What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Josh]

So apparently you believe that race is never an issue in schools and schools should be forbidden from even talking about about race. Except or unless black kids are involved and then it is ALWAYS about race. Hmmm.....

You took a news article that did not mention race and made it all about race. Your own words betray you. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

I said that elementary schools don’t need to be teaching about “race”.

If older students from one ethnic group gang up on and beat up younger students from another ethnic group, that does need to be dealt with. Inter-ethnic violence in groups is quite common. However, elementary students don’t need to be taught Critical Theory.

Instead, a school could do something like… break up the fight, punish or expel perpetrators.

[Ken]

Results of a representative survey of more than 1,500 Americans aged 18 to 20 suggest that Critical
Race Theory (CRT) and radical gender ideology, together known as Critical Social Justice (CSJ),
is widespread in American schools. Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said
that they had heard about at least one of eight CSJ concepts from a teacher or other adult at
school, including “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” “patriarchy,” or the idea that gender is a
choice unrelated to biological sex. Additionally, 90% of respondents had heard about at least
one CRT concept and 74% about at least one radical gender concept.
CSJ appears to have a significant impact in shifting children to the political left.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/ ... cation.pdf

I took a look at the link. It is methodologically suspect at best and most likely garbage. Essentially they ran a sophisticated push poll on a really broad array of questions that only tangentially connect to the subject and then drew conclusions that aren't even supported by the data they do have. They of course are smart enough to know this. Which is why (1) none of this is peer reviewed. They don't want other researchers to pick it apart, and (2) the real agenda here isn't to inform, but to push a specific anti-public school agenda which one can easily discern by looking up either of the authors. They are both professional "culture warriors" pushing a very specific agenda on twitter and substack.

Why is this methodology garbage? Because you can get people to agree to anything by suggestive questions. You can go out and interview random people on the street and ask them: "Have you heard of XYX" where "XYZ is something completely fake that you made up but sounds reasonable. And a large percentage of people will respond "Yes, I have heard of XYZ" simply because you suggested it to them or they think that maybe they should have heard of XYZ and don't want to appear ignorant. Jay Leno used to do this sort of thing all the time for humor on the Tonight Show.

Pollsters and researchers actually know this. They know the results are invalid but they also know that people suggestable. Which is why push polling is a common tactic in political campaigns. Not to actually find out what people know and think about an issue. But to push a pre-determined agenda. But it can be effective which is why it is common.

[GaryK]

Results of a representative survey of more than 1,500 Americans aged 18 to 20 suggest that Critical
Race Theory (CRT) and radical gender ideology, together known as Critical Social Justice (CSJ),
is widespread in American schools. Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said
that they had heard about at least one of eight CSJ concepts from a teacher or other adult at
school, including “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” “patriarchy,” or the idea that gender is a
choice unrelated to biological sex. Additionally, 90% of respondents had heard about at least
one CRT concept and 74% about at least one radical gender concept.
CSJ appears to have a significant impact in shifting children to the political left.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/ ... cation.pdf

I took a look at the link. It is methodologically suspect at best and most likely garbage. Essentially they ran a sophisticated push poll on a really broad array of questions that only tangentially connect to the subject and then drew conclusions that aren't even supported by the data they do have. They of course are smart enough to know this. Which is why (1) none of this is peer reviewed. They don't want other researchers to pick it apart, and (2) the real agenda here isn't to inform, but to push a specific anti-public school agenda which one can easily discern by looking up either of the authors. They are both professional "culture warriors" pushing a very specific agenda on twitter and substack.

Why is this methodology garbage? Because you can get people to agree to anything by suggestive questions. You can go out and interview random people on the street and ask them: "Have you heard of XYX" where "XYZ is something completely fake that you made up but sounds reasonable. And a large percentage of people will respond "Yes, I have heard of XYZ" simply because you suggested it to them or they think that maybe they should have heard of XYZ and don't want to appear ignorant. Jay Leno used to do this sort of thing all the time for humor on the Tonight Show.

Pollsters and researchers actually know this. They know the results are invalid but they also know that people suggestable. Which is why push polling is a common tactic in political campaigns. Not to actually find out what people know and think about an issue. But to push a pre-determined agenda. But it can be effective which is why it is common.

This is the response I expected.

[Josh]

"Studies that agree with me are correct"

"Studies that disagree with me are methodologically garbage and I don't need to heed them"

Going back to the original topic, these kind of things seeping into the culture are very insidious. As I have documented, they have already seeped into schools, even "conservative" Mennonite schools; our own joshuabgood is a full-throated proponent of Critical Race Theory and I am confident he is trying to push it on his students and teachers too. Eventually, this kind of garbage will be assaulting us in church circles too.

The correct answer is to say "no" to it, point it out for the un-biblical, anti-Christ message of violence and division and hatred it brings, and reject every institution that accepts it.

[joshuabgood]

our own joshuabgood is a full-throated proponent of Critical Race Theory

No...that isnt accurate. While there are aspects of its critique that bear some validity, I don't see the solutions the same, re using the force of the state.

The solution is the Kingdom of God.

[Ken]

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/ ... cation.pdf

I took a look at the link. It is methodologically suspect at best and most likely garbage. Essentially they ran a sophisticated push poll on a really broad array of questions that only tangentially connect to the subject and then drew conclusions that aren't even supported by the data they do have. They of course are smart enough to know this. Which is why (1) none of this is peer reviewed. They don't want other researchers to pick it apart, and (2) the real agenda here isn't to inform, but to push a specific anti-public school agenda which one can easily discern by looking up either of the authors. They are both professional "culture warriors" pushing a very specific agenda on twitter and substack.

Why is this methodology garbage? Because you can get people to agree to anything by suggestive questions. You can go out and interview random people on the street and ask them: "Have you heard of XYX" where "XYZ is something completely fake that you made up but sounds reasonable. And a large percentage of people will respond "Yes, I have heard of XYZ" simply because you suggested it to them or they think that maybe they should have heard of XYZ and don't want to appear ignorant. Jay Leno used to do this sort of thing all the time for humor on the Tonight Show.

Pollsters and researchers actually know this. They know the results are invalid but they also know that people suggestable. Which is why push polling is a common tactic in political campaigns. Not to actually find out what people know and think about an issue. But to push a pre-determined agenda. But it can be effective which is why it is common.

This is the response I expected.

It is also true.

I could make up something completely out of thin air. Like that someone here we will call "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And then we could do a push poll just like the one above and ask people "have you heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender? And probably more than 25% will answer "yes, I think I did hear that". Because people are suggestable and will tell you what you want to hear or what they think they should know. And then we can publish the results of the poll and blast it all over social media. And then repeat the same thing a month later and now 50% of our poll respondents will say they have heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And the number will keep rising even though it is a complete fiction that we invented out of thin air. That is how push polls work and why political campaigns use them.

The same exact thing happens when you poll people with generic questions like "did you hear about systemic racism in school" The poll question is leading and suggests the answer. And a lot of people will automatically say yes because of the suggestion that they probably should of heard about it if they were paying attention in class instead of checking Instagram on their phone. That isn't how you do social science polling if you actually want an accurate answer.

[GaryK]

I took a look at the link. It is methodologically suspect at best and most likely garbage. Essentially they ran a sophisticated push poll on a really broad array of questions that only tangentially connect to the subject and then drew conclusions that aren't even supported by the data they do have. They of course are smart enough to know this. Which is why (1) none of this is peer reviewed. They don't want other researchers to pick it apart, and (2) the real agenda here isn't to inform, but to push a specific anti-public school agenda which one can easily discern by looking up either of the authors. They are both professional "culture warriors" pushing a very specific agenda on twitter and substack.

Why is this methodology garbage? Because you can get people to agree to anything by suggestive questions. You can go out and interview random people on the street and ask them: "Have you heard of XYX" where "XYZ is something completely fake that you made up but sounds reasonable. And a large percentage of people will respond "Yes, I have heard of XYZ" simply because you suggested it to them or they think that maybe they should have heard of XYZ and don't want to appear ignorant. Jay Leno used to do this sort of thing all the time for humor on the Tonight Show.

Pollsters and researchers actually know this. They know the results are invalid but they also know that people suggestable. Which is why push polling is a common tactic in political campaigns. Not to actually find out what people know and think about an issue. But to push a pre-determined agenda. But it can be effective which is why it is common.

This is the response I expected.

It is also true.

I could make up something completely out of thin air. Like that someone here we will call "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And then we could do a push poll just like the one above and ask people "have you heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender? And probably more than 25% will answer "yes, I think I did hear that". Because people are suggestable and will tell you what you want to hear or what they think they should know. And then we can publish the results of the poll and blast it all over social media. And then repeat the same thing a month later and now 50% of our poll respondents will say they have heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And the number will keep rising even though it is a complete fiction that we invented out of thin air. That is how push polls work and why political campaigns use them.

The same exact thing happens when you poll people with generic questions like "did you hear about systemic racism in school" The poll question is leading and suggests the answer. And a lot of people will automatically say yes because of the suggestion that they probably should of heard about it if they were paying attention in class instead of checking Instagram on their phone. That isn't how you do social science polling if you actually want an accurate answer.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all 93% of the 1500 people, 18-20 years old, who were asked these questions all lied when they answered yes to the "made-up" questions asked of them? Point me to the evidence that the questions asked of these people were made up out of thin air.

[Ken]

This is the response I expected.

It is also true.

I could make up something completely out of thin air. Like that someone here we will call "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And then we could do a push poll just like the one above and ask people "have you heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender? And probably more than 25% will answer "yes, I think I did hear that". Because people are suggestable and will tell you what you want to hear or what they think they should know. And then we can publish the results of the poll and blast it all over social media. And then repeat the same thing a month later and now 50% of our poll respondents will say they have heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And the number will keep rising even though it is a complete fiction that we invented out of thin air. That is how push polls work and why political campaigns use them.

The same exact thing happens when you poll people with generic questions like "did you hear about systemic racism in school" The poll question is leading and suggests the answer. And a lot of people will automatically say yes because of the suggestion that they probably should of heard about it if they were paying attention in class instead of checking Instagram on their phone. That isn't how you do social science polling if you actually want an accurate answer.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all 93% of the 1500 people, 18-20 years old, who were asked these questions all lied when they answered yes to the "made-up" questions asked of them? Point me to the evidence that the questions asked of these people were made up out of thin air.

No, they didn't all lie. But if you ask a bunch of people a bunch of very vague questions a whole bunch of them are going to say yes to at least one of them, even if they weren't actually subjects formally covered in class.

In fact, taking a closer look, one of the questions was "America was built on stolen land" which is pretty much "no duh" of course it was. Every single American history class ever taught is going to cover this. That has nothing to do with critical race theory. And because 45% of respondents heard this in school doesn't mean they are actually being taught critical race theory. It means they were taught history. I'm astonished percentage is that low. The 55% who didn't respond must have been on their phones and not paying attention when their US history class covered westward expansion and the Indian wars. Apparently we need to be doing a better job with US history. My daughter's 11th grade history text is sitting here in the kitchen. It is called "The American Pageant" and the most commonly used 11th American History textbook in the country including in conservative states like Texas. It covers broken treaties, Indian removals, the reservation system, the Cherokee "trail of tears" Tecumseh's War and the Battle of Tippecanoe, and a bunch of other events related to the theft of Indian lands. In fact, here. They even have a convenient map showing how Indian lands were progressively stolen over time. This is from page 581 of my daughter's history textbook:



That is just history, not CRT or CSJ or whatever these authors are trying to call it. And yes, HS students should learn it.

Another statement was "Gender is a choice". If you are talking to 18-20 year olds, they will pretty much be guaranteed to have had LGBT classmates and will have been exposed to popular culture where this is indeed the underlying premise. Caitlyn Jenner and the Kardashians, for example. Elliot Paige, Laverne Cox, Isla KIng, etc. There are tons of media and Hollywood celebrities who are transgender. Any teenager these days will be aware of this and it is pretty much old right wingers and evangelicals who are hung up about denying it. I have taught a lot of kids over the years from conservative evangelical homes and the LGBT issue is easily the single biggest issue with which they diverge from their parents. Even kids who are super conservative Trump supporter types don't buy what their parents or churches are telling them about LGBT rights. That is just a reality. And again, it is a societal change that has zero to do with CRT.

I actually don't have any issue with CRT. It is a pretty obscure thing that is sometimes useful, sometime not. And it will sort itself out like every other academic fad. But the notion that some percentage of teenagers or young adults have heard that "America was built on stolen land" or that "Gender is a choice" means that CRT is pervasive in the schools is just laughable. In fact it is ridiculous. They would have been laughed out of the building had they actually submitted that "study" to any kind of peer review.

[Neto]

The last couple of maps are incorrect (especially in regards to the former Indian Territory, now eastern Oklahoma). And various native peoples still hold land all throughout the Great Plains, generally, however, held privately, instead of as tribal lands.

[GaryK]

It is also true.

I could make up something completely out of thin air. Like that someone here we will call "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And then we could do a push poll just like the one above and ask people "have you heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender? And probably more than 25% will answer "yes, I think I did hear that". Because people are suggestable and will tell you what you want to hear or what they think they should know. And then we can publish the results of the poll and blast it all over social media. And then repeat the same thing a month later and now 50% of our poll respondents will say they have heard that "Menno-Gary" is a sex offender. And the number will keep rising even though it is a complete fiction that we invented out of thin air. That is how push polls work and why political campaigns use them.

The same exact thing happens when you poll people with generic questions like "did you hear about systemic racism in school" The poll question is leading and suggests the answer. And a lot of people will automatically say yes because of the suggestion that they probably should of heard about it if they were paying attention in class instead of checking Instagram on their phone. That isn't how you do social science polling if you actually want an accurate answer.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all 93% of the 1500 people, 18-20 years old, who were asked these questions all lied when they answered yes to the "made-up" questions asked of them? Point me to the evidence that the questions asked of these people were made up out of thin air.

No, they didn't all lie. But if you ask a bunch of people a bunch of very vague questions a whole bunch of them are going to say yes to at least one of them, even if they weren't actually subjects formally covered in class.

In fact, taking a closer look, one of the questions was "America was built on stolen land" which is pretty much "no duh" of course it was. Every single American history class ever taught is going to cover this. That has nothing to do with critical race theory. And because 45% of respondents heard this in school doesn't mean they are actually being taught critical race theory. It means they were taught history. I'm astonished percentage is that low. The 55% who didn't respond must have been on their phones and not paying attention when their US history class covered westward expansion and the Indian wars. Apparently we need to be doing a better job with US history. My daughter's 11th grade history text is sitting here in the kitchen. It is called "The American Pageant" and the most commonly used 11th American History textbook in the country including in conservative states like Texas. It covers broken treaties, Indian removals, the reservation system, the Cherokee "trail of tears" the Battle of Tecumseh, and a bunch of other events related to the theft of Indian lands. In fact, here. They even have a convenient map showing how Indian lands were progressively stolen over time. This is from page 581 of my daughter's history textbook:



That is just history, not CRT or CJW or whatever these authors are trying to call it. And yes, HS students should learn it.

Another statement was "Gender is a choice". If you are talking to 18-20 year olds, they will pretty much be guaranteed to have had LGBT classmates and will have been exposed to popular culture where this is indeed the underlying premise. Caitlyn Jenner and the Kardashians, for example. Elliot Paige, Laverne Cox, Isla KIng, etc. There are tons of media and Hollywood celebrities who are transgender. Any teenager these days will be aware of this and it is pretty much old right wingers and evangelicals who are hung up about denying it. I have taught a lot of kids over the years from conservative evangelical homes and the LGBT issue is easily the single biggest issue with which they diverge from their parents. Even kids who are super conservative Trump supporter types don't buy what their parents or churches are telling them about LGBT rights. That is just a reality. And again, it is a societal change that has zero to do with CRT.

I actually don't have any issue with CRT. It is a pretty obscure thing that is sometimes useful, sometime not. And it will sort itself out like every other academic fad. But the notion that some percentage of teenagers or young adults have heard that "America was built on stolen land" or that "Gender is a choice" means that CRT is pervasive in the schools is just laughable. In fact it is ridiculous. They would have been laughed out of the building had they actually submitted that "study" to any kind of peer review.

I'll accept Manhattan Institute's research on this as something not to be dismissed as made up garbage like you are positing.

Are you suggesting that the stolen land question is never brought up in discussions on white supremacy?

The research is not only about CRT but what they call Critical Social Justice, the combining of CRT and radical gender ideology, so of course they will include questions about gender. And they start out the questions with...

“Thinking about the school you attended, were you ever taught any of the following concepts in class or did you hear them from adults in the school you attended?”

Again, show me the evidence that they made up things to ask people out of thin air.