If governor signs bill, parents can't opt their children out of being forced to watch sex education video

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Should parents have the right to opt out their children, under the age of 18, from those classes?

Why should parents have the right to opt their children, from the truth?

 

[Belk]

That stuff is also being taught at the high school levels as well.

They're teaching pure CRT at the graduate level.

At undergraduate and public school levels all the way down to elementary, they are teaching resulting concepts of CRT and DEI.

According to whom? My sister teaches 8th grade in California and she has not noticed any CRT so where is it being taught and in what form?

 

[BCP1928]

Should white parents be able to opt out of a class that's going to teach their little Chad that he's inherently a race and gender Oppressor and deserves to be socially restricted? Should black parents be able to opt out of a class that teaches them that their little Rashida will be vulnerable to oppression by Chad if they don't remain in constant vigilance against his inherent oppressive nature?

Yes, they should.

DEI and CRT are not about equality of races and sexes, nor is it about equal opportunity.

No, this discussion is about what is actually taught in actual schools. Your DEI and CRT are not.

 

[Nithavela]

Which age are the students when shown this mandatory misinformation video?

Is the teacher allowed to point out any untruths and teach the real science?

 

[RDKirk]

According to whom? My sister teaches 8th grade in California and she has not noticed any CRT so where is it being taught and in what form?

Do the schools teach in any fashion what I just said?

At this point, you are gaslighting...or you've been gaslighted.

As I said: They're teaching pure CRT at the graduate level.

At undergraduate and public school levels all the way down to elementary, they are teaching resulting concepts of CRT and DEI.

 

[RDKirk]

No, this discussion is about what is actually taught in actual schools. Your DEI and CRT are not.

Do the schools teach in any fashion what I just said?

At this point, you are gaslighting...or you've been gaslighted.

As I said: They're teaching pure CRT at the graduate level.

At undergraduate and public school levels all the way down to elementary, they are teaching resulting concepts of CRT and DEI.

 

[dzheremi]

I work in education with kids from 4th grade through high school, and have definitely seen an uptick in let's call it "DEI-adjacent material" in recent years, particularly after the introduction of AI-aided work tools that are designed to help us be more efficient in evaluating student writing. A great deal is determined in accordance with how these machine learning tools are trained, and they are indeed being trained in accordance with management's desire that all be on board with the company's very publicly-stated goals concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. (Case in point: While it was optional, so I didn't do it, a great many of my colleges took the opportunity to add their preferred pronouns to their public-facing profiles; I don't know why that should matter in a work-from-home environment where I never have to interact with any of these people in real life, but it is understandable as shorthand for "I'm on board with all the 'good' things!")

All that said, stop using your children as pawns in your pathetic adult culture war garbage. That has literally never ended well, as independent thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum rightly see it as manipulative, and nobody likes the feeling of being manipulated, whether it's for "Won't Somebody Think Of The CHILDREN!"-type reasons or not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which age are the students when shown this mandatory misinformation video?

It's not clearly defined. The state "family life curriculum" code applies to "elementary and secondary education", but says that instruction must be "age-appropriate". It must also:

1. Provide factually and medically-accurate information;

 

[ThatRobGuy]

DEI and CRT are taught at the university level.

CRT (as a comprehensive philosophical study) is a college-level course.

However, outgrowth concepts of it have been incorporated into public school curriculums in certain places

It'd be kind of like
"Comprehensive Cardiology is a graduate level study that's taught in Medical School, they're not giving cardiology courses in 4th grade"
...and...
"Kids are taught that mammals have hearts with four chambers that pump blood in public school" (which is an outgrowth or "watered down" sub-set of cardiology)


The first statement being true doesn't mean that the latter is false.


In the case of CRT, while it's true that 4th graders aren't reading the complete in-depth writings of Derrick Bell and studying them at length...there are some public schools in some of the more progressive states that have incorporated portions of "The 1619 Project" and NYC and Seattle Schools have incorporated some of this into the curriculums

Curriculum Resource Guide

BLM at School is committed to teaching truthful histories and amassing the powerful practices, creative tools, and key strategies by which past, present, and future generations can advance the...

www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com

...which incorporates ad-hoc subsets of CRT.




Or perhaps, a better analogy that may highlight what I'm talking about.

If a school was teaching that there was a man named Noah who gathered 2 of every animal, and loaded them on a boat to ride out a global flood, and teaching it as historical fact....

Most people would rightfully say "Hey wait a minute, you're teaching religion in schools, I don't agree with that"

If someone gave the defense of "nope, Religion and Theology are seminary-level graduate courses, we're just talking about a guy with a boat and some animals during a big storm... you guys are just overreacting"

Nobody would accept that as a genuine/legitimate defense...

 

[Nithavela]

It's not clearly defined. The state "family life curriculum" code applies to "elementary and secondary education", but says that instruction must be "age-appropriate". It must also:

1. Provide factually and medically-accurate information;

AFAIK laws supercede codes, so this misinformation video would be allowed to be showed. But the misinformation would be less effectiver you don't gag the teachers who care about their students.

 

[essentialsaltes]

AFAIK laws supercede codes, so this misinformation video would be allowed to be showed. But the misinformation would be less effectiver you don't gag the teachers who care about their students.

In this case, the 'law' amends the educational code by adding that language into it. But it doesn't remove the age-appropriate part of the code.

"AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to instruction."

 

[Nithavela]

In this case, the 'law' amends the educational code by adding that language into it. But it doesn't remove the age-appropriate part of the code.

I think that misinformation is most appropriate for very young students who can't discern between truth and lies.

 

[Rsdar]

Governor poised to sign law making kids watch animated fetal videos​

In Tennessee, whether parents like it or not, Republican Gov. Bill Lee is poised to sign a law that will make public school children watch an animated video on fetal development backed by an anti-abortion group, or some equivalent of it, after lawmakers in the state vaulted the legislation to passage.

Among other features in the video, it depicts sperm fertilizing an ovum and it is here that it declares: “This is the moment that life begins. A new human being has come into existence.” The animated video states that a fetus can recognize lullabies in the womb and depicts a purported fetus at 27 weeks gazing through a translucent womb while pressing its fingers against it. The shadow of the mother’s fingers press back.

The 3-minute video is riddled with disinformation, according to the [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]

According to The Tennessean, Republican lawmakers in the state’s senate rejected Democratic-led amendments that would have made watching the clip optional for students instead of mandatory. Another amendment that would have stopped schools from showing it without explicit consent from a parent or guardian was also voted down by Republicans.

Parents' Rights!

Typical hypocrisy of Republicans who one day cry about public schools curriculum and now vote down the rights of parents in this case. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. This particular subject should not be taught in schools but at home. I'm not pro abortion but this is a crusade at this point.

 

[RileyG]

I'm all for supporting parents rights with their children. Where do the liberals stand when parents don't want their children being taught stuff from the CRT, or DEI, or from the LGBTQIA+ agendas?

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

The "liberals" stand with teaching factual information about those subjects.

Some people aren’t comfortable with LGBT lifestyles. They don’t want their children indoctrinated it’s ok.

 

[Belk]

Do the schools teach in any fashion what I just said?

At this point, you are gaslighting...or you've been gaslighted.

As I said: They're teaching pure CRT at the graduate level.

At undergraduate and public school levels all the way down to elementary, they are teaching resulting concepts of CRT and DEI.

CRT (as a comprehensive philosophical study) is a college-level course.

However, outgrowth concepts of it have been incorporated into public school curriculums in certain places

It'd be kind of like
"Comprehensive Cardiology is a graduate level study that's taught in Medical School, they're not giving cardiology courses in 4th grade"
...and...
"Kids are taught that mammals have hearts with four chambers that pump blood in public school" (which is an outgrowth or "watered down" sub-set of cardiology)


The first statement being true doesn't mean that the latter is false.


In the case of CRT, while it's true that 4th graders aren't reading the complete in-depth writings of Derrick Bell and studying them at length...there are some public schools in some of the more progressive states that have incorporated portions of "The 1619 Project" and NYC and Seattle Schools have incorporated some of this into the curriculums

Curriculum Resource Guide

BLM at School is committed to teaching truthful histories and amassing the powerful practices, creative tools, and key strategies by which past, present, and future generations can advance the...

www.blacklivesmatteratschool.com

...which incorporates ad-hoc subsets of CRT.




Or perhaps, a better analogy that may highlight what I'm talking about.

If a school was teaching that there was a man named Noah who gathered 2 of every animal, and loaded them on a boat to ride out a global flood, and teaching it as historical fact....

Most people would rightfully say "Hey wait a minute, you're teaching religion in schools, I don't agree with that"

If someone gave the defense of "nope, Religion and Theology are seminary-level graduate courses, we're just talking about a guy with a boat and some animals during a big storm... you guys are just overreacting"

Nobody would accept that as a genuine/legitimate defense...

Thank you both. I did a little bit of digging based off your responses. Here is what I found for CRT:

Critical race theory is not a synonym for culturally relevant teaching, which emerged in the 1990s. This teaching approach seeks to affirm students’ ethnic and racial backgrounds and is intellectually rigorous. But it’s related in that one of its aims is to help students identify and critique the causes of social inequality in their own lives.




Many educators support, to one degree or another, culturally relevant teaching and other strategies to make schools feel safe and supportive for Black students and other underserved populations. (Students of color make up the majority of school-aged children.) But they don’t necessarily identify these activities as CRT-related.

As one teacher-educator put it: “The way we usually see any of this in a classroom is: ‘Have I thought about how my Black kids feel? And made a space for them, so that they can be successful?’ That is the level I think it stays at, for most teachers.”

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

Here's what you need to understand about the academic concept—and how it's portrayed in political circles.

www.edweek.org

As best I can tell from this source, CRT is used more at a meta level in schools to look at segregation and other high level racial issues. What is being used with the students falls more in line with cultural relevant teaching techniques and is used to try to ensure students of color have the same learning environment as other students.

Would you disagree with this assessment?

When I get a minute I'll try to track down a good source on DEI.

 

[RDKirk]

Thank you both. I did a little bit of digging based off your responses. Here is what I found for CRT:

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

Here's what you need to understand about the academic concept—and how it's portrayed in political circles.

www.edweek.org

As best I can tell from this source, CRT is used more at a meta level in schools to look at segregation and other high level racial issues. What is being used with the students falls more in line with cultural relevant teaching techniques and is used to try to ensure students of color have the same learning environment as other students.

Would you disagree with this assessment?

When I get a minute I'll try to track down a good source on DEI.

From that article:

The core idea is that race is a social construct,

That's a false statement about CRT. The CRT assertion is that race is permanent and that the white race is permanently oppressive. If race is a social construct (and I would argue that it is), then the answer is to rebuild the social environment without race as a pillar...which CRT most certainly does not do.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

What CRT did--and the creators of CRT acknowledge this--was to apply Critical Theory to the US legal framework as of the late 70s and early 80s...when, certainly, the majority of all the laws and policies laid down the previous 100 years had not yet been repealed and replaced on the books, even though since 1965 they were being overturned by the courts as they were challenged.

When I was a kid, little Chad was definitely being taught in school to be an oppressor. That's not true today.

CRT is frozen in the early 80s. And now, instead of being only ten or fifteen years post the Civil Rights era we're fully 50 years beyond that, and virtually all those laws have been changed. At this point, the government has done what government has the Constitutional power to do. "The fix is in." Now we're just waiting for the last generation that was raised with segregation as the social norm to die off. That would be us Boomers.

 

[RDKirk]

As best I can tell from this source, CRT is used more at a meta level in schools to look at segregation and other high level racial issues. What is being used with the students falls more in line with cultural relevant teaching techniques and is used to try to ensure students of color have the same learning environment as other students.

"CRT is used more at a meta level in schools...." I will take as your acknowledgement that I was right.

Would you disagree with this assessment?

I disagree with their assessment because today's classrooms and, in fact, the entire social environment is not what I experienced as a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s, and it's actually repressive upon all children to teach them that it still is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's a false statement about CRT. The CRT assertion is that race is permanent and that the white race is permanently oppressive.

We can look at how scholars describe it.
While your complaint is focused on points 2 and 4 (I think), point 3 is clear.

Race, racism, and mental health: elaboration of critical race theory's contribution to the sociology of mental health​

In a recent paper challenging sociologists who study mental health to think about racism as a
cause of unique mental health problems, I listed five tenets that undergird critical race theory
research, methods, and pedagogy (Brown, 2003, p. 294): (1) racial stratification is ordinary, ubiq-
uitous, and reproduced in mundane and extraordinary customs and experience, and critically
impacts the lifestyles and life chances of racial groups; (2) the race problem is difficult to compre-
hend and possibly impossible to remedy because claims of objectivity and meritocracy camou-
flage the self-interest, power, and privilege of Whites; (3) races are categories that society
invents, manipulates, and recreates; (4) Blacks and other subordinated groups are competently
able to communicate and explain the meaning and consequences of racial stratification because
they are oppressed, and thus their experiential knowledge is legitimate and appropriate; and (5)
beyond academic or purely scientific advances, critical race theorists should seek to propagate
social justice. Invoking these tenets, I now expose five weaknesses in the sociology of mental
health literature.

 

[Belk]

From that article:



That's a false statement about CRT. The CRT assertion is that race is permanent and that the white race is permanently oppressive.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

What CRT did--and the creators of CRT acknowledge this--was to apply Critical Theory to the US legal framework as of the late 70s and early 80s...when, certainly, the majority of all the laws and policies laid down the previous 100 years had not yet been repealed and replaced on the books, even though since 1965 they were being overturned by the courts as they were challenged.

When I was a kid, little Chad was definitely being taught in school to be an oppressor. That's not true today.

CRT is frozen in the early 80s. And now, instead of being only ten or fifteen years post the Civil Rights era we're fully 50 years beyond that, and virtually all those laws have been changed. At this point, the government has done what government has the Constitutional power to do. "The fix is in." Now we're just waiting for the last generation that was raised with segregation as the social norm to die off. That would be us Boomers.

Do you happen to have a link where I can read more on race being permanently oppressive? Trying to track it down as it seems to be a fatal flaw if correct but not having much luck.