Critical race theory in Idaho

[cableok]

Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html

 

[Binman4OSU]

Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html

This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.

 

[Cimarron]

Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html

Aren't those things already against the law?

 

[OSUPsych]

This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.

I've seen people interpret critical race theory this way, but I don't think that's quite accurate. The place where I'd suggest a different interpretation of the theory is that it suggests the individual behavior is a reflection of systemic racism and that it is a normative human trait to create hierarchical groups. That is distinct from saying no one has personal accountability or that it is acceptable.

 

[TheMonkey]

I have relatives who are distraught about this penetrating into school curriculum. One is a teacher north of Dallas. She expects it to dictate what she teaches in advanced mathematics. If it comes to that, she will quit or retire. She said she won’t teach something to her kids that she doesn’t believe. I heard some of this from her husband and asked for clarification on how it would affect math. He tried to explain, but it wasn’t clear. He sent me this lengthy article from the Heritage Foundation, but I haven’t been able to make myself get past a few page scrolls.

https://www.heritage.org/civil-righ...eory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.

I like this part in particular because it's impossible to prove or disprove. Go ahead and disagree with me, racists. See? It's hilarious.

 

[oldguy]

Oklahoma is passing some version of this as well. Apparently it has been sent to the governor to sign.

 

[StillwaterTownie]

Oklahoma is passing some version of this as well. Apparently it has been sent to the governor to sign.

A legislator didn't help the situation by saying BLM is not different from KKK as a terrorist group and later refused to meet with blacks in his office.

 

[wrenhal]

Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html

This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.

Good summary

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[wrenhal]

Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html

Aren't those things already against the law?

Then why are BLM and others allowed to teach that whites are inherently racist and bad? Because that's what critical race theory does.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[steross]

Then why are BLM and others allowed to teach that whites are inherently racist and bad? Because that's what critical race theory does.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

For the same reason that conservatives are allowed to teach that black people are inherently murderers and bad. Because that is what the "who kills the most black men" theory does.

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

For the same reason that conservatives are allowed to teach that black people are inherently murderers and bad. Because that is what the "who kills the most black men" theory does.

You know of a public school system that is saying this?

 

[gogetumpoke]

For the same reason that conservatives are allowed to teach that black people are inherently murderers and bad. Because that is what the "who kills the most black men" theory does.

For the record, who does kill the most black men?

 

[steross]

You know of a public school system that is saying this?

No. It is a common theme on this website.

Do you know of a public school system calling white people "racist and bad?"

 

[steross]

For the record, who does kill the most black men?

Black men.

For the record, who has had centuries of economic advantages in the political, economic, and justice systems of this country that are so intertwined that often people don't even know the advantages they got?

 

[Binman4OSU]

For the record, who does kill the most black men?

Heart Disease

 

[steross]

Heart Disease

View attachment 89993

And, even in that, there is an advantage to being white.


Interpretation: Although heart disease death rates decreased both for blacks and whites from 1968 to 2015, substantial differences in decreases were found by race and state. At the national level and in most states, blacks experienced smaller decreases in heart disease death rates than whites for the majority of the period. Overall, the black-white disparity in heart disease death rates increased from 1968 to 2005, with a modest decrease from 2005 to 2015.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6705a1.htm

 

[gogetumpoke]

Heart Disease

View attachment 89993

I asked who. Steross got the correct answer and therefore he is the winner.

 

[gogetumpoke]

And, even in that, there is an advantage to being white.


Interpretation: Although heart disease death rates decreased both for blacks and whites from 1968 to 2015, substantial differences in decreases were found by race and state. At the national level and in most states, blacks experienced smaller decreases in heart disease death rates than whites for the majority of the period. Overall, the black-white disparity in heart disease death rates increased from 1968 to 2005, with a modest decrease from 2005 to 2015.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6705a1.htm

White people are killing blacks by giving them heart attacks? What will those damn white people think of next?

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

No. It is a common theme on this website.

Do you know of a public school system calling white people "racist and bad?"

Is that not the implied tenet of critical race theory? If not, why is it called 'race' theory?

EDIT: I'll even do you a favor. From Wikipedia:

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

• First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]
• Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[7]

So yeah, I feel pretty comfortable saying that CRT implies white people are racists.