DIE: The Contradictions of Anti-Racism

Richard 01

The article below is not by me (Tom Bertonneau). Its author is a friendly Californian acquaintance who fears losing his job if he publishes his arguments online under his own name, but who wants to see them published nevertheless.

It used to be that people admitted that there must be limits to affirmative action. No one wants an affirmative action surgeon, or affirmative action pilot, for instance. Those are matters of life or death. Having academics who know nothing, students who attend the same brain-dead class in race and gender taught in a multitude of departments, teachers who cannot teach, social workers who are dunces, none of those things matter because things just muddle along regardless. It all contributes to hopeless mediocrity and a downgrading of life on earth, but no one is dying in the streets, if rioting in American cities is ignored. United Airlines has changed all that by saying that fifty per cent of its pilots must be women or people of color, though far fewer women than men are interested in airplanes or flying, or have acquired the necessary flying experience. This dictum will presumably include air traffic controllers, either now or in the future. Customers are apparently willing to actually die – to be incinerated in giant balls of jet fuel, or to die on impact – in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity. DIE. Now that Americans are prepared needlessly to DIE, the only jobs not susceptible to DIE will be jobs associated with convenience. No one will accept a car mechanic, or computer repairman, who cannot actually repair cars or repair computers. No one will accept computer programs that do not work. So, we will truck with our own deaths at the hands of inept surgeons and pilots chosen for their skin color, but not for matters of ease. A phone that does not text, gets sent back to be fixed or replaced under warranty. Whereas once, if an actually bigoted person wanted to damn someone else, he might call the person a Jew-lover or an n-word-lover, the equivalent contemporary accusation would be “white-lover.” Low-key signs saying “It’s okay to be white,” which are hilarious in the sheer modesty of the assertion, are now regarded as racist and worthy of expulsion from a college campus – whether faculty or student.

Scapegoating involves blaming a person or group of people for social disintegration and society-wide problems. The scapegoat victim is then killed by the many, bonding the mob together in shared hatred. Jews in Medieval Europe were attributed with supernatural abilities to cause plagues, and the like, by doing things like poisoning rivers. If the scapegoaters thought about it for just one minute, they would see how implausible this accusation is. Flowing water would sweep any poison away instantly. The current scapegoat is white people and Western Civilization, the target of any university department with “studies” in the title. One odd twist is that whites are accused of creating and ordering society, and civilization, not destroying it. Conversely, the accusers are offering to dismantle society; to actually do that of which the scapegoat is traditionally falsely accused.

Antiwhite racists claim that racism must be accompanied by power, and thus that nonwhites cannot be racist.  However, antiwhite racism dominates in elementary, secondary, and tertiary education. It rules mainstream media, Hollywood, and the government. It monopolizes all the main venues of social media – YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. It tyrannizes corporate America. Academic job applications now say “women and minorities are encouraged to apply” but do not encourage white male applicants who are overtly the last choice if no other applicant is suitable. Many academic jobs now require a statement concerning antiwhite social justice and evidence that applicants have proved themselves devoted to the cause of racism. Troops sent to Washington DC were politically vetted and those with questionable non-woke politics were sent home. Military leadership now has to be demonstrably woke. This is all evidence of systemic antiwhite racism. Systemic racism now exists and permeates all main institutions. Critical race theory is devoted to promulgating racism and extends to government workers, corporate workers, and to academics. Nonracists are the enemy – “silence is violence.” Racists control all the main levers of power; education, media, employment, the courts, and many prosecutors. If racism requires race hatred and power for it to be racist, then the new crop of antiwhite racists are indeed racist by their own definition.

Richard 02

Friedrich Nietzsche got himself involved in a similar contradiction. He claimed in The Genealogy of Morals that morality is a trick that the weak play on the strong, to get the strong to feel bad about their strength and their exploitation of the weak. By making the strong feel guilty, the weak dominate and overpower the strong. Except, by definition, having the ability to dominate and overpower signifies strength, and being completely suppressed designates weakness. Nietzsche’s complaint is incoherent and so is the claim that blacks cannot be racist because racism means racism plus power, though it is mostly elite whites who are driving this. Whites are powerful and it is they who are chiefly responsible for promulgating antiwhite racism and the teaching of critical race theory to all they can get their hands on.

Newspeak in the novel 1984 involved naming something the opposite of what it really is. Antifa are black-clad dismantling goons devoted to violence in the manner of the Brownshirts, later replaced by the SS. They are functionally identical to the fascists they supposedly oppose. Devoted to destruction, Antifa also resemble the Nihilists of nineteenth century Russia. The Nazi accusations about the Jews, that they were associated with money and that their success was due to their secret scheming; a nefarious blight upon the world, oppressing the pure races, has been simply adopted and applied to all white people, not only Jews. Victor Hanson points out that the Nazis never made explicit exactly what evil thing the Jews were supposed to have done. Such vague accusations are especially hard to rebut. A mott-and-bailey argument technique is used. All white people are racist, it is claimed. When challenged to provide evidence, the antiwhite racist then retreats to the bailey and says that it is not individual white people who are racist, it is the “system” that is racist. No evidence is presented for that either. All the racist can do is point to differential outcomes between groups as evidence of racism – except, all groups have differential outcomes.

Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate marathon running. Italians have disproportionately produced outstanding architects. Germans have long traditions of being good soldiers and generals. Blacks from Africa in the UK do much better than Caribbean blacks in the UK, belying the claim that race is what makes the difference to outcome. Ethnic Germans in what is now the Czech Republic did better educationally and economically than ethnic Czechs. Jews are 0.2% of the world’s population, but make up twenty per cent of Nobel Prize recipients. Ethnic Chinese dominate ethnic Thais and Malaysians in Thailand and Indonesia despite being excluded from formal education in Indonesia. Indians in Fiji do much better educationally and economically than ethnic Fijians.

Schoolchildren are being taught that their most important and significant feature is their race. They are taught that white people are evil oppressors and that every other racial group is defined by their oppression by white people. James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian perpetrated a “grievance studies” hoax where they mimicked the language of oppressor and oppressed in intentional parody. The journals they sent their articles to could not tell the difference. One of their articles took sections of Mein Kampf and instead of “Jews” replaced it with “men.” The feminist journal lapped it up. There is no difference between the extreme anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1930s and anti-white propaganda now. Antiwhite white elites are begging to be murdered, except they are protected by armed guards and gated communities. Only non-élite whites are vulnerable, and that is OK, because they are all deplorables and now Neanderthals.

At many schools, children with best friends from different races are currently taught to hate each other and view each other with suspicion. “People of color” are encouraged to think about what is good about their race, and white children are taught to engage in self-castigation for their whiteness. Different levels of achievement by different racial groups are attributed to racism. The fact that Asians and Jews far outperform non-Jewish white Americans in terms of educational and vocational achievement proves this wrong. How has racism by Asians and Jews led to their success? If their success is due to their own merits and not to racism, why is only white success the result of racism? And, why are the majority of the uneducated and poor white, if the system is rigged in their favor? How have black athletes, who dominate the NFL and NBA, making up nearly three quarters of all players in both leagues, somehow escaped their oppression? Since they are dominant in those fields, and success is a sign of oppression, are they not also oppressors? If differential outcomes prove the existence of racism, then they are by definition racist oppressors. Multibillionaire Oprah claims to be the victim of oppression. It may be the case that none of us hold our own fates entirely in our own hands. However, teaching people that they are victims with no control over their lives and that nothing they do will make any difference is profoundly disempowering and demotivating.

Richard 03

Antiracism and grievance studies in general are riddled with contradictions and Catch-22s. White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo claims that all white people are racist. If a white person denies being racist, this is white fragility, and just makes someone extra-racist – much as witches who drowned were vindicated but dead, and witches who survived dunking were proved to be witches. The self-sealing, no true Scotsman fallacy, is regularly employed. Black conservatives are not black anymore. They are “skin but not kin.” They are Uncle Toms, or puppets of white folk who cannot think for themselves. The idea that white people get to determine who qualifies as black or not is obnoxious. Joe Biden proclaimed that “you ain’t black” if a black person did not vote for him.

Scott Adams points out that charges of hypocrisy have never changed anyone’s mind or behavior. Pointing out to “antiracist” racists that they are being racist does nothing. Antiwhite racists do not mind having contradictions in their view and claim that logic and reason are “white” and patriarchal and are thus dispensable. Adam’s suggestion? Do not allow a single white politician or college professor or media personality to rest until he or she is replaced by a person of color. Insist upon it. Refuse to listen to them, or obey them, until a brown person is sitting in their chair. Apply their rules ruthlessly. If they are kicking you out of the lifeboat, the least they can do is drown with you. Everyone wants to virtue signal at no cost to themselves. That is precisely what virtue signaling is – spouting meaningless words while having no skin in the game. At 13% of the population, there simply are not enough black Americans to fill every position it is insisted they fill, let alone qualified black Americans. It seems that the demands are intentionally unfulfillable. It is a death wish.

Gnosticism combines the notion that all created reality is evil, and the idea that they, the Gnostics, have some special gnosis – esoteric knowledge – not present in the rest of the population. Woke ideology combines this hatred of all existing institutions with a resolute certainty that the woke have all the correct answers to most of the important moral questions, combined with the conviction that racism lies behind all of them.

Here are some current woke contradictions. Some are logical contradictions; some are assertions that are contradicted by the facts:

Differential outcomes prove the existence of racism and sexism. Women dominate education departments, communication departments, art history departments, social work departments, English departments, and nursing departments. Therefore, those disciplines are sexist. Jews and Asians outperform whites educationally and vocationally, therefore, Jews and Asians are racist oppressors. Differential outcomes only prove the existence of racism and sexism when white men perform better at something. Magic! No reason is offered for how this could possibly be the case – because it cannot be.

One difficulty that has always existed for “race, class, and gender,” is that race, class, and gender is supposed to explain one’s point of view. However, members of the same race, class, and gender frequently disagree with each other and take opposing views on political topics.  Thus, race, class, and gender are radically incapable of explaining why someone arrives at his or her thoughts and beliefs. Another bogus idea, astrology, suffers from the same defect. People born on the same day frequently have entirely opposing life histories. If the stars ruled our lives, people with the same star signs should all, for instance, succeed or fail.

All thoughts and beliefs are the products of race, class, and sex. The thought that all thoughts and beliefs are the products of race, class and sex is also merely the product of race, class, and sex, and merely reflects the race, class and sex of the person claiming it. There is no need to take the view seriously or to regard it as true.

To avoid the contradiction, zealots would need to claim that the one thought and belief that is not a product of race, class, and sex, is the thought and belief that all thoughts are the product of race, class, and sex. However, if there are exceptions to this claim, then there can be others. There is clearly nothing about thoughts and beliefs that require that they be a product of race, class, and sex.

It is racist to say that blacks are too dumb to do well in mathematics. Mathematics is racist because it is too difficult for blacks. Requiring them to “show their work,” or to get the “right” answer is a sign of white supremacy.[1]

It is racist to say that we should judge someone by the content of their character and not by their skin color. This is a kind of self-refuting Haiku.

White fragility proves that all white people are racist without exception. And all suffer from ineliminable bias. We need everyone to be aware of white fragility and to take anti-bias training so society can be a better place. (Actual implication, kill all the white people. They are irredeemable.)

Truth cannot be determined rhetorically and is irrelevant. All that really matters is power. Is it true that power and not truth matters? If it is not true, it can be safely ignored.

Police are so racist that they do not adequately patrol black neighborhoods nor catch the murderers of black-on-black crime in sufficient numbers. It is racist that stop and frisk policies, aimed at getting guns out of the hands of criminals, target black youths disproportionately.

Follow the science. It is sexist to agree that biological differences, as determined by science, between men and women, account for many of the dimorphic vocational and emotional differences between the sexes.

Follow the science. Some people are born in the wrong body and sex is determined by someone’s preferences. In actuality, every cell in our body has XX or XY chromosomes. Someone educated once asked me in all seriousness whether sex change surgery altered this biological fact.

Follow the science. A person can change his sex by self-mutilation – chopping off penises or breasts.

People should be allowed to sleep with whomever they choose. If a lesbian chooses not to sleep with a trans-woman, and only sleep with actual biological women, she should be condemned.

Western culture is irredeemably sexist and patriarchal. Anyone who criticizes or rejects Muslim social arrangements, which are ten times more sexist and patriarchal, is a nasty Islamophobe who should be roundly condemned.

Children cannot be said to consent to have a sex with an adult because they have not reached a sufficient level of cognitive development. They may not vote for the same reason. They may not get a tattoo because tattoos are permanent and children may live to regret it and cannot be expected to think about unintended consequences of their actions that extend far into the future, or to understand sufficiently the concept of regret. Children may not smoke or drink because they are too young to know what is good for them.

Children can decide counterfactually that they are the opposite sex from what they are, and permanently sterilize themselves by taking hormones belonging to the opposite sex, the effects of which cannot be undone after puberty. Despite many “transgendered” regretting their decisions, having mutilated their bodies against the express wishes of their parents, people are legally able to make these life-altering decisions as young as eight – or younger. Any psychiatrist or psychologist who thinks the child is in fact suffering from a mental illness, and/or will regret his or her decision, gets struck off.

You cannot understand me because my experience is too different. You must understand me because it is so important.

Women are strong, independent, and self-sufficient. They do not need men. Fairytales of the damsel in distress are anachronistic and demeaning to women who can rescue themselves.

Legislation must be introduced at every opportunity to help women in the workplace, from protection against sexual harassment to breaking the glass ceiling on track to upper management. Everyone should do his part in helping to save women.

We are all similar enough that any deviation from 50/50 in the workplace shows you the amount of sexism there is. We are all so different that once you include women in previously male occupations you will see a great benefit due to diversity of opinion and viewpoint.

Everyone should wear masks during the time of Covid-19, because other people are affected by your decision. Abortion is a matter of my body my choice. To question this is rank misogyny.

Gender is not biological but a question of how you feel on the inside. Transgender people take hormones to make biological changes in their bodies and mutilate their bodies to make them look more male or female.

Victoria’s Secret has banned the transgendered from being models, which is evil. Victoria’s Secret exploits women’s bodies for the sexual pleasure of the male gaze and now you are angry that the transgendered don’t get to be exploited.

Academic search committees must hire diverse applicants. The administrator ordering this outcome is almost invariably white. No reason is given why the administrator, making far more money than a mere academic, should be an exception to his or her own rule.

Fifty per cent of philosophers should be women. Seventy-five per cent of psychology majors are women, eighty per cent of art history majors are women. Women cannot both completely dominate certain fields and also make up fifty per cent in other fields. It is a mathematical impossibility.

Women are not better represented in STEM subjects because of sexism. Women enroll in psychology classes, and when they do choose science courses, tend to opt for biology and sciences oriented towards living organisms like veterinary medicine. All women know at this point that if they were to choose STEM subjects that they would be eligible for special scholarships and go to the head of any hiring line. They are the beneficiaries of “positive discrimination,” the term used in the past, in other countries for “affirmative action.”

There are fewer women engineers because of sexism. The most “sexist” countries have the most engineers; the most enlightened the fewest. Iran and India have fifty per cent female engineers. Sweden, and other countries where women’s rights are popular and prominent, have rates of around twenty-three per cent.

Fatherless homes are associated with much higher violent crime (eighty per cent of violent crime is from fatherless boys and men), welfare dependence, drug and alcohol abuse, and poor educational and vocational outcomes. Masculinity is toxic and children need to be better protected from it.

When we say “toxic masculinity” we refer only to a subset of the masculine. But, no one at all writes about healthy masculinity or toxic femininity, so there is no evidence at all for this assertion. This is an example of mott-and-bailey argument, AKA equivocation. When challenged on their use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” the woke retreat to the bailey that this phrase only applies to a subset of men. This is a lie, given their lack of praise for healthy, wonderful, life-giving masculinity. There is no version of masculinity that they actually support.

If even one contradiction is permitted – just one – no matter how trivial – all semblance of rationality and rational persuasion would be vanquished. If there were even one true contradiction, then the structure of reality as we know it would cease to exist. Any attempt to make sense of the world would be futile. Anything we ever thought to be true would now be nonsense. This is because a true contradiction, were one thought to exist, could be used to prove anything at all.

What follows is a short proof of this claim using what philosophers call “baby” logic – the very most basic and elementary principles of logic, mathematicised in the nineteenth century. No prior knowledge of logic is necessary. Each assertion is accompanied by a short explanation.

p and ~p = T

(p and not p are to be regarded as true – an impossibility)

If p and ~p = T, then both conjuncts, p and ~p, must be true for the overall statement to be true.

If I say “it is Tuesday and sunny,” p and q, then for the statement to be true, both conjuncts must be true – it must be both Tuesday and sunny.

So, that means that in a process called “simplification,” I can assert both “It is Tuesday,” and “it is sunny” independently from each other. Simplification, like all the rules of logic, is “truth preserving.” The logician is never going beyond what he knows to be true, and true things stay true if the rules are followed.

p = T

~p = T

Also, in logic, there is a rule called “addition.” If p is known to be true, then you can add a disjunction, an “or.”

If p is true, then “p v q” is true, (p or q).

For a disjunctive statement, only one of the disjuncts needs to be true for the overall statement to be true. E.g., the world is round or monkeys can do calculus. That statement is true because “the world is round” is true. It does not matter what q is.

For that reason, simplification cannot be applied to disjunctions. Knowing p v q is true, does not tell you which disjunct is true. The only way to separate p v q legitimately is if it is possible to prove that one of the disjuncts is false. That tells you that the other disjunct must be true.

If you say “either Timothy is extremely lucky or he cheated at cards,” and then you say, “Timothy is not extremely lucky,” then you know Timothy must have cheated at cards.

So, if we start with the impossible – a true contradiction, we have:

p = T

~p = T

If p is true, like it says, then we are allowed to add p v q, without violating the truth preserving laws of logic. It does not matter what q is. It could be “the next stimulus check will be for one billion dollars for each person.” So,

p v q

However, given the contradiction above, we know that not p is true, allowing us to determine which one of the disjuncts is not true, p. This means that q must be true.

p v q

~p

Therefore

q

This proves that falsely taking any contradiction at all, none of which can ever be true, would make it possible to prove anything at all. That is why contradictions must be scrupulously avoided in argument.

Antiwhite paranoia sounds remarkably like this.

[1]https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

14 thoughts on “DIE: The Contradictions of Anti-Racism

  1. There are many, many people who have a pragmatic understanding of “truth,” and for whom “truth” is therefore synonymous with useful. I expect this is the normal human attitude towards language: say whatever you need to say in order to get what you want. In recent decades, philosophers and linguists have lined up with what used to be known as liars and explained that what used to be known as lies are really “their truths” or their “lived experiences.” The now-ubiquitous word “culture” also serves to excuse rampant dishonesty, since many people caught in a lie nowadays say it is “true in my culture.”

    In addition to all these grifters and frauds, there are today people who assert contradictions because they know it has the reality-destroying power that you describe in your closing paragraphs. The grifters and frauds want to cheat the system. These revolutionaries, on the other hand, want to destroy the system by undermining its epistemic foundation. Their aim is to destroy the ordinary belief that words denote things, and thus destroy the belief that truth is possible. In Christian terms, these people are in a Satanic rebellion against logos. In philosophic terms, they aim to propagate radical skepticism and universal doubt.

    The rhetoric of anti-racism seems to be driven by both of these causes. Many proponents of anti-racist doctrines have a pragmatic understanding of “truth,” and will say whatever they need to say to get ahead or get along. Others are rhetorical revolutionaries who use the contradictions to undermine belief in the possibility of truth. Their contradictions are meant to “drive you crazy,” and sooner or later their gibberish will succeed. This is in many ways more dangerous than incompetent surgeons and pilots because many people will not die in operating rooms and airliner crashes, but everyone will lose their minds.

    • Hi, JMSmith: I’ve never heard of any philosophers referring to “lived experience” in recent decades. Philosophy departments have remained relatively apolitical, although tremendous pressures are coming to bear upon them to get with the program. Philosophers abhor notions like “their” truths. Academic philosophers, to use an oxymoronic phrase, are much to positivistic for that. We are not relativists. I seem to mostly hear these things from the pop culture world of activists, but presumably it is going on in “studies” departments.

      You’re probably right that the cultural destruction of contradictory thinking, and Logos annihilation, is the main thing. Deaths in the air and operating theaters are the least of it.

      • I should have been more precise, but lack an exact word to describe the peddlers of social theory who infest the humanities. They say their ideas are derived from “continental philosophy.” A kind title might be speculative social scientists. People used to call this sort of thing philosophists.

      • Funnily enough, continental philosophy has been roundly rejected by philosophers outside France, but accepted, in the first place, by English departments whose professors didn’t know any better and who liked the pseudo-profundity. It was a “get tenure quick” gambit too because there is no need to string two coherent thoughts together.

      • I’ve gotten the impression that many literary critics and theologians actually want to do philosophy rather than their own putative subjects, but they don’t want to submit to the standards of rigor to which (analytic) philosophers hold themselves. I’m not surprised by Richard Cocks’ observation, but it’s nice to hear it from someone working inside the field of philosophy.

    • We are warned that the greatest danger comes not from those who would destroy the body, but from those who would destroy the soul.

  2. Again — the article is not mine, but comes from an author who wants to make his arguments publicly but fears economic consequences if he were identifiable. In short, he fears being “cancelled.” You — JM — a few months ago called our attention to the mendacity, with the full weight of that word, of our ruling elites. In a couple of my posts, I have urged the thesis that the “woke” attack on everything traditional is actually a zealous and utterly nihilistic attempt to cancel Creation itself. Now Creation — the Cosmos, including our little portion of it — is not subject to cancellation by human agency although we could, I suppose, bring about our own extinction by nuclear or chemical-biological means. So the fallback plan of the nihilists is to destroy the mental representation of cosmic reality or, as you have named it in your comment, the “epistemic foundation.” They wish to plunge us back into the chaos from which the Cosmos, under the Word of God, emerged. Wokeness wants to murder its opponents, as the writer of the article makes clear, but only as the first act of its two-act drama. The second act is suicide. Or so it seems to me.

  3. The late Lawrence Auster made somewhat of a speciality out of seeking out the more “particular” of any given “thing.”

    So… The enemies of Christianity, Western Civilization, European whites, etc. are bona fide anti-racists, ie., against The Father, their father(s) and the fatherland. They ARE NOT “racists” simply mirroring their mundane rivals’ innately spirited prejudices. Instead, they are mad projectionists actualizing their hatred of The Father, their father(s) and the fatherlands vicariously through the demonization of racist whites.

    Your race is your father(s).

    This is a particular understanding somehow lost, yet, right before us and obvious to anyone willing to see.

    That “woke” “blacks” and SJW “whites” and media “jews” could find commonality in a hatred for our father(s) is anti-racism in a nut’s hell.

    At the same time, be certain not to mistake the motivation for hating our father(s) (anti-racism) for a sincere love of their own father(s) (racism). This is a cuck delusion.

    Right now, if a white Christian isn’t racist, consciously or subconsciously, he opposes The Father (denies Supremacy) through an ideological opposition to his father(s) (anti-racism).

    In short, as long as the religiously cucked believes “racist” is a slur (rather than the revelation of a self-hater), he has forfeited to a fatally flawed frame of mind.

  4. Jordan Peterson suggests allowing hate speech to let people reject it when they hear it. So I want to agree with him. But what happens when enough people cry wolf to make others ignore genuine hatred?

  5. Hey, your friend made an interesting article and it was interesting to read. I can understand the controversy of racism in society, especially because I also run a political blog.

  6. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
    While it’s true that we live in an age of “unreason”, the hyperbole of this article was really just too much. I literally work in public education, and this writer’s claims of what is happening in public education are beyond ridiculous.
    Are there authors out there who WANT these crazy things mentioned in this article to be taught? Yes.
    Are these ridiculous things actually being taught universally, and in lieu of long-established academic curriculum in public education? No!

    • The article is mostly pointing out the absurdities of Woke-ism and all its contradictions. Antiwhite racism seems to be especially prominent in the most elite schools at all levels. Are university administrations relentlessly pushing this stuff? Yes. Are many departments (e.g. “studies” departments) teaching only this stuff? Yes. Are already low standards resulting in grade inflation likely to get even worse with things like “equity grading?” Yes. Are English departments abandoning the canon and are mostly teaching “race and gender?” Yes. Some traditional things are being taught so “in lieu of” might be too extreme, but students at most schools can expect relentless political indoctrination from their teachers who were taught it in Education departments. The inability to opt out of this indoctrination in public schools is seeing an increase in interest in home schooling and funding the student programs, rather than the schools in many states.

      • I believe many teachers aim for “balance” and thus end up teaching from a center-left position. Moderates are always pulled in the direction of the more extreme extremists. It doesn’t help that extremists on the left are described as misguided idealists and extremists on the right are described as violent haters. I don’t hold the schools especially accountable, since I see no reason to suppose that schools are succeeding in teaching ideology while they are failing to teach much of anything else. I don’t think teachers are especially to blame for this failure, that the failure is altogether new, or that all students are failing to learn. But I am certain we continue academic education beyond the point where most students have lost interest in learning.

        I don’t think Woke ideas will go away anytime soon because they are supported by the administration. This is not the work of a few flakey teachers/professors. There are more than a few flakey teachers and professors, but they have influence because they are the darlings of the upper administration. DIE is not a radical demand. It is official policy.

  7. A mere two weeks ago I was defending public education. And then, just yesterday, my district’s administration gave us a presentation on “Culturally Responsive Teaching Workshops”, and encouraged all faculty to attend optional trainings this summer. From the advertisement, “To better meet our students and community where they are— historically, culturally, contemporarily— our series of culturally and linguistically responsive workshops invites staff to examine the historical past, contextualize the present, and design curriculum that mirrors the lived experiences of our students.” I have found quite a few articles that state “culturally responsive teaching” is a euphemism for Critical Race Theory. I signed up for the first training and I’m curious to discover if CRT will be mentioned, or if this new method (using euphemisms) is how “they” plan to sneak CRT in under our noses.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.