The law is a subject that I find fascinating, how it developed, and developed into principles that could uphold justice, and particularly how its philosophical concepts are best applied to the often messy realities of life. Whatever your opinion of my opinions on the subject might be, I've put in a great deal of time and effort over the years into writing numerous posts on law, justice, and diving into the history of how it has developed from its origins in ancient times, down to today, and where it's gone right and wrong along the way. I've dug into the records and opinions of early figures from Cicero to Edward Coke and John Locke through our Founders, and down to the present day. I've looked into the often opposing opinions of judges nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States of America, from Thomas, Breyer, Garland, and how disturbing it is that legal pundits of 'the right', reflect the left turn taken by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.. But with Judge Ketanji Brown... I can't muster the interest to dig much deeper than a couple of the remarks she gave at her confirmation hearings.
Her relation to Critical Race Theory shows why. Not because she supports its ideas, but because she embodies its meaning. She has repeatedly written and remarked about her admiration for the founders of Critical Race Theory, Derek Bell, and Kimberle Crenshaw, and on at least one occasion she's lectured to students about its relevance to guidelines in federal prison sentencing, citing CRT as one of the interesting factors that should be considered when considering sentencing:
"...I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law – criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations, and to some extent, even contracts. And if that’s not enough to prove to them that sentencing is [sic] a subject is worth studying, I point out that sentencing policy implicates and intersects with various other intellectual disciplines as well, including philosophy, psychology, history, statistics, economics, and politics..."
, and with the likes of that in her easily searchable record, this is what she had to say about CRT in her confirmation hearings, in one of her exchanges on the topic with Senator Cruz,
“In your understanding, what does critical race theory mean?” Cruz asked the judge.
“Senator, my understanding is that critical race theory is, it is an academic theory, that is about the ways in which race interacts with various institutions,’ Jackson responded. “It doesn’t come up in my work as a judge. It’s never something that I’ve studied or relied on, and it wouldn’t be something that I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court.”
, for her now to claim that 'CRT doesn't apply', is not just a lie, but it is an application of Critical Race Theory in action, especially in regards to its disdain for what is objectively true, that we know something to be true because it conforms to reality. The CRT'r requires the use of scare quotes to refer to 'objective truth', and usually will no nearer to the subject than Epistemology, and then only to deride its degraded modern expression of 'epistemic adequacy', on their way to touting the root of Critical Race Theory's, in 'Social Epistemology', and CRT's foundational roots in Charles Mills, where 'truth' is socially constructed through 'narratives' that best serve the interests of the 'authentic' group.
Why does that matter? Because it means that there is truly no reason to give her reasoning any consideration, her words purposely have no relation to reality beyond how they might move her narrative 'forward'. The only 'truth' she values, is what pragmatically 'works' to manipulate the listener to advance her ideological narrative. Such a point of view is not compatible with our Constitution, or with Individual Rights under the Rule of Law, such a person as 'Judge' Brown, has no business being involved in the law, let alone having a seat on the Supreme Court.
I don't need her to tell me that she puts 'objective truth' in scare quotes, when she's demonstrated so well that she believes just that. And given that, I find it hard to imagine why anyone would bother asking her for the 'reasoning' behind her sentencing of this criminal or that. It advanced her narrative and undermined our society and the rule of law. End of story. That's CRT's purpose and interest, and that is exactly what Delgado & Stefancic meant when they wrote an explanation of it for High School level audience with ‘Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first edition (2001)':
"... critical race theory calls into question the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law..."
IOW: There is no reason for you to think that her words bear some intentional relation to reality. Why would anyone give her the credit of thinking that they might?
The frosting on the cake, of course, was her meme worthy reply to Sen. Blackburn asking her if she could provide a definition of a woman.
"No. I can't. Not in this context, I'm not a biologist."
, what she meant of course, was 'Sorry, no, that wouldn't benefit the narrative of lies that I am advancing, and intend to continue advancing while on the SCOTUS'.
I'm sorry, but 'Liar' is a far too respectful term for such a person as that, but if you're willing to have the likes of that 'darken counsel with words that have no knowledge', go for it, but know that if you judge her acceptable, or choose to judge not at all, you will be judged for that, and not just by me.
If the first concern that you, like Joe Biden, have about 'Judge' Brown, is about what her race is and that she is a woman (whatever that is), then you are a racist and a sexist. If your main concern about her nomination, is which political party she aligns with and furthers, rather than being deeply concerned with how the implementation of her ideas through our courts will affect the Rule of Law in our nation, then you are an ally of lies and are serving the advancement of hatred, death, and destruction.
For me, as she has shown herself to be, at best, an unjust person, she has no business sitting on any court of law in the land, let alone the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
If Brown is confirmed to the Supreme Court, as it seems likely she will be, the prospects of our children's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, will be that much the worse for it.
MO Gov. Parson gave a speech to MO education administrators recently, which has me feeling a tad ranty. In it, he spoke glowingly of his friend 'Margie', director of DESE (MO Dept of Elementary and Secondary Education), and encouraged MO's poor public school administrators to buck up against the tide of parents who're outraged over their kids being exposed to those ideas that flow out of the sewage of Critical Race Theory, and to 'Stay the course!'. The question to ask, of course, is what course is it that Gov. Parson wants us to stay upon - the American, or the anti-American, course?
We can answer that by looking at the course he's knowingly asking MO's educational system to stay upon, not only what he 'has their back' over, but who he's defending their backs against. He made it very clear that 'stay the course' was the theme of his speech, repeating it over, and over, and over again. And he also made it clear who it is that he's defending their backs against, at the 19:53 mark, telling MO's school administrators that they needn't concern themselves with the concerns of Missouri's parents, whose kids are still (inexplicably) attending public schools in Missouri:
"...Ya stand up, ya do your job, you do what's best for your kids, and you do what you signed up to do, and you're gonna be just fine, people will respect ya - whether they agree with you sometimes or not, but stay the course, stay the course, and the main deal you should be thinking of is what's best for that kid out there, because that's your job, your job's not to make all the parents happy, you're jobs not to get another contract, your job is to take care of those kids in the environment you're in, I think that's the important thing you do..."
Gov. Parson's message to his administration to 'Stay the course!', almost seems to have anticipated the words of the former Governator of California, in saying to parents 'Screw your freedom', because for DESE & the school administrators, '...your job is to take care of those kids in the environment you're in...', and that environment that those kids are in, is one which 'Margie', and DESE, and the various BOE's, have set up so as to advance their woke concerns of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, antiracism, SJW, SEL, CRT, Trauma-Informed Schools, etc, for the kids - of course - and if parents don't like it - screw them - stay the course.
"...In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines..."
Rufo notes that Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, says of 'Antiracism', that:
“... In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end..."
, and Kendi has advocated for a new federal department, that:
"...would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”..."
Gov. Parson: Do you understand that these two statements are saying the same thing?:
"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
John Adams, 'Discourses on Davila', following his 'A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States of America'
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Karl Marx, 'Communist Manifesto'
To the parents of MO: Do you understand that that is the course that your Governor is telling his school administrators to stay the course upon?!
But of course, there's more - back to Christopher Rufo, who notes
"...Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.” "
, and that:
"Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy."
Sorry, I can't stay out of it, it needs to be pointed out that there is no common course that can exist between the course of "All men are created equal" and "all [insert scapegoat here] are intrinsically oppressors".
There is no common course to stay upon between the course of "equal rights before the law", and "...An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech...".
There is no common course that is conceivable between educating for the purpose of freeing minds from ignorance and preparing them for the responsibility of living in liberty, and believing that teachers should utilize students to be activists for hate-filled partisan ideological propaganda, which those in power believe to be winning propositions for themto 'stay the course' upon.
The governor, who as the head of Missouri's 'Ship of State', does have to choose a course, and rather than choosing one that is reconcilable with a constitutionally American course, he is instead supportive of staying the course of the left turn into radical Pro-Regressivism, socialism, communism, and an unavoidable barbarism, that Missouri has been sailing upon for so very many years now.
Gov. Parson seems like a guy who can count to twenty twice in a row, so the 'too stupid to understand' excuse is off the table for him. Neither is ignorance an option - these policies that are being implemented in his authority are his job to understand, and it's also his job to investigate when his constituents, Missouri's parents, let him know that they have serious concerns over those policies that he is 'staying the course' on. Gov. Parson has told Missouri's parents, that their satisfaction with his policies aren't his concern, and they're not 'Margie's concern, and they're not the administrator's concern. Gov. Parson has instead told his administration that they need only stay the course of the Critical Insurrection being waged upon America, and that it need not be any concern of theirs that doing their job entails pushing100% anti-American and anti-human ideas into the minds of 'their kids' (not the parent's kids, 'their kids').
At the end of his speech, Gov. Parson ramped up his folksy banter by reaching back to the opening of the 20th Century for a presidential quote, appropriately grabbing one from a speech that squares well with the anti-American course that he has determined to stay upon, 'The man in the arena' speech, given by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. If all you know of T.R. is what you learned from your 'educators', then you should probably educate yourself, yourself, on him, and an excellent place to start is the the speech of his which President Obama celebrated the 100th Anniversary of, T.R.'s "New Nationalism" speech, which made very clear how little he thought of our Constitution, and of our Bill of Rights, and how highly he thought of the socialist-progressive-communist course which is the very same dream of the Pro-Regressive Right that Gov. Parson still wants us to stay the course on today.
Perhaps you think I'm being too harsh. Hardly. Those concepts noted above, such as 'Equity', are bald-faced Marxist obscenities which cannot be implemented without unleashing untold death and destruction, and would in America entail more corruption than a Stalin could ever dream of - and those are but a few of what DESE is busily rolling out and over you and your children today. And to that, Gov. Parson says "Stay the course!".
Perhaps even more telling than the speech he chose to quote from, is the speech of another turn-of-the-century American Republican President that he did not turn to for inspiration from, Calvin Coolidge (perhaps the last president to whom that (R) had real meaning to), and one very good reason why he did not, is because his speeches, such as the 'Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence', are 100% incompatible with the course that Gov. Parson has chosen to stay the course of.
"...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers..."
That is most definitely not a course that Gov. Parson, or 'Margie', or most of Missouri's school administrators, or a great many of its teachers, want to school you and your kids on.
Parents - why would you not get your kids out - do you really want them to 'stay the course'?!
What more needs to be said: A government that's focused upon 'Sensitivity' training and Critical Theories as their top priorities, looks like what's happening in Afghanistan in practice.
Similar results quite possibly coming soon to a border near you!
I went to our Francis Howell School Board meeting last night, and like many others who didn't show up an hour and a half before opening, I did not get the opportunity to speak (what I intended to say is posted below). But of those who got there early enough to get their name in, was a lady who claimed that she was 'raised a good conservative', and was shocked, shocked I tell you, when she left the backwoods of Missouri and went away to college and discovered that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. We were also treated to a speech by a student currently in the 12th grade, who also claimed that she never knew that Thomas Jefferson had owned slaves until someone outside of school enlightened her. An even younger child made the same claim. A teacher also rose to inform the hall crowded with parents opposing CRT (Critical Race Theory) in FHSD's curriculum, that 'historical facts' such as these are not taught in school, and that, my dear Crackers, is why we need Critical Race Theory in our curriculum.
These people were either lying, or unintentionally condemning every teacher that they ever had, as well as their entire school system, for deliberately moving students through the grades when they should've been failed. Probably repeatedly. Find me the 'Social Studies' book that doesn't point out, and re-point out, that the author of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. Or that many founders who fought for liberty, owned slaves? That 'Social Studies' book does not exist.
It is just unbelievable the moronic lengths that supporters of CRT will go to, to divert from the actual issue - the teaching of radical left wing ideology in our schools, as if its political and anti-American ideals are 'facts' that We The People just need to 'shut up and accept it'.
What I don't believe that I've seen in any 'Social Studies' book, is one that points out how Democrat President Woodrow Wilson was a seething racist, who deliberately imposed segregation on all federal civil services and the military, or that he told an assembly of high school teachers that:
"...We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks..."
History should be uncomfortable, and yet consistently rather than engage in what the actual issues being raised are - from individual rights, to liberty and justice - The Left instead pretends that "race and/or gender" are the *real* issues. No, they're not. The real issues are that programs such as these are fundamentally unprincipled, they deliberately sow division by treating some unjustly (which deprives all of justice), and ultimately are used to advance the worst of the Left's political agenda, and there is a growing swath of non-conservative America that is now waking up to that fact.
Real History IS and should be uncomfortable, and it is impossible to engage in without seeing the ideals and assumptions and errors made by those we otherwise admire, and yet who we share much with. The history of racism gains nothing by casting the founding of America in the cartoonish light of the '1619 Project' - such cardboard cutout 'bad guys' teach nothing useful to anyone at all, and nothing but misplaced resentment can or will be learned from it. Real value and understanding - and an awakened concern towards our own personal thoughts and assumptions - requires realizing what was involved at the time of our founding in opposing matters such as the institution of slavery, and realizing how difficult (or easy) it was to live amongst. Real History requires realizing that they attempted to end 'the peculiar institution' on many occasions, that one of the litanies of complaints in the draft of the Declaration of Independence had to do with the King George's persisting it upon the colonies despite repeated objections... and honestly dealing with the fact that there was also opposition to pointing that out, and that after debate others demanded it be removed... and shamefully it was. Real History requires inquiring into the fact that although some colonies ended slavery (before Britain, BTW) with their independence, others did not. Real History requires examining and addressing the real difficulties of history, so that our shared past is able to become a History that we can all learn from. But white-washing History in juvenile black & white of efforts such as the 1619 Project, is cowardly, and not a little bit repulsive.
What has people (Conservatives, Libertarians and many on the Left as well) in knots, is what the fundamental nature of CRT is, and is derived from, that being but the most recent and most explicit development of a line of thinking that is fundamentally incompatible with, and in opposition to, the philosophical ideals that America is derived from and founded upon (see anything by Ibram X. Kendi, but especially his proposed "anti-racist" amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for reference).
As such, CRT is but the latest means for facilitating the spread of an anti-American ideology, and The Left is seeking after truly systemic power through it by means dividing people through an obsessive focus upon a racially centric consciousness. Having redefined the meaning of 'racism' into an amorphous term, its adherents brandish their public 'J'accuse!', as an ever-present threat to the civic, business and social relationships of anyone they deem to have failed to demonstrate a sufficient regard for, compliance with, and fealty to, the various tropes of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion.
It is disingenuous to attempt to affix (and evade) what CRT is and conveys, by saying that '*Aackshually* CRT is only what any one particular person had once proposed.
It is especially heinous that promoters of CRT use people's general desire to be decent and fair to each other, as a conduit to destroy them.
These people don't want history taught, they are liars and fools who want history replaced with ideology.
At any rate, here's the speech I would have given, which, if I managed to speak really fast, should have fit into the three minutes allotted (links of course, added):
The recently revealed zoom call between FHSD curriculum writers and the 'education' consultant LeGarret King, and their discussion of how to deceptively inject CRT (Critical Race Theory) ideology into lessons without parents knowledge;
The several thousand dollars spent on hiring that consultant, could not have been approved by any competent person, without their knowing of his openly expressed Marxist ideals, which no responsible person would help inject into students minds;
FHSD's Resolution of last August, is evidence - either of extreme negligence, or conscious awareness - that FHSD has committed to supporting the essentials of CRT indoctrination, no matter what technicalities might be cited in denial of that.
The first two points speak for themselves, the third may need some explanation. Had the Resolution stopped with the first line, that the Board
"... pledges to our learning community that we will speak firmly against any racism, discrimination, and senseless violence against people regardless of race...."
, the rest might have been overlooked. But these additional points move it beyond the pale:
"We will promote racial healing, especially for our Black and brown students and families" - Invokes racial division and preferential or exclusionary treatment based upon race - that is not the role of 'educators'
" creating an equitable and anti-racist system" - Is not a statement of educational ideals, but of ideologically extremist political positions, which at the very least are no more appropriate for FHSD to promote, than any Democrat, Republican or Libertarian party platforms.
"that honors and elevates all" - There is no honoring or 'elevating all', through concepts which, without cause or evidence, condemn some based upon their racial background, and teach all others that that is acceptable thought & behavior
"systemic racism
"Actual Racism not only deserves to be condemned, but has already been removed from the laws and policies of even the deepest blue Democrat states, and is already illegal in any form.
systemic racism, does not refer to objective evidence of racist actions, policies or laws, it is the stuff of subjective ideological assertions, accusations, and presumptions of guilt, based upon a person's race (or other indicators of 'whiteness'), which is both un-American and anti-American. You should all be removed for just that. But wait, there's more.
"the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion" - is pure SEL & CRT
Diversity - beyond the likes of a 'Greek Food Festival', celebration, *diversity* is a non-value, the American ideal towards diversity is expressed in our motto: e Pluribus Unum, Out of Many, One - to value *Diversity* in and of itself, is irrational, ideological, and contrary to the spirit of America.
Equity- is a Marxist value which demands that individual responsibility and merit be ignored and forcibly acted against, so as to take what belongs to one, while 'distributing' it to others in order to bring about 'equitable' outcomes (as judged by the few in power over the many).
Inclusion- Is a collectivist term which is not urging the use of good manners in welcoming and including everyone, it explicitly means recognizing only those traits that are approved of as being representative of a group (which is itself bigotted at best), and entails actively condemning any individual choices that vary from those 'inclusive' identities, and condemns other views and disagreement, as enabling 'whiteness', or worse.
, and finally,
"commitment to establishing, supporting, and sustaining a culture of anti- racism districtwide" - 'anti-racism' is an explicitly racist term, and racism, is something that an education should lead a student to understand to be a failure of thought and character, it is Not something that our schools should be indoctrinating them into believing and practicing.
If in their positions as members of the Francis Howell School District School Board, the members did not know this about the nature of the Resolution they posted on behalf of all those living in their district, they show an inexcusable negligence in their duties of overseeing the education of the students in their district. If they did know that, and signed off on it - presumably agreeing with its message - they are unworthy of the positions they hold.
But to borrow the phrase, we too see you, we also hear you, and we are most definitely listening to you and are learning exactly how deplorable your judgement and actions are, and it is my fervent hope that every parent in the FHSD will immediately withdraw their children from your schools, and that every taxpayer will move to see that FHSD is defunded in every manner possible, and will also do their damndest to end your tenure on this or any board.
There's a serious problem with trying to fight CRT (Critical Race Theory), on the basis of what its proponents define it as being (which I'll be diving more in depth into in the coming weeks), and the problem is that whatever definition it is that you're given, is too easily loopholed and jargoned around, to be able to agree upon what it is that you disagree about. If you've tried, responses like these may seem familiar:
"Marxist? Karl Marx's theories are not even mentioned in our curriculum", or
"CRT? That's a legal theory, we don't teach legal theory", or
"CRT curriculum? No curriculum of ours is sold as CRT."
And so on. And not only will your objections be dodged, but if enough people make the same objections, then being the top-notch corporate salesmen that the curriculum peddlers are, they'll soon be incorporated as 'features!', not bugs, in the curriculum which they'll continue to sell to you:
"As you can see this curriculum makes no mention of CRT, but it does promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which everyone agrees is sooper swell..."
If you're not sure what I mean, recall that there was an uproar over OBE (Outcome Based Education) in the late 80's, over it having more to do with
"... quasi-political and ideologically correct positions — rather than knowledge, skills, and other cognitive academic outcomes..."
, than with education. As parents and conservatives won the day and congratulated themselves on having stopped OBE, the educationistas simply morphed the material around the objections given to it, and recompiled the results into SEL (Social Emotional Learning). That SEL, which still claims to be,
"... an integral part of education and human development. SEL is the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities..."
, (pity those poor souls growing up SEL-deprived before the 90's) was quickly, and repeatedly codified into numerous federal, state, and local laws, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RttT)/Common Core, and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which now, coincidentally (not), forms a suitably muddy foundation for CRT to thrive in. If you want to go beyond battling a disagreeable curriculum, to banning it, my guess is that you can expect double the difficulty and far worse unforeseen consequences, as the necessarily precise legal definitions of it will also be too easily loophooled and jargoned around, in what will very likely become a painful process of trading one acronym, for an even worse one.
With that in mind, IMHO, rather than waste time and energy going after yet another acronym, go after your woke educators unstated convictions by exposing what it is that they are consciously using their means of mass instruction to undermine and destroy. For instance, when you've voiced your concerns about CRT to your teacher, principal, administrator(s) or school board, and they've dismissed your objections with the assertion that they do not teach CRT, don't argue with them on that ground which they've prepared for you to fight them on, but pull them over onto the more favorable ground that you're standing on, by replying something to the effect of:
"Good to hear, so you'll have no reservations in declaring here and now that America is not a racist nation, that all lives matter, that 'whiteness' is a racist concept, and that all forms of Marxism are fundamentally anti-American, right?... right?"
Sure, more than likely their reply will range from dissembling aversions of " above my pay grade blah blah blah...", to a deafening silence - but I'll bet you they won't be able to remain still as they listen to your statement, and their eye-rolls, smirks and head-shaking count, will likely be high enough to speak volumes all their own.
The point of the statement above is not the reply that they're unlikely to give, but to allow their hesitancy, mockery and evasiveness, to demonstrate that they do entirely disagree with that once unifying and commonly understood sentiment. And the lesson to learn from that, is that *they*(teachers, administrators, bureaucrats) will continue to do whatever they can to teach as much of SEL & CRT as they can, because they want to, and they want to because they believe in it, and they believe in it because they disagree with everything in the statement above. Whether or not they are actively teaching what is technically defined as being CRT (see James Lindsay's "Five Ugly Truths About Critical Race Theory"), does little to hinder their divisive teaching of what CRT is.
And that is the core of the problem that I wish more people would come around to seeing.
We can prohibit and ban CRT, SEL, Common Core, all we'd like, but what our educational establishment, public and most private (including church schools - they all graduate through the same Teachers Colleges) schools want to teach, is the very thing which will have them rolling their eyes at statements such as the one above. And so after making whatever assurances you might manage to get from them, just as has been the case for well over a century, they will continue to instill their preferred ideological beliefs into every lesson plan they teach - 'for the good of the kids', of course - and they will do so whether the curriculum being used is filled with lesson plans on the republicanism of John Adams, or the wokene$$ of Ibrahim X. Kendi. If you doubt that's the case, have a listen to the delightful teacher in this video, or take note of the other four thousand plus educators across the nation who've publicly pledged to continue teaching CRTno matter what laws legislators legislate against it.
Systemic Wokeism
The 'Why' of this is not so obvious, and although many are deserving of blame, they are less to blame than the fact that school districts and school boards exist! The situation we are facing, is what results, and is ultimately what must result from, placing the concept of Education - that process by which a person is led out of a state of ignorance and popular illusions by knowledge of what is wise and true - under the control of those who stand to gain influence and power through larger numbers of people holding those very beliefs which an actual Education would free them of. Just as bad money drives out good, the pursuit of power drives out the pursuit of knowledge, along with the wisdom and virtue which it becomes meaningless without.
Until recently the nature of what is being taught in our schools may have been better concealed behind less overtly threatening phrases of 'civics', 'inclusion' and 'diversity', but the truth is that its central 'principles' in the pursuit of power, have been present from our very first mandatory public school system in the 1830's. Only three years after Massachusetts created that first school board as an entity with the political power to 'oversee' their already existing system of public education, state representatives like Allan W. Dodge began to realize the danger that had been done, saw where it was leading to, and attempted to put an end to it. If only some of this seems familiar, you have some catching up to do:
"...After all that has been said about the French and Prussian systems, they appear to your Committee to be much more admirable, as a means of political influence, and of strengthening the hands of the government, than as a mere means for the diffusion of knowledge. For the latter purpose, the system of public Common Schools, under the control of persons most interested in their flourishing condition, who pay taxes to support them, appears to your Committee much superior. The establishment of the Board of Education seems to be the commencement of a system of centralization and of monopoly of power in a few hands, contrary, in every respect, to the true spirit of our democratical institutions; and which, unless speedily checked, may lead to unlooked-for and dangerous results..."[emphasis added]
The process of consolidating schools into school districts, and then consolidating those into ever larger school districts - for reasons of Economic efficiency, of course, were and decidedly still are a major means of politicizing Education, and that course of events was already well underway when one of its designers, Elwood P. Cubberly, cheerfully wrote of how well things were progressing in 1909, enthusing that:
“Each year the child is coming to belong more to the State and less and less to the parent.”
The districting, and school boards, and superintendent systems which Cubberly had a hand in designing, have been the chief means of separating the oh-so important pro-regressive experts at the top, from the 'deplorably ignorant' parents at the bottom, making their voices and concerns politically insignificant to the operations of the 'educators' of their districts. By consolidating schools into larger school districts, individual parents ceased to have a direct voice in their child's education, which deprived individual teachers of their greatest ally in what should be taught and why, and so they too were overpowered by the school system. School board members who are to 'represent' the interests of the parents, are rarely able or inclined to act against the will of the school district's superintendent, and the curriculum, important as it is, is only a vehicle for teaching what the 'educators' involved intend to use it to teach, and what they intend to teach is what the system desires and requires them to teach for the 'greater good', which amazingly seems to coincide with what is most politically popular for those in power. Our modern school districting system was and is a total and complete victory of Progressive Education, over the more meaningful education that America was founded from and upon, and by those means, year after year, the child has come to belong more and more to the State, and less and less to the parent.
The typical objection to that is "But because we're a democr..." - pardon me, but no, we're not a Democracy, we're a constitutional representative republic; but please, do go on - ".... we use our representatives to make political decisions for us!", which is very true - about political decisions. But we do that only in regards to political matters, which is an entirely inappropriate basis for making educational decisions. Political decisions are made in regards to issues of a public nature, and issues that are not a public concern, are inappropriate for being decided by political means. Our Bill of Rights were specifically proposed and ratified so as to remove those individual rights which are essential for us to live our lives, from the reaches of the political process. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, was and is to state that Government Shall. Make. No. Laws. concerning those fundamental individual rights. And they are off limits, because they are our individual rights, and not the matters of common convention which communities collectively come to mutual agreement upon their common civic rights (such as voting, age of consent, etc.).
Education is of the same individual nature. A child's education is the responsibility of their parent, and it is the parent's responsibility - and is not the place of, or responsibility of, the community - to choose a teacher or school which they have confidence will effectively teach their child what they think is important for them to understand, or to refuse to allow that which they believe to be inappropriate for their child, to be taught in that school. That is not a decision that is appropriate to being decided through a political process. That is one of the most decidedly personal of decisions and of the greatest import and responsibility for a parent to decide - it is and was a horrific failure of We The People, to concede that to the political process. The hard fact is that when the last state in the union signed onto mandatory schooling laws at the opening of the 20th Century, America's parents effectively signed away their parental rights to the state - the fact that the state has not yet assumed complete ownership of your child, is I'm sure more of a 'practical' economic issue, than an ethical or moral one, for them. Yes. You, We, should be scared at that, and more than a wee bit ashamed.
And no, the oldest argument for govt education, which goes back at least to Aristotle, as with this in Book 8 of his Politics,
"
"...That education should be regulated by law and should be an affair of state is not to be denied, but..."
, they tend to leave out what follows that 'but', which is less supportive of what his words are typically used to support. But taken at its worse, it's no more valid a proposition than would be something like:
"What people say and do affects the peace and prosperity of the public, therefore those individual rights of freedom of speech, association, worship and the press, should be removed from what our 1st Amdt protects"
, and just as that notion is fundamentally anti-American, so is the concept of 'Public Education' as we know it today (a system which we got from the same German system which was most responsible for producing those early years of 20th Century Germany), and neither is made any more sanitary by the good intentions with which they are proposed, than the purist distillation of Marxism.
Do school districts and school boards destroy the educational process by making it into a political process? Yes. But the school districts and their school boards are a reality, and the reality is that they are operating through the use of your money and power, so yes, you do need to be involved in opposing them, but your kids don't - get them out. What we are now seeing more clearly today than ever before, was always implicit in the nature of establishing 'public education' under political control, and now that it is so apparent, there can be no further excuse to ignore it.
Public schools are and have always been the means of exposing a child's mind to the powers of political ideology, and as such has been the inevitable means of inserting the designs of the powerful, into that space where the individual's love of truth and wisdom should have been fostered, and it cannot be otherwise - we are where we are today because nearly two hundred years ago we began embarking upon the road to hell which those good intentions put us on, and changing the road signs, changes nothing at all about the destination being closed in on.
To put it as sharply as seems necessary: You wouldn't send your child into the care of a child molester simply because he'd been told he can't molest them. Do not send your child into the care of intellectual and spiritual child molesters, no matter how reasonably they might seem to say what you want to hear. They aren't being educated by our school systems, they're being intellectually and spiritually molested.
Our nation still has a long ways to go before implementing a separation of school and state, but that needn't be the case with you and your kids - get your kids, and you, out. And if you look around, I'll bet you can help the good teachers get out as well by forming learning pods or micro schools with them and likeminded parents. But. Get. Your. Kids. Out.
