Glenn says, "I'm not surprised that if you call attention to white cops beating up black kids, somebody else is going to call attention to black thugs beating up innocent white people. And do you know, there are a lot more of the latter than there are of the former."
I'd love to see the statistics that corroborate such a claim.
We live by narrative, and by anecdote. Here we have dueling anecdotes. Glenn has true anecdotes about progressive cancellation in private schools, Rajiv has true anecdotes about conservatives hounding bewildered teachers. Glenn's anecdotes would make any conservative angry. Rajiv's anecdotes would make any liberal angry. They respect each other, but in this conversation seem to fail to reach a middle ground.
Of course "reality" could be represented in numbers, if we had them: X percent of schools are in the grip of progressive indoctrinators, Y percent of school boards do conservative bullying of teachers and librarians ... but numbers put people to sleep.
I disagree that the "educators" are innocent bystanders. Anyone supporting indoctrinating kindergarten children with racial and gender ideology, even if they are not experts on the bacground of critical theory, has no business anywhere near children. Period.
You're an economist, Professor Sethi; a celebrated and accomplished one. Perhaps you'll gain insight by descending for a moment from the macroeconomic sphere and taking a short sojourn into the realm of the atomized, individualized microeconomic realities extant within everyday life.
The ruleset for managing scarcity scales upward from individualized a priori assumptions. What the backlash is focused on, is the nature of the priors being inculcated by authority figures that dominate the attention of those who must compete with each other for scarce resources.
It is no accident that Critical Theory gained traction in the legal profession. The necessary amorality of promiscuous advocacy engenders a "by any means necessary" methodology. Critical Theory's focus on power as the apex of hierarchical priorities is not necessarily misplaced within a framework of ubiquitously confrontational advocacy, but it's highly destructive of the social cohesion essential to everyday economic activity.
This is because it destroys, not just trust, but the very ability to trust. As an economist, you are very well aware of the way that cooperation and competition devolve into tribalistic savagery when the bedrock of trust erodes beyond a certain point.
Oh, certainly, your observations about the confusion experienced by those who endure parental criticism are poignant. Charitably put, can you entertain the notion that low-information parents are made uneasy by a visceral comprehension that their progeny are being permanently disadvantaged by teachers that have a poor grasp of the subject matter?
We can look at it through a Critical lens and conclude that "as ye reap, ye will sow." We can also look at it through an economic lens and postulate that teachers do not primarily perform their duties in order to teach, they do so to make money. They make money by conveying information and attitudes, but they would rarely teach without a monetary incentive.
A man of your accomplishments can readily view the situation within the above two frameworks, and many more. The "truth," if there is one, becomes far more complex than any single framework can accommodate.
At the core of all of this is the ability to form bonds of trust. A crude metaphor is to visualize an enduring social contract as that which sets up a boxing ring and provides an honest referee who enforces limits on how force is employed in competition. Critical Theory, applied indiscriminately, is a corrosive substance, an acid that dissolves the ring and kills the referee. The result is one where rules-based competition for scarce resources becomes a no-holds-barred streetfight-to-the-death.
If thoughtless academics are unaware that the bottle from which they dispense information contains a mild solution of ideological muriatic, shall a charitable impulse deem their offering any less corrosive? The mildness of the solution only prolongs the period of dissolution endured by the substrate upon which it is poured.
Glenn, you are spot on and courageous for being vocal here and elsewhere (eg letter in defense of Clarence Thomas was inspiring). White man have been discriminated against legally since 1964 when Affirmative Action gave protection to everyone but them. That is racist and sexist when you protect all but one group because of their race or sex. Just like attacking one group because of their race or sex would be racist or sexist.
Agreed. It’s painfully myopic to simultaneously apply the strongest protections and most varied tools to preventing discrimination against protected classes, such a race and sex, and then categorically define all white men, alone (or at least hetero, non-trans white men) as undeserving of anything like this same level of protection, regardless of either the actual characteristics of their lives or the institutional contexts in which they experience and are impacted by the actual exercise of power and status. Just make race and sex, etc. protected statuses for everyone. Don’t decide to exclude and expose one group to more discrimination, just because, historically, some white men dominated society.
I rewatched much of it after reading the ProPublica article.
Three points from this discussion are relevant:
First, they agree that a soft form of CRT is being disingenuously introduced into our schools. "Disingenuously" because its proponents argue that it cannot be CRT since it is not the academic hard form.
Second, Glenn believed that many of these proponents deliberately mislead; John disagreed, saying that these people are steeped in this culture, know no differently, and thus are not fully to blame.
Finally, they synthesize a two part definition of this variant of CRT: Part A: Black people are victims, white people are oppressors. Part B: Rectifying this situation should be one's life mission.
This discussion was academic in that it was detached from any particular incident; in the ProPublica article you can see the real life consequences of this culture war.
In alignment with the first point, parents were rightly concerned about Trojan Horse CRT brought in under the guise of an innocent sounding DEI initiative. Furthermore, this new position does not seem to be particularly well thought out by the school board. Ms. Lewis interviewed for one position and then was offered a newly created role that was so poorly defined she got to determine what it actually was.
As to the second point of Glenn and John's conversation, Ms. Lewis may be an unwitting foot soldier in this culture war. Or she may be an innocent, and the loss of her job is collateral damage.
Finally, if Glenn and John's summation is an accurate depiction of what is actually happening, the culture war will only intensify, leading to a stronger backlash than the one described in the article.
Finally, the backlash will become a front in the culture war as well. This article can well be seen as an opening shot, with salvos to follow in due course.
I need more detail to make sense of Rajiv’s concern. I am anti-CRT and I urge activists to contemplate potential consequences of human response. My default position is that two groups have made themselves un-trustworthy since 2018: HR and schools. Question to professor Loury: Can you interview an HR expert from multi-ethic Singapore?
So Mr. Sethi "worries that this backlash is harming people who did nothing to deserve the ire of those who are fed up with the progressive line on race." Did he worry about those who didn't deserve what precipitated the backlash? How many people were attacked, personally and professionally, for saying that re-racializing society was a bad idea? It was poisonous the first time and there is no reason to believe that doing it again will produce different results.
It's a bit much to clutch one's pearls over the reaction instead of the cause. The biggest problem with the backlash, it seems, is that it's happening at all. The education-industrial complex operated without pushback for going on two generations and quietly kept moving the goalposts further and further away from actual instruction on the subjects that young people might need to master in order to be successful. When functionally illiterate people are "graduating" high school and when colleges are forced to provide remedial math/English work for unprepared incoming freshmen, it should be clear that educators have lost their way.
Parents have finally noticed that the system is NOT serving their kids well and after years of silence bordering on indifference, they are pushing back. To the educrats, it must seem shocking but that's the nature of pendulums. Once they reach their end point on end of the spectrum, they reverse course quickly and move toward the opposite end. Besides, there is nothing about claims that schools had become indoctrination camps but those complaints were dismissed. More recently, parents were painted as terrorists. Great move. And from CRT we've moved on to teachers who believe six year olds need to hear about adults' sex lives. If an industry was trying to make a spectacle of itself, what would education do differently?
I agree with M. Mink. *Vastly* underestimates. And *vastly* pathological.
I ranted about the article M. Sethi recommended, but didn't say much about what he discussed. His quotes preceded by ">>>".
>>> "The position itself was defined to some degree in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion, although her background, I mean, she actually initially thought CRT meant something totally different. She's really not aware of any connection to this kind of legal scholarship."
There's that "tell." CRT, as it is known these days, has ZERO, zip, zilch, NADA to do with ANY LEGAL THEORY. I'll give M. Sethi the benefit of the doubt, and not say this is a lie. But it indicates such a poor understanding of the issue that it beggars belief. Granted, it's somewhat amorphous. Just like Wokeness is. What is included? What not? Is CRT synonymous with Woke? A lotta that depends if it includes trans *GROOMING.* (Poor term but what is, in actual *FACT,* happening. Be glad to argue the point.)
>>> "And really a whole bunch of people are swarming, and partly through a coordinated national campaign, where a script is being distributed."
Uh hunh. Hmmmm.
>>> "What I see going on is that there are things that ought to be debated and questioned and brought to the surface."
Okay, let's bring some facts to the surface. M. Sethi bought the story in ProPublica, lock, stock, and barrel. Yeah, there was some nationally organized resistance in the Georgia case. But lets try to maintain a minimal contact with reality.
Woke is a coordinated national campaign, no? International, actually. Scripts You say? What I call "The Narrative" is broadcast out on social media, as well as mainstream. I call that distributed very, very *widely.*
Everybody's heard-a regulatory capture, right? Institutional capture, anybody? How many institutions can You name that *haven't* been captured by the Woke?
>>> "But instead of that, there's a very active, nationally coordinated campaign to mob school districts in ways that that get innocent people who are trying to just basically do right by the children hounded out of jobs or school boards, and so on."
From https://boghossian.substack.com/p/ed-schools-weak-academics-and-woke Ed schools teach the teachers who teach. Ed schools teach the administrators who run the show. Ed schools teach the PMC on the state boards. Ed schools care more about training their students how to be Woke, than teaching them about their supposed profession.
So let's get real here on who is the mob. And who does the sowing. And who are more likely to get fired. And what the parents are up against, when they wanna have some say so in what their children are indoctrinated in. To try to portray the teachers as the underdog? I'm not sure if it's just plain ignorance, or is an effort to intentionally paint a false picture. Because *most* Americans will root for the underdog. That's why the ProPublica painted such a nice picture of this Celia Lewis. Touching. She was up against the mob.
To finalize, what these parents in Georgia were *doing,* in actual *FACT,* was attempting and managing to get rid of the DEI position altogether. I'm sorry M. Lewis was caught in the crossfire. She mebbe was *not* as Woke as all get-out. It's possible. Again, reality: The DEI industry, according to what I've read, is a $6 BILLION industry. This is what the parents are up against, and the people in DEI are the mob.
>>> "There's no question that in some schools, especially elite private schools, yes, it's fair ground. But this has gone way beyond that."
Well, yeah... The Woke *religion* has gone way, way beyond what's necessary. Therefore...
>>> "It's the folks who are generally centrist, maybe right-of-center, left-of-center, doing their jobs as educationists."
I'm sorry, but I'm incredulous. It's the job of the Colleges and Universities to turn out good illiberal Woke people, right? And if they're not sufficiently Woke, they get additional training in how to be Woke in the Ed Schools. Odds of people coming outta all that being Centrists?
Don't bother with research. Social scientists can prove any hypothesis they wanna. To me, social science is an oxymoron anyway.. Even *hard* sciences are getting that way. Therefore...
Dr. Sethi vastly underestimates the problem of CRT and its effects on school culture and the minds of children of all races. And should we get into the gender stuff that's causing vast numbers of little girls to want mastectomies and to render themselves infertile for life? The porn in the school libraries problem? How far too many teachers use their students as little therapy buddies who are there to affirm their psycho-sexual identities? There's serious pathology in America's public schools.
I dunno where to start. Some of Your guests, Professor Loury, aren't worth the effort. IIRC, You had another conversation with M. Sethi, right? If my memory serves, then this here just confirms my opinion of him. He makes particular point of reading the ProPublica article. So I did. If he doesn't see a Woke hatchet job when he reads it, he's not worth listening to, IMO. From the article, quotes preceded with ">>>".
>>> "And with that effort came a renewed vilification of CRT, a four-decade-old theory that, contrary to its opponents’ accusations, is rarely if ever taught in K-12 public school systems (it typically is taught in graduate-level college and law school courses)."
This is what You always see in an article that is pure Woke propaganda. Find me *one* single person in this country who thinks graduate-level legal theory is being taught in K - 12. Mebbe there's one. Point stands that this is a bald-faced lie.
>>> "'These are our neighbors,' said Leanne Etienne, a Black mother of two Cherokee County students, one of whom served on the superintendent’s ad hoc committee that led to the creation of the DEI position. 'These are people who are the parents of the children my kids go to school with. It’s a very uncomfortable feeling. You don’t know who to trust. You don’t feel safe.'"
Funny that. It's, in actual fact, teachers who are *opposed* to CRT shite who are afraid and whose jobs are *not* safe, right?
>>> "...a resolution against teaching CRT and the 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series..."
Yeah, that 1619 Project was acclaimed. Funny how NHJ later said that the junk was *not* history. It was "a journey story," I believe she called it. So why on Earth is it being taught as history?
>>> "Upon hearing that, Lewis thought about how Martin Luther King Jr. promoted humanity and love, and she was devastated to hear his words used by strangers to attack her. Everything she had just witnessed felt contrary to his ideals."
Nice try. It's difficult to tell, from the article alone, how Woke M. Lewis is. But that absolute *FACT* of the matter is that the Woke have *said,* repeatedly, that they don't agree with MLK. And what they propose is, in *FACT,* is that people *are* judged according to their skin-color, and *not* their character.
Yourself being the rare exception, Professor Loury, this whole discussion by M. Sethi proves the point that the more educated a person is, the stupider they are. This is supposed to be passed as intelligent conversation. He doesn't even know how to read, AFAIK.
Beg pardons. When I see what parents are up against, and how they're slandered in the press, I feel someone needs to firmly set the record straight. No personal offense intended but, no doubt, written.
I'm not so sure it's bc he's stupid, i just think that as a liberal in good standing 1) he is culturally conditioned into believing that the zealots on his side are "good people just trying to help" or "raising important issues" or whatever vague feelgoodisms people use when they can't bring themselves to admit that the political movement they've aligned themselves with has been hijacked by illiberal fundamentalists; and 2) he seems like a kind and gentle person so he probably can't quite wrap his brain around the idea that people supposedly campaigning for Justice and Tolerance are actually vehemently opposed to those things, and have no real goals except accruing power and using it to destroy opponents or dissenters.
Liberals have allowed their political movement to be taken over by angry hateful zealots but they can't bring themselves to admit it, all they can do is mumble about "extremists on both sides" and hope to maintain some small measure of dignity without having to actually oppose their own tribe.
No doubt You're right, M. Pseudonym. I could see that [Edit: "in him." -> "M. Sethi's kind and all that." And I got off on a bad foot after reading that ProPublica article with was pure propaganda against the parents.
But it also seemed a case, to me only, of a person rationalizing, with great skill, to overcome what the situation really was. Come to think on it, I think that's what You're saying also.
Glenn says, "I'm not surprised that if you call attention to white cops beating up black kids, somebody else is going to call attention to black thugs beating up innocent white people. And do you know, there are a lot more of the latter than there are of the former."
I'd love to see the statistics that corroborate such a claim.
We live by narrative, and by anecdote. Here we have dueling anecdotes. Glenn has true anecdotes about progressive cancellation in private schools, Rajiv has true anecdotes about conservatives hounding bewildered teachers. Glenn's anecdotes would make any conservative angry. Rajiv's anecdotes would make any liberal angry. They respect each other, but in this conversation seem to fail to reach a middle ground.
Of course "reality" could be represented in numbers, if we had them: X percent of schools are in the grip of progressive indoctrinators, Y percent of school boards do conservative bullying of teachers and librarians ... but numbers put people to sleep.
I disagree that the "educators" are innocent bystanders. Anyone supporting indoctrinating kindergarten children with racial and gender ideology, even if they are not experts on the bacground of critical theory, has no business anywhere near children. Period.
rajiv's reliance on propublica (!) 'reporting' reveals that conformation bias rules his weltanschaung....
if it isnt crushed with vengeance, it will fester and rise again
You're an economist, Professor Sethi; a celebrated and accomplished one. Perhaps you'll gain insight by descending for a moment from the macroeconomic sphere and taking a short sojourn into the realm of the atomized, individualized microeconomic realities extant within everyday life.
The ruleset for managing scarcity scales upward from individualized a priori assumptions. What the backlash is focused on, is the nature of the priors being inculcated by authority figures that dominate the attention of those who must compete with each other for scarce resources.
It is no accident that Critical Theory gained traction in the legal profession. The necessary amorality of promiscuous advocacy engenders a "by any means necessary" methodology. Critical Theory's focus on power as the apex of hierarchical priorities is not necessarily misplaced within a framework of ubiquitously confrontational advocacy, but it's highly destructive of the social cohesion essential to everyday economic activity.
This is because it destroys, not just trust, but the very ability to trust. As an economist, you are very well aware of the way that cooperation and competition devolve into tribalistic savagery when the bedrock of trust erodes beyond a certain point.
Oh, certainly, your observations about the confusion experienced by those who endure parental criticism are poignant. Charitably put, can you entertain the notion that low-information parents are made uneasy by a visceral comprehension that their progeny are being permanently disadvantaged by teachers that have a poor grasp of the subject matter?
We can look at it through a Critical lens and conclude that "as ye reap, ye will sow." We can also look at it through an economic lens and postulate that teachers do not primarily perform their duties in order to teach, they do so to make money. They make money by conveying information and attitudes, but they would rarely teach without a monetary incentive.
A man of your accomplishments can readily view the situation within the above two frameworks, and many more. The "truth," if there is one, becomes far more complex than any single framework can accommodate.
At the core of all of this is the ability to form bonds of trust. A crude metaphor is to visualize an enduring social contract as that which sets up a boxing ring and provides an honest referee who enforces limits on how force is employed in competition. Critical Theory, applied indiscriminately, is a corrosive substance, an acid that dissolves the ring and kills the referee. The result is one where rules-based competition for scarce resources becomes a no-holds-barred streetfight-to-the-death.
If thoughtless academics are unaware that the bottle from which they dispense information contains a mild solution of ideological muriatic, shall a charitable impulse deem their offering any less corrosive? The mildness of the solution only prolongs the period of dissolution endured by the substrate upon which it is poured.
As a parent of two high schoolers Rajiv is simply incorrect. This issue is pervasive in public middle and high schools.
Glenn, you are spot on and courageous for being vocal here and elsewhere (eg letter in defense of Clarence Thomas was inspiring). White man have been discriminated against legally since 1964 when Affirmative Action gave protection to everyone but them. That is racist and sexist when you protect all but one group because of their race or sex. Just like attacking one group because of their race or sex would be racist or sexist.
Agreed. It’s painfully myopic to simultaneously apply the strongest protections and most varied tools to preventing discrimination against protected classes, such a race and sex, and then categorically define all white men, alone (or at least hetero, non-trans white men) as undeserving of anything like this same level of protection, regardless of either the actual characteristics of their lives or the institutional contexts in which they experience and are impacted by the actual exercise of power and status. Just make race and sex, etc. protected statuses for everyone. Don’t decide to exclude and expose one group to more discrimination, just because, historically, some white men dominated society.
I'm flabbergasted that this gentleman thinks CRT is only an issue in a few elite schools.
Just over a year ago, Glenn and John had their discussion on "Thinking Critically on Critical Race Theory"
https://youtu.be/wplt3RpyKoc
I rewatched much of it after reading the ProPublica article.
Three points from this discussion are relevant:
First, they agree that a soft form of CRT is being disingenuously introduced into our schools. "Disingenuously" because its proponents argue that it cannot be CRT since it is not the academic hard form.
Second, Glenn believed that many of these proponents deliberately mislead; John disagreed, saying that these people are steeped in this culture, know no differently, and thus are not fully to blame.
Finally, they synthesize a two part definition of this variant of CRT: Part A: Black people are victims, white people are oppressors. Part B: Rectifying this situation should be one's life mission.
This discussion was academic in that it was detached from any particular incident; in the ProPublica article you can see the real life consequences of this culture war.
In alignment with the first point, parents were rightly concerned about Trojan Horse CRT brought in under the guise of an innocent sounding DEI initiative. Furthermore, this new position does not seem to be particularly well thought out by the school board. Ms. Lewis interviewed for one position and then was offered a newly created role that was so poorly defined she got to determine what it actually was.
As to the second point of Glenn and John's conversation, Ms. Lewis may be an unwitting foot soldier in this culture war. Or she may be an innocent, and the loss of her job is collateral damage.
Finally, if Glenn and John's summation is an accurate depiction of what is actually happening, the culture war will only intensify, leading to a stronger backlash than the one described in the article.
Finally, the backlash will become a front in the culture war as well. This article can well be seen as an opening shot, with salvos to follow in due course.
I need more detail to make sense of Rajiv’s concern. I am anti-CRT and I urge activists to contemplate potential consequences of human response. My default position is that two groups have made themselves un-trustworthy since 2018: HR and schools. Question to professor Loury: Can you interview an HR expert from multi-ethic Singapore?
Great interview! Thank you for letting us seeing into their mindset
So Mr. Sethi "worries that this backlash is harming people who did nothing to deserve the ire of those who are fed up with the progressive line on race." Did he worry about those who didn't deserve what precipitated the backlash? How many people were attacked, personally and professionally, for saying that re-racializing society was a bad idea? It was poisonous the first time and there is no reason to believe that doing it again will produce different results.
It's a bit much to clutch one's pearls over the reaction instead of the cause. The biggest problem with the backlash, it seems, is that it's happening at all. The education-industrial complex operated without pushback for going on two generations and quietly kept moving the goalposts further and further away from actual instruction on the subjects that young people might need to master in order to be successful. When functionally illiterate people are "graduating" high school and when colleges are forced to provide remedial math/English work for unprepared incoming freshmen, it should be clear that educators have lost their way.
Parents have finally noticed that the system is NOT serving their kids well and after years of silence bordering on indifference, they are pushing back. To the educrats, it must seem shocking but that's the nature of pendulums. Once they reach their end point on end of the spectrum, they reverse course quickly and move toward the opposite end. Besides, there is nothing about claims that schools had become indoctrination camps but those complaints were dismissed. More recently, parents were painted as terrorists. Great move. And from CRT we've moved on to teachers who believe six year olds need to hear about adults' sex lives. If an industry was trying to make a spectacle of itself, what would education do differently?
I agree with M. Mink. *Vastly* underestimates. And *vastly* pathological.
I ranted about the article M. Sethi recommended, but didn't say much about what he discussed. His quotes preceded by ">>>".
>>> "The position itself was defined to some degree in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion, although her background, I mean, she actually initially thought CRT meant something totally different. She's really not aware of any connection to this kind of legal scholarship."
There's that "tell." CRT, as it is known these days, has ZERO, zip, zilch, NADA to do with ANY LEGAL THEORY. I'll give M. Sethi the benefit of the doubt, and not say this is a lie. But it indicates such a poor understanding of the issue that it beggars belief. Granted, it's somewhat amorphous. Just like Wokeness is. What is included? What not? Is CRT synonymous with Woke? A lotta that depends if it includes trans *GROOMING.* (Poor term but what is, in actual *FACT,* happening. Be glad to argue the point.)
>>> "And really a whole bunch of people are swarming, and partly through a coordinated national campaign, where a script is being distributed."
Uh hunh. Hmmmm.
>>> "What I see going on is that there are things that ought to be debated and questioned and brought to the surface."
Okay, let's bring some facts to the surface. M. Sethi bought the story in ProPublica, lock, stock, and barrel. Yeah, there was some nationally organized resistance in the Georgia case. But lets try to maintain a minimal contact with reality.
Woke is a coordinated national campaign, no? International, actually. Scripts You say? What I call "The Narrative" is broadcast out on social media, as well as mainstream. I call that distributed very, very *widely.*
Everybody's heard-a regulatory capture, right? Institutional capture, anybody? How many institutions can You name that *haven't* been captured by the Woke?
>>> "But instead of that, there's a very active, nationally coordinated campaign to mob school districts in ways that that get innocent people who are trying to just basically do right by the children hounded out of jobs or school boards, and so on."
From https://boghossian.substack.com/p/ed-schools-weak-academics-and-woke Ed schools teach the teachers who teach. Ed schools teach the administrators who run the show. Ed schools teach the PMC on the state boards. Ed schools care more about training their students how to be Woke, than teaching them about their supposed profession.
So let's get real here on who is the mob. And who does the sowing. And who are more likely to get fired. And what the parents are up against, when they wanna have some say so in what their children are indoctrinated in. To try to portray the teachers as the underdog? I'm not sure if it's just plain ignorance, or is an effort to intentionally paint a false picture. Because *most* Americans will root for the underdog. That's why the ProPublica painted such a nice picture of this Celia Lewis. Touching. She was up against the mob.
To finalize, what these parents in Georgia were *doing,* in actual *FACT,* was attempting and managing to get rid of the DEI position altogether. I'm sorry M. Lewis was caught in the crossfire. She mebbe was *not* as Woke as all get-out. It's possible. Again, reality: The DEI industry, according to what I've read, is a $6 BILLION industry. This is what the parents are up against, and the people in DEI are the mob.
>>> "There's no question that in some schools, especially elite private schools, yes, it's fair ground. But this has gone way beyond that."
Well, yeah... The Woke *religion* has gone way, way beyond what's necessary. Therefore...
>>> "It's the folks who are generally centrist, maybe right-of-center, left-of-center, doing their jobs as educationists."
I'm sorry, but I'm incredulous. It's the job of the Colleges and Universities to turn out good illiberal Woke people, right? And if they're not sufficiently Woke, they get additional training in how to be Woke in the Ed Schools. Odds of people coming outta all that being Centrists?
Don't bother with research. Social scientists can prove any hypothesis they wanna. To me, social science is an oxymoron anyway.. Even *hard* sciences are getting that way. Therefore...
[Edit: should-a been "Cecilia."]
Dr. Sethi vastly underestimates the problem of CRT and its effects on school culture and the minds of children of all races. And should we get into the gender stuff that's causing vast numbers of little girls to want mastectomies and to render themselves infertile for life? The porn in the school libraries problem? How far too many teachers use their students as little therapy buddies who are there to affirm their psycho-sexual identities? There's serious pathology in America's public schools.
I dunno where to start. Some of Your guests, Professor Loury, aren't worth the effort. IIRC, You had another conversation with M. Sethi, right? If my memory serves, then this here just confirms my opinion of him. He makes particular point of reading the ProPublica article. So I did. If he doesn't see a Woke hatchet job when he reads it, he's not worth listening to, IMO. From the article, quotes preceded with ">>>".
>>> "And with that effort came a renewed vilification of CRT, a four-decade-old theory that, contrary to its opponents’ accusations, is rarely if ever taught in K-12 public school systems (it typically is taught in graduate-level college and law school courses)."
This is what You always see in an article that is pure Woke propaganda. Find me *one* single person in this country who thinks graduate-level legal theory is being taught in K - 12. Mebbe there's one. Point stands that this is a bald-faced lie.
>>> "'These are our neighbors,' said Leanne Etienne, a Black mother of two Cherokee County students, one of whom served on the superintendent’s ad hoc committee that led to the creation of the DEI position. 'These are people who are the parents of the children my kids go to school with. It’s a very uncomfortable feeling. You don’t know who to trust. You don’t feel safe.'"
Funny that. It's, in actual fact, teachers who are *opposed* to CRT shite who are afraid and whose jobs are *not* safe, right?
>>> "...a resolution against teaching CRT and the 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series..."
Yeah, that 1619 Project was acclaimed. Funny how NHJ later said that the junk was *not* history. It was "a journey story," I believe she called it. So why on Earth is it being taught as history?
>>> "Upon hearing that, Lewis thought about how Martin Luther King Jr. promoted humanity and love, and she was devastated to hear his words used by strangers to attack her. Everything she had just witnessed felt contrary to his ideals."
Nice try. It's difficult to tell, from the article alone, how Woke M. Lewis is. But that absolute *FACT* of the matter is that the Woke have *said,* repeatedly, that they don't agree with MLK. And what they propose is, in *FACT,* is that people *are* judged according to their skin-color, and *not* their character.
Yourself being the rare exception, Professor Loury, this whole discussion by M. Sethi proves the point that the more educated a person is, the stupider they are. This is supposed to be passed as intelligent conversation. He doesn't even know how to read, AFAIK.
Beg pardons. When I see what parents are up against, and how they're slandered in the press, I feel someone needs to firmly set the record straight. No personal offense intended but, no doubt, written.
Super review and insight. Thanks much.
<blush> TY kindly.
I'm not so sure it's bc he's stupid, i just think that as a liberal in good standing 1) he is culturally conditioned into believing that the zealots on his side are "good people just trying to help" or "raising important issues" or whatever vague feelgoodisms people use when they can't bring themselves to admit that the political movement they've aligned themselves with has been hijacked by illiberal fundamentalists; and 2) he seems like a kind and gentle person so he probably can't quite wrap his brain around the idea that people supposedly campaigning for Justice and Tolerance are actually vehemently opposed to those things, and have no real goals except accruing power and using it to destroy opponents or dissenters.
Liberals have allowed their political movement to be taken over by angry hateful zealots but they can't bring themselves to admit it, all they can do is mumble about "extremists on both sides" and hope to maintain some small measure of dignity without having to actually oppose their own tribe.
No doubt You're right, M. Pseudonym. I could see that [Edit: "in him." -> "M. Sethi's kind and all that." And I got off on a bad foot after reading that ProPublica article with was pure propaganda against the parents.
But it also seemed a case, to me only, of a person rationalizing, with great skill, to overcome what the situation really was. Come to think on it, I think that's what You're saying also.
yeah i think i just used a lot of words to say "people only see what they want to see"
I really like the extended long play version, myself. :-)
Long day done. Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not.