What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Josh]

In other words, “I don’t like the results from this academic study, so I will claim I can run a study better.”

if you wanted to generate more reliable results you would have to ask open-ended questions with follow-up clarifications. For example:

This is NOT how a study should ever be conducted. Open ended questions mean a lot of interpretive bias on the part of the researchers. Instead, a standard, quite clear list of questions is asked and the possible answers are structured such that the results are unambiguous.

[GaryK]

I'm well aware of these two points you keep restating but the purpose of the study was to determine how widespread this type of teaching is within schools today.

The point is that they didn't measure anything to do with CRT. They measured six vague statements that that are fundamental principles taught in American history or, in the case of the last one, carry the force of law.

The answer is not given within the question being asked as you imply. The very specific question is whether they were ever taught these concepts in class or heard them from adults in the school you attended, not whether they had heard these ideas within the larger society.

I really don't understand what the problem is with this question.

Because social scientists know that leading questions do not produce reliable results. We could conduct a survey of 1000 people and ask them: Did you hear that GaryK was [insert whatever vile made-up rumor you want] and a certain portion of the respondents will answer yes, I heard that. Even though we know that the correct percentage is zero because none of them could possibly have heard it. And if 20% say "yes, I heard that about GaryK are they deliberately lying? Or are they just naturally suggestable and answered yes because the question itself put the idea in their heads and it sounded like something they probably did hear or should have heard.

if you wanted to generate more reliable results you would have to ask open-ended questions with follow-up clarifications. For example:

Question: Did you cover the subject of race or racism in school?
Question: In what context? History class? Martin Luther King day? Informal class discussions? English Literature class?
Question: What are some of the themes that you covered?
Question: What would you say is the take-home message you got from all of that?

And then from all of those varied answers we can decide whether, for example, if fact that students learned about racism through studying slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Or if they learned about it by seeing MLK's "I have a dream speech" on MLK day. Or if they learned about it by reading "To KIll a Mockingbird" or "Huckleberry Finn" in literature class. If any of those things mean that they are being indoctrinated by CRT. Or if they are just becoming educated about the history of their country and the world in which they live.



and so forth.

Then by all means, conduct your own survey if you know a better way.

I do not believe Manhattan Institute did what you are suggesting.

I believe the concept of anti-racism, which I believe goes hand in hand with CRT and other social justice ideologies are being pushed in public schools more widely than you seem to think. I think a lot of this has come to light as a direct result of the pandemic school shutdowns where parents were able to see more clearly some of the things going on in their children's schools.

You may disagree with what I believe but that's where I stand.

[Ken]

Then by all means, conduct your own survey if you know a better way.

I do not believe Manhattan Institute did what you are suggesting.

I believe the concept of anti-racism, which I believe goes hand in hand with CRT and other social justice ideologies are being pushed in public schools more widely than you seem to think. I think a lot of this has come to light as a direct result of the pandemic school shutdowns where parents were able to see more clearly some of the things going on in their children's schools.

You may disagree with what I believe but that's where I stand.

I'm not the one trying to prove some imaginary plot about how CRT is taking over America.

The Manhattan Institute is a highly conservative corporate-funded think tank that has a history of distorted research and bias on a lot of topics having nothing to do with race. For example, here is one article from the American University Law Review examining a Manhattan Institute published book on the civil justice system: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu ... 42/iss4/9/

In 1993, attorney Kenneth J. Chesebro wrote a lengthy and scathing attack on Manhattan Institute fellow Peter Huber's book, Galelio's Revenge. After meticulous research, Chesebro found Huber's book to rely "almost exclusively on anecdotal information and inflated rhetoric, misrepresent[ing] numerous aspects of its subject matter, and present[ing] no considered, objective or empirically-based measure of the extent of the 'junk science' problem." He called Galelio's Revenge, "perfectly described with Huber's own words as a 'catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent, dogmatism and, now and again, outright fraud'.… Galileo would quickly become exasperated at the unsupported thesis of Huber's book, its numerous material misrepresentations and omission, and its manipulative and evasive method of argument." Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993).

On can find endless examples of shoddy or false research pushed forward by the Manhattan Institute. So this particular so-called study is just one more in a long line.

Oh, and I agree that anti-racism is being taught in the public schools as it should be. That is the flip side of teaching about race and racism. And why students read books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" or hundreds of other examples of history and literature and current events. But I don't think that represents some sort of nefarious CRT plot. That is simply Americans coming to grip with their past and learning how to make a better world for the future.

I find it astonishing that you use the term "anti-racism" as if it is some sort of pejorative. If you are against 'anti-racism" what does that make you? Pro-racist? I don't understand your mentality at all. As Christians good Americans, and good human beings we should all be "Anti-Racist"

[RZehr]

Because anti-racist is an appropriated word. It is not a word that is limited to its simple meaning.

[HondurasKeiser]

Is one ‘pro death’ if they don’t take a Pro-Life position?

[Ken]

Because anti-racist is an appropriated word. It is not a word that is limited to its simple meaning.

There are a lot of appropriated words. Like "Christianity" or "faith" or 'Conservative" or "peace" or as HondurasKeiser points out "life".

Doesn't mean we still don't use them and that they don't have meaning.

I've been through various kinds of "anti-racism" training back when they used to call it "racial sensitivity" training even before I got into teaching. Some of it was maybe vaguely useful. Some of it was kind of annoying. If it makes you think a bit and maybe self-examine then it might have some value. The point is to figure out what works and what doesn't over time and if you are accomplishing anything useful or not.

As for schools? Yes I think kids should be taught to be tolerant and respect one another in various age-appropriate ways. That is a good thing and part of the civics and citizenship education that all kids should be getting. And as they get older they learn more sophisticated lessons about history and culture and society. We have made a lot of progress. I think we can all agree that we are in a better place than we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. But in many ways we still have more progress to make before we have a true color-blind society. And figuring out how to get there is going to involve lots of fits and starts and backsliding as well as mistakes and ineffective nonsense. But we will make progress because as Martin Luther King reminds us: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I'm still mystified by the panic about all of this and and things like "anti-racism" and I have a hard time seeing a lot of the current hysteria as nothing more than the latest in a long pattern of racism in this country. Why try to erase history unless you have something to hide?

Luckily most kids are smart and wise enough to see through the nonsense and obsessions of their parents and the adult world. Both on the left and the right. But it does make for a bumpy road sometimes. Kids have to be taught to be racist, they don't come by it naturally.

[GaryK]

Then by all means, conduct your own survey if you know a better way.

I do not believe Manhattan Institute did what you are suggesting.

I believe the concept of anti-racism, which I believe goes hand in hand with CRT and other social justice ideologies are being pushed in public schools more widely than you seem to think. I think a lot of this has come to light as a direct result of the pandemic school shutdowns where parents were able to see more clearly some of the things going on in their children's schools.

You may disagree with what I believe but that's where I stand.

I'm not the one trying to prove some imaginary plot about how CRT is taking over America.

The Manhattan Institute is a highly conservative corporate-funded think tank that has a history of distorted research and bias on a lot of topics having nothing to do with race. For example, here is one article from the American University Law Review examining a Manhattan Institute published book on the civil justice system: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu ... 42/iss4/9/

In 1993, attorney Kenneth J. Chesebro wrote a lengthy and scathing attack on Manhattan Institute fellow Peter Huber's book, Galelio's Revenge. After meticulous research, Chesebro found Huber's book to rely "almost exclusively on anecdotal information and inflated rhetoric, misrepresent[ing] numerous aspects of its subject matter, and present[ing] no considered, objective or empirically-based measure of the extent of the 'junk science' problem." He called Galelio's Revenge, "perfectly described with Huber's own words as a 'catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent, dogmatism and, now and again, outright fraud'.… Galileo would quickly become exasperated at the unsupported thesis of Huber's book, its numerous material misrepresentations and omission, and its manipulative and evasive method of argument." Chesebro, "Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship," 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1637 (1993).

On can find endless examples of shoddy or false research pushed forward by the Manhattan Institute. So this particular so-called study is just one more in a long line.

Oh, and I agree that anti-racism is being taught in the public schools as it should be. That is the flip side of teaching about race and racism. And why students read books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" or hundreds of other examples of history and literature and current events. But I don't think that represents some sort of nefarious CRT plot. That is simply Americans coming to grip with their past and learning how to make a better world for the future.

I find it astonishing that you use the term "anti-racism" as if it is some sort of pejorative. If you are against 'anti-racism" what does that make you? Pro-racist? I don't understand your mentality at all. As Christians good Americans, and good human beings we should all be "Anti-Racist"

I thought surely you would know that the term anti-racism as I used it above is an ideology that has gained a lot of traction since the George Floyd murder. It has components that I believe are not in alignment with the way of Jesus.

[GaryK]

We have made a lot of progress. I think we can all agree that we are in a better place than we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. But in many ways we still have more progress to make before we have a true color-blind society.

A color-blind society? The anti-racism ideology pretty much implies that to strive for color-blindness is itself racist.

[ohio jones]

Gary, I think you need to include the next sentence:

We have made a lot of progress. I think we can all agree that we are in a better place than we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. But in many ways we still have more progress to make before we have a true color-blind society. And figuring out how to get there is going to involve lots of fits and starts and backsliding as well as mistakes and ineffective nonsense.

Focusing divisively on race is part of the backsliding and mistakes, and there's a lot of ineffective nonsense in current academia. It will probably take a radical change in methodology for progress to continue.

[Ken]

We have made a lot of progress. I think we can all agree that we are in a better place than we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. But in many ways we still have more progress to make before we have a true color-blind society.

A color-blind society? The anti-racism ideology pretty much implies that to strive for color-blindness is itself racist.

I can't speak for an entire "ideology". But I would suggest that pretending that a color-blind society actually exists when we are a long ways away from it is more the problem. When the schools attended by poor black children and rich white children have equal resources. And when black children and white children experience equal treatment when it comes to school discipline. And equal treatment in the criminal justice system and job market. Then we will be actually getting closer to a color blind society. We have a long ways to go yet.

I think we all agree that the US has a virulently racist past. On what date do you think we erased our past and achieved a color-blind society? 1980? 1990? 2000? 2010? 2020? Or are we still not there yet?