Law School Wouldn’t Let Her Son Opt Out Of Class That Promotes Anti-White Racism. Now She’s Suing

[Social Distance Warrior]

Those things can be blamed on unique lacks of access to education and healthcare.

And when it comes to funding, I'll let Reagan's man lay out the right's strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “, , .” By 1968 you can’t say “”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “, .”

That's who they're appealing to, and that's where the policy direction goes. Now, if you want to talk about how it was Democrats pushing policies near identical in previous ages of American politics, go ahead. Doesn't change the reasoning in implementation of things like the war on drugs, stop and frisk or the broken windows policies, amongst many others.

"Don't pick up the gun" when the guns are all around, but the options aren't.......

I can't see what you're writing. I just see a lot of these:", "

what are you attempting to argue here?

that the system is stacked against black Americans?
that certain changes are impossible if we don't rectify certain policies/institutions?

 

[HereticBD]

You can't address them, yet you feel so petulantly confident that they don't savage your ill-formed position.

You see people mired in poverty, absent lack of education or jobs, and your position is "Hey, bucko, you know those conditions that have been really bad since well before you were born? I know you're 13, but you can make a change!!"

No, it's more like "hey bucko, just because you're poor doesn't give you the right to rape and murder people"

Apparently, you feel differently.

 

[mkess101]

I'll tell you what I tell my 6 year old - Learn what the teacher wants you to learn but there's a lot of things that schools don't teach you. I'll teach you the stuff they don't cover. And never forget that there's more to any subject than what they cover in the classroom.

So I wouldn't particularly care if a teacher said that they don't buy into systemic racism or any other such thing. I will sit my kid down, explain why the teacher is wrong and still expect him to do what's asked of him in the classroom.

I would tell him what my parents told me. The classroom is not the place for that debate. Learn it, you don't have to agree with it.

Fair. You have a consistent view then, and as far as I'm concerned that's all that can be expected. I'd assume there are lines that a teacher could cross with their curriculum that would force you to act, but that they're extreme enough that you wouldn't have any real concern of a teacher actually crossing them.

In this case, (unless I'm understanding it incorrectly) that one of the main complaints of the mother is about her son being forced to “make professions about his racial, sexual, gender and religious identities". If true, that's where a line has been crossed by the teacher imo. That's not something teachers should expect students to do in a classroom.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No, it's more like "hey bucko, just because you're poor doesn't give you the right to rape and murder people"

Apparently, you feel differently.

Yeah, because saying that to people in the real world is a really odd thing to say, and it's a really odd position to have when discussing populations and demographic issues.

It's something that need not even be said, and you're using it as an argument for some reason.

Here are two pretty pertinent studies (oooooh, scary!!) that show info on the causes and factors on child and teen recidivism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702282/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135524/

It shows that when mitigating issues that will likely lead to disfavorable outcomes (crime, furtherance of generational poverty, etc), time is of the essence, and the older a child becomes without intervention the worse the outcomes become.

Now, if your system segregates one group in ghettos near all the highways in your major cities with discriminatory lending and housing practices? Those are some pretty big wide-ranging pressures. Then when these communities face unique lacks of investment in education, social services and community programs? More pressures.

And what do these pressures cause to populations? Use your words, big boy. I believe you CAN get past the first paragraph of either study (scary!!!!)!!!!

 

[bobStash]

Fox news has an article about this too and they feature some more slides from the class.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawsuit-nevada-race-christianity-william-clark

The mother needs to get over herself.

It's a school. They set their curriculum. She doesn't have to like it but she didn't have to send her kid there either. As for her actual complaints - what exactly does she think critical thinking classes are built on? I find this part and parcel of a general problem with liberal arts classes. People who seem to think that such classes aren't built on critiquing the positions of the students. It's not a soapbox or an orator's podium. It's a class, do the work, get the grade move on with your life. Save the bellyaching for times when you have more agency.

I also hate people who say "brainwashing". It's a class, you're supposed to learn something, just because you don't like the teacher's perspective it doesn't become brainwashing. It's just a disagreement on perspective.

While I'm ranting - this is part of why American schools suck. American parents think that they should be dictating curriculum to the teachers. As the child of immigrants and married to an immigrant, I find it hard to believe. My parents said "Do what the teacher asks, learn what they tell you to learn." And if they didn't like the teacher, they shared that with us but we were still expected to treat the teacher and the school with the highest respect.

Hmm, that got a little ranty.

You are a small time, petty lawyer.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I can't see what you're writing. I just see a lot of these:", "

what are you attempting to argue here?

that the system is stacked against black Americans?
that certain changes are impossible if we don't rectify certain policies/institutions?

It's the n-word, and maybe the most important GOP strategist of the last 40 years, who laid out the parties continuing electoral strategy. He's literally arguing about how they cajol support by appealing to racist whites and implementing policies supported by these constituencies.

 

[panamaican]

Fair. You have a consistent view then, and as far as I'm concerned that's all that can be expected. I'd assume there are lines that a teacher could cross with their curriculum that would force you to act, but that they're extreme enough that you wouldn't have any real concern of a teacher actually crossing them.

In this case, (unless I'm understanding it incorrectly) that one of the main complaints of the mother is about her son being forced to “make professions about his racial, sexual, gender and religious identities". If true, that's where a line has been crossed by the teacher imo. That's not something teachers should expect students to do in a classroom.

The mother's complaint is stupid. Her son isn't being forced to make professions about himself. He's required to speak on the subject of the classroom and some of that subject matter overlaps with his personal identity. It's simplistic and stupid for her or him to personalize the material as being about them individually.

Pretty much every critical thinking class asks you to present positions that reflect some personal elements in your answer. And every such class requires the teacher to poke and prod at those positions to help the student look deeper into why they hold the positions they hold. It's how the student is expected to grow. Sometimes the teacher reinforces a position, sometimes the teacher attacks the position. But the point is to make the student think about it.

I see parents like this in my son's kindergarten and 1st grade class. Parents who want to re-write the curriculum to meet thier personal perspective without understanding that the classroom is for the education of everyone, not just their kid. And that means that not everyone's comments, perspectives, positions, etc. will get equal treatment. I've had black parents complain about the content surrounding slavery and Jim Crow and while I understand their perspective, their little black kids aren't the only kids in the classroom. There are white kids, Asian kids, Hispanic kids and sometimes these things can't be taught in a way that makes everyone emotionally comfortable.

People have to accept that their kids will encounter some level of discomfort along the road to growing up. Better it be in the classroom than somewhere more consequential.

 

[panamaican]

You are a small time, petty lawyer.

And yet important enough for you to take the time to quote me.

Good enough for me.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

And yet important enough for you to take the time to quote me.

Good enough for me.

every time I'm quoted I feel more successful about my life.

 

[ElijahWood]

Again stop acting like a victim all the time on here. You are one of the biggest babies on this forum, if you dislike someone's opinion that isn't ground for banning them. You're constantly telling people to fuck off yet you try to act like you are the moral authority of this forum. It's tiresome and a bunch of people can see through your bs.

Ooh no not a bunch of people!

A simple comparison of likeost ratios show I'm exponentially more popular than you could ever dream of being on here.

 

[mkess101]

The mother's complaint is stupid. Her son isn't being forced to make professions about himself. He's required to speak on the subject of the classroom and some of that subject matter overlaps with his personal identity. It's simplistic and stupid for her or him to personalize the material as being about them individually.

Pretty much every critical thinking class asks you to present positions that reflect some personal elements in your answer. And every such class requires the teacher to poke and prod at those positions to help the student look deeper into why they hold the positions they hold. It's how the student is expected to grow. Sometimes the teacher reinforces a position, sometimes the teacher attacks the position. But the point is to make the student think about it.

I see parents like this in my son's kindergarten and 1st grade class. Parents who want to re-write the curriculum to meet thier personal perspective without understanding that the classroom is for the education of everyone, not just their kid. And that means that not everyone's comments, perspectives, positions, etc. will get equal treatment. I've had black parents complain about the content surrounding slavery and Jim Crow and while I understand their perspective, their little black kids aren't the only kids in the classroom. There are white kids, Asian kids, Hispanic kids and sometimes these things can't be taught in a way that makes everyone emotionally comfortable.

People have to accept that their kids will encounter some level of discomfort along the road to growing up. Better it be in the classroom than somewhere more consequential.

Honestly, I'd need to actually see the context and what specifically was asked of the kids in terms of them revealing personal info about their racial, sexual, religious identities, etc. Without being there, it's tough to say. But...for example you have gay kids that haven't come out that are struggling badly with their sexuality. They're petrified to tell parents, friends, etc. And to expect them to then verbally participate in a classroom conversation about their views on sexual identity seems...kinda cruel. And not really something that needs to be taught in a classroom imo.

Maybe I'm getting soft, IDK. I agree that students need to be challenged. In this case I'm also trusting that the mother has more specific info than I do when it comes to the teacher's expectations. This all is murky imo. Is the teacher "fostering an atmosphere that promotes racism toward white people"? Maybe? If the answer is yes, should we just say it's a critical thinking class and students need to learn to explain and defend their views? IDK...I'd like to think that can be accomplished WITHOUT fostering an atmosphere that condones racism of any kind.

 

[panamaican]

Honestly, I'd need to actually see the context and what specifically was asked of the kids in terms of them revealing personal info about their racial, sexual, religious identities, etc. Without being there, it's tough to say. But...for example you have gay kids that haven't come out that are struggling badly with their sexuality. They're petrified to tell parents, friends, etc. And to expect them to then verbally participate in a classroom conversation about their views on sexual identity seems...kinda cruel. And not really something that needs to be taught in a classroom imo.

Maybe I'm getting soft, IDK. I agree that students need to be challenged. In this case I'm also trusting that the mother has more specific info than I do when it comes to the teacher's expectations. This all is murky imo. Is the teacher "fostering an atmosphere that promotes racism toward white people"? Maybe? If the answer is yes, should we just say it's a critical thinking class and students need to learn to explain and defend their views? IDK...I'd like to think that can be accomplished WITHOUT fostering an atmosphere that condones racism of any kind.

I don't see it as cruel. Difficult perhaps. But, as I was saying in my previous post, the gay kid who hasn't come out isn't the only kid the classroom so their discomfort really shouldn't drive the content of the classroom beyond the minimum rules required for a safe learning environment and open discussion.

As for mothers, I think we've entered a time period where mothers really want to protect their children from every little discomfort. It used to be helicopter parents who are overly vigilant about everything. Now, it's "snowplow parents" who use their influence to remove obstacles and struggle from their children's path in life.

Of course racism against whites is unacceptable. However, we have to be clear on the difference between discussing history and what actually happened and how it affected others and racism. There are some white people who, understandably, are very sensitive on the historical subject and interpret the conversation as anti-white racism when it veers into uncomfortable territory. None of that excuses actual racism, of course.

 

[mkess101]

I don't see it as cruel. Difficult perhaps. But, as I was saying in my previous post, the gay kid who hasn't come out isn't the only kid the classroom so their discomfort really shouldn't drive the content of the classroom beyond the minimum rules required for a safe learning environment and open discussion.

As for mothers, I think we've entered a time period where mothers really want to protect their children from every little discomfort. It used to be helicopter parents who are overly vigilant about everything. Now, it's "snowplow parents" who use their influence to remove obstacles and struggle from their children's path in life.

Of course racism against whites is unacceptable. However, we have to be clear on the difference between discussing history and what actually happened and how it affected others and racism. There are some white people who, understandably, are very sensitive on the historical subject and interpret the conversation as anti-white racism when it veers into uncomfortable territory. None of that excuses actual racism, of course.

I think teaching the historical realities is vital. Not the nicey-nicey stuff either, but the cold truths about how minorities have been treated in this country (age appropriate obviously).

This teacher seems to be going beyond that in saying that racism toward whites is acceptable simply because of its irrelevance. "Minorities hold no institutional power over whites, so let me go out of my way to say how that means racism toward white people isn't a bad thing because it doesn't even matter." That's different than highlighting the differences when it comes to racism and why the power structure matters while still condemning all racism.

I guess that's what bothers me. This teacher felt the need to make a slide with memes stating racism toward white people doesn't matter. That's not how to reduce racism. A discussion on power structures that shows why racism toward blacks is so especially damaging is a totally different (and valid) topic. It might seem like a minor difference but it isn't.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

It's the n-word, and maybe the most important GOP strategist of the last 40 years, who laid out the parties continuing electoral strategy. He's literally arguing about how they cajol support by appealing to racist whites and implementing policies supported by these constituencies.

Just so I'm understanding your position clearly..

you're arguing that the policies of today are still rooted in the policies you mentioned above and that the current plight of black Americans is due in large part by these politicians who implemented these type of policies, correct?

 

[The ScorpioN]

Just saying critical race theory is racist doesn't make it so, especially when considering those against it can't actually argue effectively as to how it's racist, in intent of implementation.

"Group X has characteristic A."
"Nooo you can't generalize about group X like that, don't you know they're not a monolith? Not all group X have A, this is harmful rhetoric!"
"G

Systemic inequalities lead to biases in people.

Source?

 

[The ScorpioN]

"Group X has characteristic A."
"Nooo you can't generalize about group X like that, don't you know they're not a monolith? Not all group X have A, this is harmful rhetoric!"
"G

Source?

Fucked up the post.

 

[panamaican]

I think teaching the historical realities is vital. Not the nicey-nicey stuff either, but the cold truths about how minorities have been treated in this country (age appropriate obviously).

This teacher seems to be going beyond that in saying that racism toward whites is acceptable simply because of its irrelevance. "Minorities hold no institutional power over whites, so let me go out of my way to say how that means racism toward white people isn't a bad thing because it doesn't even matter." That's different than highlighting the differences when it comes to racism and why the power structure matters while still condemning all racism.

I guess that's what bothers me. This teacher felt the need to make a slide with memes stating racism toward white people doesn't matter. That's not how to reduce racism. A discussion on power structures that shows why racism toward blacks is so especially damaging is a totally different (and valid) topic. It might seem like a minor difference but it isn't.

I haven't seen the slides so I can't comment directly on them.

Instead I'm going to repeat something that I've read but haven't decided on. Some people argue that preference is normal, that it is normal to prefer one's own race over others. But that preference doesn't become a problem until it becomes institutionalized and/or codified in some way. To illustrate, it's okay for the bank manager to prefer people who look like him but that's not an issue until the bank manager starts using his preferences to alter how the bank treats customers. Under that model, racism isn't really "racism" unless it comes with institutional power - such as the power to grant loans and extend credit.

Now, that aligns with the historical issues in this country where the problem wasn't so much that whites and blacks didn't get along, it was that the law codified different treatment. The Irish and the Italians were certainly discriminated against but the institutions didn't target them to the same extent and so there wasn't as much institutionalized racism against those groups.

Where I find this argument interesting is that it underscores a possible real shift in institutional power structures in this country. If white people genuinely believe that they are experiencing racism similar to that experienced by black people. And if they really feel powerless to stop it. Then it suggests that institutional power is shifting to one where white Americans are as vulnerable to institutional abuse as anyone else. As crazy as it seems, that would actually be a move towards equality. When everyone feels equally vulnerable then they all have motivation to fix the system.

I don't know where I stand on that but it's something that I think about.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Just so I'm understanding your position clearly..

you're arguing that the policies of today are still rooted in the policies you mentioned above and that the current plight of black Americans is due in large part by these politicians who implemented these type of policies, correct?

There are existing policies and new policies.

Politicians have more ability to improve or destroy people's lives than anyone else, so I'd say they're responsible for enacting racist policies and engaging in acts like racial gerrymandering, purging of voter rolls in largely black and democratic communities (as happened in this last Presidential election) and other tactics, like letting the voting rights act lapse.

Then there are policies from the executive branch, like when the GOP President puts a racist in charge of dismantling all possible racial policing reforms from the previous administration.

 

[hillelslovak87]

"Group X has characteristic A."
"Nooo you can't generalize about group X like that, don't you know they're not a monolith? Not all group X have A, this is harmful rhetoric!"
"G

Source?

I didn't say a thing about group characteristics. That's the line you idiots are treading with your vague talk about "Explain why blacks commit so much crimes" before completely ignoring information brought to show systemic biases and inequalities in important facets of American life or speaking of their culture.

 

[Mcountry]

The mother's complaint is stupid. Her son isn't being forced to make professions about himself. He's required to speak on the subject of the classroom and some of that subject matter overlaps with his personal identity. It's simplistic and stupid for her or him to personalize the material as being about them individually.

Pretty much every critical thinking class asks you to present positions that reflect some personal elements in your answer. And every such class requires the teacher to poke and prod at those positions to help the student look deeper into why they hold the positions they hold. It's how the student is expected to grow. Sometimes the teacher reinforces a position, sometimes the teacher attacks the position. But the point is to make the student think about it.

I see parents like this in my son's kindergarten and 1st grade class. Parents who want to re-write the curriculum to meet thier personal perspective without understanding that the classroom is for the education of everyone, not just their kid. And that means that not everyone's comments, perspectives, positions, etc. will get equal treatment. I've had black parents complain about the content surrounding slavery and Jim Crow and while I understand their perspective, their little black kids aren't the only kids in the classroom. There are white kids, Asian kids, Hispanic kids and sometimes these things can't be taught in a way that makes everyone emotionally comfortable.

People have to accept that their kids will encounter some level of discomfort along the road to growing up. Better it be in the classroom than somewhere more consequential.

Curious if you would have the same cavalier opinion if a school decided to have a class lesson regarding the merit's of Hitler's leadership?