Abbott signs "anti-critical race theory" bill into law

9,204 Views | 292 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by quash
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

I'm waiting for you to wake up realize that you're wrong.

School sponsored prayer has been banned since the 60s... students can pray on their own.

So now let's talk about school sponsored instruction about CRT. When the gov't puts restriction on what gov't run schools can or can't teach, it's acceptable. If schools tried to tell students they can't study CRT on their own or discuss it privately among themselves, then we have a problem. If a private school wishes to teach CRT, then the gov't shouldn't prevent them from doing it.

You are either 1) Not a libertarian and know it, but just trying to convince everyone you're not a snot nosed liberal 2) A liberal who is thinks they are libertarian, but doesn't quite have a grasp of it.

Hell, here's an example.... The gov't should have every right to demand that masks be worn on gov't/public property. They should not have the right to demand that private business require it of their cutomers.

Nice try. I never mentioned school sponsored prayer, but you finally bring it in to try and get around it. And you still haven't discussed ID.

But keep pretending this is all about my political views.
Come on now squish... you said that prayer isn't banned... you're wrong. Can a school lead a classroom in prayer? yes or no? This is apples to apples with the school instructing our children with CRT.....

So tell me, do you have an issue with the gov't banning itself from leading the discussion about CRT and no issue with banning itself from leading prayer?

Are you a libertarian or are you liberal trying to pretend to be one?

Yer killing that straw man. State-sponsored prayer was brought up by you to cover the fact that you thought all prayer had been banned. It hasn't and by now you know it.

But your fans are diggin' it. Go you.

I love how you want to avoid the fact that school lead prayer and school lead discussion of CRT are the same thing....

So come one now.... if banning school lead discussion of CRT is bad, then certainly you think a ban on school led prayer is just as, yes? Or are you going to avoid question - AGAIN?

Are you a libertarian or are you liberal trying to pretend to be one?


So it turns out you still think prayer is banned in schools.

I can't help you.
I see you're avoiding the question again

You own the straw man.
still not answering the question. Not surprised, it's your MO.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

HuMcK said:

D. C. Bear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:

It is perfectly acceptable to ban CRT and CRT allied ideology in state schools.

Public education is a state monopoly, not a marketplace of ideas.
Voters, through state legislatures, determine the curriculum.
Children should be protected from racial scapegoating.
Filing federal lawsuits to stop CRT in schools puts the onus on parents, rather than schools, which is unjust.
Anytime a cancer such as CRT is removed from a classroom it's a good thing.

CRT the ideology will never go away, and it is not banned. It should not however have government sponsorship to teacher our children from K-12. It is akin a Religious ideology cloaked in academia.

It will always have a place at Universities, and training programs with companies etc. because it's the new IT dogma. It's a shame such a divisive ideology has taken hold.



A lot of people don't realize what CRT is and are under the delusion that it just means teaching history in ways that include how blacks were mistreated. They are so emotionally invested in it that discussing what CRT actually is with them is hopeless.

That definitely includes the people clamoring to do something about it.

Gotta agree with you here, those books are nothing more than teaching about what has happened in the United States when it comes to the fight to desegregate not just schools, but daily life itself. This needs to be taught.


To 7 year olds? No.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do the CRT-approved history textbooks teach about the thousands of black slaveowners?
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

HuMcK said:

D. C. Bear said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:

It is perfectly acceptable to ban CRT and CRT allied ideology in state schools.

Public education is a state monopoly, not a marketplace of ideas.
Voters, through state legislatures, determine the curriculum.
Children should be protected from racial scapegoating.
Filing federal lawsuits to stop CRT in schools puts the onus on parents, rather than schools, which is unjust.
Anytime a cancer such as CRT is removed from a classroom it's a good thing.

CRT the ideology will never go away, and it is not banned. It should not however have government sponsorship to teacher our children from K-12. It is akin a Religious ideology cloaked in academia.

It will always have a place at Universities, and training programs with companies etc. because it's the new IT dogma. It's a shame such a divisive ideology has taken hold.



A lot of people don't realize what CRT is and are under the delusion that it just means teaching history in ways that include how blacks were mistreated. They are so emotionally invested in it that discussing what CRT actually is with them is hopeless.

That definitely includes the people clamoring to do something about it.

Gotta agree with you here, those books are nothing more than teaching about what has happened in the United States when it comes to the fight to desegregate not just schools, but daily life itself. This needs to be taught.


To 7 year olds? No.
Ok, I will agree 7 is a bit young to understand with any depth, but 5th or 6th graders should have no problem whatsoever with the information. Didn't realize this was for 1st graders.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Relevant:

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.

I don't like micro-managing by the legislature; this has been unnecessarily politicized and that leads to bad law. The textbook folks are popularly elected to deal with exact issues like this.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.

I don't like micro-managing by the legislature; this has been unnecessarily politicized and that leads to bad law. The textbook folks are popularly elected to deal with exact issues like this.

There's been a lot of gaslighting on this issue. The media never took any notice until they saw a story about reactionaries overreacting, but the truth is that teachers' unions and politicians are already pushing this stuff pretty hard. For better or worse, we have public schools and required civics classes. One of the purposes is to make good citizens. Teaching hate defeats that purpose. I don't see anything wrong with saying you're free to do that, but do it on your own time without help from the state.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.

I don't like micro-managing by the legislature; this has been unnecessarily politicized and that leads to bad law. The textbook folks are popularly elected to deal with exact issues like this.

There's been a lot of gaslighting on this issue. The media never took any notice until they saw a story about reactionaries overreacting, but the truth is that teachers' unions and politicians are already pushing this stuff pretty hard. For better or worse, we have public schools and required civics classes. One of the purposes is to make good citizens. Teaching hate defeats that purpose. I don't see anything wrong with saying you're free to do that, but do it on your own time without help from the state.

Teaching hate does defeat the purpose. That's not what CRT is, it's just crap.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.

I don't like micro-managing by the legislature; this has been unnecessarily politicized and that leads to bad law. The textbook folks are popularly elected to deal with exact issues like this.

There's been a lot of gaslighting on this issue. The media never took any notice until they saw a story about reactionaries overreacting, but the truth is that teachers' unions and politicians are already pushing this stuff pretty hard. For better or worse, we have public schools and required civics classes. One of the purposes is to make good citizens. Teaching hate defeats that purpose. I don't see anything wrong with saying you're free to do that, but do it on your own time without help from the state.

Teaching hate does defeat the purpose. That's not what CRT is, it's just crap.

Totally disagree.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, not totally. It is crap too.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:

Rawhide said:

quash said:


Intelligent Design is not banned, and neither is prayer.


Try and have a classroom teacher led discussion about the bible, God and a be lead in prayer and sit back and what the **** hit the fan

That's not what I'm talking about and I suspect you know that. ID is not banned and it looks a whole lot like CRT.
the gov't deciding what the gov't can or can't teach is perfectly acceptable.

If you don't like what the gov't isn't teaching, then go to a private school. If the gov't tried telling private schools they can't teach something, then we have a problem.

or do you not understand the concept of private vs. gov't?

Did you change your mind about ID and prayer being banned?

If public schools can teach Christianity as fact, that's news to me and a lot of others.

Who said they could? You're farther away from what I was talking about than Rawhide.


Wasn't keeping track. I'm trying to get back to what I was talking about, that is whether CRT should be taught in schools. I find your distinction between theory and fact immaterial because, as your New Discourses thread pointed out, CRT isn't really a theory but a worldview.

I'm sure there are appropriate times to discuss CRT for five minutes. I can't think of one but a creative teacher might. Does Sokal come up in HS?
Sure, so in that case what's wrong with the Texas bill? It says things like, you can't teach that one race is inherently superior to another, or that a person is inherently racist by virtue of his race. It doesn't say you can't talk about CRT for five minutes or all day. You just can't indoctrinate.

I don't like micro-managing by the legislature; this has been unnecessarily politicized and that leads to bad law. The textbook folks are popularly elected to deal with exact issues like this.

There's been a lot of gaslighting on this issue. The media never took any notice until they saw a story about reactionaries overreacting, but the truth is that teachers' unions and politicians are already pushing this stuff pretty hard. For better or worse, we have public schools and required civics classes. One of the purposes is to make good citizens. Teaching hate defeats that purpose. I don't see anything wrong with saying you're free to do that, but do it on your own time without help from the state.

Teaching hate does defeat the purpose. That's not what CRT is, it's just crap.

It is crap, but if you do a deep dive into it, whiteness automatically discriminates against POC, and whites automatically are racist, just by the fact they are born white. Also a white will never be looking for out or care for the point of view of a POC, except when it is of benefit to themselves.

Cliffs notes version, all whites are racist pieces of **** and will always discriminate against POC, unless it profits them. Always.

This is nothing that deserves being taught in our classrooms or anywhere else for that matter.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:


This is nothing that deserves being taught in our classrooms or anywhere else for that matter.

Well it depends. If we cast too wide a net in our hunt for CRT we may catch things that do deserve to be taught. The current way of teaching has always excluded the Greenwood Massacre; I would argue that deserves to be taught in the ten minutes allotted to Jim Crow.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.