Should teachers be allowed to say "Slavery was bad and it should not happen again"?

I agree with imposing order in schools. Thats different from morality. Some things that many consider moral are also orderly. That doesnt mean order and morality are the same.

 

How is imposing orders different from morality? You disagree with something, you impose your will on others. That's imposing your morality.

Are you claiming racism is immoral? It's certainly not illegal. Unless one discriminates as a business.

 

How abou telling the student the reasons he gets good grades and Robert gets poor grades is that the student has white privilege and he is a racist.

 

So how do we prevent students from buying into racist dribble like this post? Clearly your education was not comprehensive enough.

 

What racist dribble? Whites get good grades because of White Privilege, right?

 

I’m sorry I’m upset because of work stuff. Didn’t mean to be so rude.

What I meant to say was your post is proof we need antiracist education in place to make sure people understand that post isn’t a negative. But rather the conceptualization of the problem. You’re right. White students are more likely to get higher grades because of white privilege. Simple as that. So how do we engage in restorative justice?

 

One college professor suggested eliminating grading altogether. School districts are eliminating entrance exams for advanced high schools and advanced classes in mathematics.

 

You're right.
Good teachers should be committed to saying that slavery IS wrong and should not be happening even today.
Why be afraid of reality? If good people don't stand up for what's right, evil wins.

 

The real question is whether or not teachers should be allowed to make moral claims in school. This is a moral claim. Yet it does seem alright to see in school. So why not say it?

Now let's take this a step further.
"Racism is bad and MLK Jr was right to oppose it". Regardless of definitions of words, can a teacher say this? Why? Argue the details all you want, add any qualifier you want. Can a teacher say that?

Now I want to bring in a wrinkle-the debate on CRT. Despite multiple threads dedicated to pointing out CRT is not an issue, people frame it the statement above as that. Now I think it's fair to say people will agree to say the thing from above. But people might also use the language of CRT to ban such language. When you ban CRT, you can also end up banning statements like "Racism is bad and MLK Jr was right to oppose it" or ""slavery was bad and should not happen again". Do I think people who support banning CRT want to get rid of talk of slavery, racism or the past? No but it begs the question how will people who support CRT get around the problem. I don't think they can. But prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]

Why would you start with a fake question to get to the real question? Seems deceptive.

Of course teachers are allowed to make moral claims in school. Likewise they are allowed to teach anything that is factual no matter how good, bad, ugly or pretty it might be overall.

It sounds like a lot of people do not understand how CRT is used in schools. CRT is what they refer to as a lens. With regard to CRT specifically it not only declares itself to be A lens, but the ONLY lens. If you use other lens then per CRT, you are racist.

Classical liberalism is racist per CRT.

Could CRT be a TOOL in education? Not really since it demands to be the ONLY tool and per it's own literature precludes the use of any other tools. Since it not only demands it be the only tool but also demands that use of it is a lifelong process and requires one to be an activist and ally it isn't really something you LEARN but most do continually.

That simple doesn't work in public education or for most things in life.

 

I know enough education theory to be like, 'yeah that makes sense. I think I would support something like that'. I already support letting students look over answers and going over them again for full credit.

 

Why would I start off with a false start? To get people into a trap. If they say they're in favor of banning CRT, then I get them on the 'but banning CRT can also mean banning talk of slavery (because it can make white people feel terrible)', therefore you can't have anti-racist education and not be in favor of anti-racist education.

Basically what I'm trying to do is figure out how someone in favor of banning 'CRT' makes sure we still have an anti-racist education, but not 'CRT'. I don't think it's possible as CRT is misinterpreted because the misinterpretation is that it's anti-racist education.

 

The achievement gap" between the races has barely diminished over the last sixty years despite all the new theories, bold initiatives and innovative programs suggested by "education theory"

The only thing you are going to accomplish is to remove the metrics by which we can measure success.

I once saw a bumper sticker on a teachers car which read;

'when the going gets tough, lower the standards' Removing them altogether is the ultimate step.

 

The bold initiative has been the same, fund those schools because they don’t have enough property taxes to pay for what their school needs. The initiatives as you described have not done that. We’ve been punishing the bad schools and keeping them as bad schools because we’re funding the good schools instead. We failed to see schools as institutions you can’t run as a business.

As for the second point- it’s not lowering standards. It’s understanding students learn at different rates. Are you measuring student performance or are you measuring if a person has reached a certain level of maturity? Unfortunately testing proves the latter.

 

Should teachers be allowed to say "Slavery was bad and it should not happen again"?

I attended very southern schools from 1964 to 1978

I took many american history classes

in every class the below was taught

"Slavery was bad and it should not happen again"

 

Okay good, now let's think about the anti-CRT arguments. Many of them are decrying what they perceive as 'guilting white people' into acknowledging the horrors of slavery. So how do we prevent people from saying teaching 'slavery is wrong' is a form of CRT?

 

The false start is part of what’s known as a motte and Bailey fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

You take an easy to defend position and conflate it with a position that is much hard to defend. When people attack the hard to defend position you “fall back” to the easy to defend position.

Are you using the Kendi version of antiracist or are you speaking of programs that attempt to prevent racism as a general goal? I’m not certain you are applying some of the terms here correctly. The Kendi version of anti racism absolutely is a form of CRT. It sees race is the critical and ONLY lens to use to explain and view the worlds.

 

Ugly history isn’t an anti-CRT argument. It is what the people who want to teacher CRT CLAIM as a strawman to prevent proper discussion of CRT.

 

CRT is a college level course material, not being taught in K-12. Bold assumption they're the ones engaging in a strawman.

 

The PRAXIS of CRT is taught in K-12.

 

All I would need to do to establish why it's not a fallacy is if this is an actual problem. What I'm doing is framing the discussion. How are people who support banning CRT make sure we don't ban by accident anti-racist education? My argument is that people who support banning CRT can't really defend their position because by banning CRT, they end up discouraging teachers from teaching anti-racist material. Which is an actual fear of teachers.
https://observer-reporter.com/bans-...cle_dac53f9c-d758-5878-9c07-e6b0ee2499b7.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/teachers-...g-critical-race-theory-race/story?id=79642784

 

I’m new and getting used to the multi quote. I think I did it right. This is your first post and as you and everyone is can clearly see, you’ve shifted your position.

That was always the point is my position. That is the point of the fallacy in the first place.

You appear to be conflating three separate points. My counterpoint is that this is intentional.

Not-real question…. Can teachers utter certain phrases like slavery is bad and shouldn’t happen again since CRT is banned. This is point one….

You then say point one isn’t really point one…. Point one is now MORAL CLAIMS…. Are teachers allowed to make moral claims. Moral claims aren’t related to CRT but let’s pretend they are I guess for the sake of this discussion.

Except… as we see down below… that isn’t really the point.

I showed directly above with your own words how you were “framing” the discussion. You claimed it was really about moral claims which really easy to defend that any teacher can and should do. However we see here that was actually just a pretend concern to get back to the main REAL point which is antiracist and CRT in schools.

You are broadly sort of playing loosely with these terms. CRT is a thought model and a theoretical framework. It doesn’t matter if it is TAUGHT that way in schools. Schools seldom deal with subject material at that high of a level. However that doesn’t preclude schools from teaching aspects of it at a much lower level and demanding or engaging students in the practices or PRAXIS associated with CRT.

The Kendi Antiracist materials are lower level materials meant to help laypersons and engage in the PRAXIS of CRT/antiracism. A teacher using them is PRACTICING and TEACHING aspects of CRT.

 

As the poster noted, this is a strawman argument. No one is saying that. The poster literally recounts how even in a less enlightened time they were still saying that.

Also they aren’t “perceiving” guilting white people. It is happening. Don’t gaslight people about their own concerns and experiences.

People are being guilted about this because the lens of CRT demands all of reality be filtered through their racial lens which only allows certain outcomes. When you fail to agree with their outcomes, the only possible recourse is to claim you didn’t use their lens. Their lens doesn’t allow multiple conclusions, only one.

So for example under the Kendi antiracist model, you are either racist or antiracist. There is not an option for NOT RACIST or RACE NEUTRAL. In the Kendi reasoning if you are not actively antiracist, then you are racist. Race neutral is racist. Not racist is racist.

When you disagree with this absurd binary reasoning which can’t be defended, you are told you are suffering from white fragility or white supremacy or feeling white guilt over your white racism.

All those are just various ad-Homs so the terrible reasoning doesn’t have to be defended but it MUST be defended.

People saying they are “afraid” to defend it or that if they have to defend it they will just stop teaching about racism all together is just forms of using their own agency to hold others hostage. It isn’t allowed as it is a form of manipulation.

 

CRT is another term for reparations.

 

see, proving my point that CRT is used to label anything, it's not actually about CRT

 

Okay I see what the issue is. What I meant by pointing out "it's a moral claim" is because a common critique is "teachers should only teach the facts", when that's not really what we want them to do. We want them to teach morals to our children. What I'm doing is preempting a counter argument made by people who support banning CRT-namely we should ban teachers from making moral claims in the class and only teach the facts. Because according to them, "CRT teaches morality". Does that make sense?

I don't know what you're talking about here. Can you clarify?