year except 2001.

Whether it’s white supremacists or Islamic extremists that are America’s biggest terror threat determines what timeline we’re looking at. Given that 9/11 resulted in more deaths than every white supremacist terror incident in the 21st century combined by a country mile, it cannot possibly be the case that white supremacist terror is a greater threat than Islamic terror overall.

But, with groups like ISIS decimated thanks to Donald Trump’s policies, it could easily be the case that white supremacist deaths exceeded Islamist deaths in a single recent year – and that’s what is happening here.

I’ve debunked previous versions of this argument years ago, and the latest iteration comes from a Homeland Security report that spawned headlines such as this one over at CNN: “White supremacists remain deadliest U.S. terror threat.” As one learns on the eighteenth page of the report however, this is based on a sample size of one year of data (from 2018-2019). “American domestic violence extremists, racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists – specifically white supremacist extremists will remain the most persistent and lethal threat to the homeland” reads the key passage of the report, nothing that from 2018-2019, white supremacists conducted half of all lethal attacks (eight total) among domestic violent extremists, resulting in 39 out of 48 deaths that year from domestic extremism. For reference, the 2016 ISIS-inspired Pulse Nightclub massacre alone killed 49 people, more than all white supremacists combined in 2018-2019.

Dan Bongino Show

The Constitutional Vanguard: Are Emily and Greg Really More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?

Or, for that matter, Cletus and Rufus?

Big Media has drilled into our heads that employers are racist. One way we “know” this to be true is by reviewing studies that send out resumes with distinctive black names, together with identical resumes with white-sounding names.

Source: The Constitutional Vanguard: Are Emily and Greg Really More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?

In the 1960’s, Blacks and Whites chose relatively similar first names for their children. Over a short period of time in the early 1970’s, that pattern changed dramatically with most Blacks (particularly those living in racially isolated neighborhoods) adopting increasingly distinctive names, but a subset of Blacks actually moving toward more assimilating names. The patterns in the data appear most consistent with a model in which the rise of the Black Power movement influenced how Blacks perceived their identities. Among Blacks born in the last two decades, names provide a strong signal of socio-economic status, which was not previously the case. We find, however, no negative causal impact of having a distinctively Black name on life outcomes. Although that result is seemingly in conflict with previous audit studies involving resumes, we argue that the two sets of findings can be reconciled.

Source: The Causes and Consequence of Distinctively Black Names

The left’s ‘white supremacist’ lie

Timothy Furnish:

In 2019 I wrote in these very pages about the lie that “white supremacist terrorism” is the greatest threat to Americans. Back in those pre-plague days, it was mostly the media spreading this myth. But now, it’s the President of the United States. Last week Biden, in his de facto State of the Union speech, claimed that “white supremacists” are “the most lethal terrorist threat to the US.” In fact, Islam’s jihadists pale in comparison. And Biden even adduced the federal intelligence agencies to support this contention.

The problem: it’s not even remotely true.

First, the global picture. The US State Department has published, for decades, a list of foreign terrorist organizations. As of today it has 72 groups. Fifty-six of those, or 78%, are Islamic ones. It also includes two new ISIS affiliates (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique). These were recently added by the Biden Administration. Of the remaining 16, seven are nationalist-separatist. Seven are Marxist. One is Jewish. One is eclectically apocalyptic (Aum Shinrikyo). None is “white supremacist.”

(This is defined by the Department of Homeland Security. It includes “individuals who seek…through unlawful acts of force or violence, to support their belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of the white race over other races.” And the Democrats and media constantly conflate “white” with “right-wing.”)

Other country’s lists are similarly chock-full of Muslim organizations. The United Arab Emirates’ terrorist manifest contains 86 groups, 85 of which are Islamic. (That must make the UAE’s Muslim rulers Islamophobic, I suppose.) The UK proscribes 55 terrorist groups, 47 of which (85%) are Muslim. All the entities which Communist China deems terrorist are Islamic (“East Turkestani”) ones. And so it goes. And anyone who thinks “foreign” terrorism can’t hit America has been asleep, or hiding in his basement, far too long.

No “White Supremacists” on Domestic Terrorist Lists

Then there’s the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” directory. Ninety-two percent of folks there (23/25) are Muslim. The two exceptions? A white vegan/animal rights extremist, and a black female cop-killer. The Bureau also puts up a “Domestic Terrorism” subpage. As you might guess, none of the perps is wearing a MAGA hat or a Heil Hydra QAnon shirt. Four of them are black — three men, one woman. One of the former is Muslim, and all the males hijacked planes way back when Three Dog Night was big.

The black female helped rob a Brinks truck, killing some cops, then fled to Cuba. Another four are white women. But none are Baptist home schooling moms. Two are Communists, one an Animal Liberation Front fanatic, and one — I kid you not — a Black Panther. All engaged in violence of some sort. Three of these wanted domestic terrorists are Hispanics: one a Puerto Rican separatist and bomb-maker, the other two plane hijackers.

Yes, there is ONE white male herein. But he’s a Leftist who helped bomb the University of Wisconsin years ago. So it’s doubtful he’s pining for another Trump term.

There is more.

This appears to explain the lack of “white supremacist” crime.  I Think Biden and the Democrats would like to classify Trump supporters regardless of race as “white supremacist.”  That is why they are eager to call black criminals attacking Asians as “white supremacists.”  It has become an all-purpose insult of people they do not like having nothing whatsoever to do with white supremacists.

Source: The left’s ‘white supremacist’ lie