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

[FreeinChrist]

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!

Interesting. The article has this:

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. Amendments that would have described the anti-abortion group’s video as “medically inaccurate” were dismissed too.​

​

​

I taught beginning sex ed and about HIV/AIDS for a district in a heavily Republican area in a very red state (AZ) at the time. Parents always were able (still are) to have their children opt out of the teaching. Regarding the HIV teaching, it was basic hygiene until 6th grade and then I was able to share how it was passed with sex as they had their basic sex ed stuff by then.
There was no mention of abortion and if a student asked, they were told it was something they need to discuss with their parents or church leaders. We did not have anything about LBTG stuff in the curriculum but did say that any intimate contact with body fluids of a person with AIDS could potentially cause the other person to get the virus.


I bet the Republicans in Tennessee are real particular about students being able to opt out of sex ed programs and restrict certain topics, so it is hypocritical to deny that ability for a 3 minutes video.

 

[Belk]

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

Sort of right. According to the link it is not being taught to students but instead used as a framework to asses on the ongoing issues from the civil rights era.

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.

But that is not what they are saying. If I understand correctly they are saying there are ongoing issues of race, not as bad as your experience obviously, but ongoing none the less. They are not using CRT but trying to be sensitive to how POC might need a different cultural space in order to succeed. Not sure how that could be a bad thing?

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Read the seminal literature yourself and stop looking for Cliff's Notes. Better, go deeper and read Critical Theory itself.

Or, heck, you can read post #39.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I think what's being described as "culturally relevant teaching" isn't CRT, but there is a degree in overlap with regards to some of the underlying ideas.


Critical Race Theory (based on the ideas of Derrick Bell) could be summarized as follows (Reader's Digest Version)
Racism is baked into all of the institutions of the US, and any proposed "neutral system" is just a guise for racial power since the aforementioned institutions were structured around white people, so any approach that upholds those existing institutions is still racism.

For example, Derrick Bell opposed the Brown v. Board of Education ruling for reasons of (I'm paraphrasing) "removing barriers that prevented black people from being able to participate in the institution, is still racism because that institution was still tailored to white people, so allowing black people easier access to a white-centric institution isn't solving the problem"

What that idea boils down to, in practical terms, is the theory that any system/institution in which you can find a disparity in outcomes between white people and black people, is due to the fact that those systems were designed for white people.

So when schools propose things like lowering grading thresholds, or having different sets of standards for different demographics to alleviate disparity in outcomes... the are, in essence, employing ideas that are an outgrowth of CRT. (even though it's not through direct teaching methods)

But some actually are employing a more direct method of teaching some of those ideas.

GR - Middle Grades | Are.na

Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledge

www.are.na

GR - High School | Are.na

Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledge

www.are.na

Like I noted before, there are cities implementing these in their curriculums (like Seattle and NYC...I'm sure there are others), and these recommended reading lists actually contain things from The 1619 project and some of the works of Derrick Bell.


So when people say "They're teaching CRT in schools", the defense of "No they're not, that's a college level course, nobody's teaching that", it's a bit of a semantics game... They may not be teaching the full in-depth college level content, but they're certainly conveying some of the ideas that are a subset of the subject.


Another analogy... Political Science and the study of the various political positions isn't (at least not any in-depth version) taught in middle schools. However, if a middle school civics teacher was adding books by Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises to the reading list, one could certainly say they're delving into that topic a bit, and injecting a certain viewpoint into it... and it would certainly be understandable if some of the parents accurately identified that there was a "pro-libertarian viewpoint" being promoted.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

You read the sentences and don't even accept that Critical Race Theorists believe what they say. This is what CRT says of race:

(1) Racial stratification is ordinary, ubiquitous, and reproduced in mundane and extraordinary customs and experience, and critically
impacts the lifestyles and life chances of racial groups;

This sounds on the surface like a simple "racism is everywhere" statement that you're not reading in the detail that CRT activists read it. This is from where we hear everything from "Mathematics is racist" to "punctuality is racist." If white people do it, it's inherently racist in nature.

(2) the race problem is difficult to comprehend and possibly impossible to remedy because claims of objectivity and meritocracy camou-
flage the self-interest, power, and privilege of Whites;

(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;

I mentioned earlier that it is a function of CRT to dismiss all previous knowledge (at least European knowledge)--art, literature, philosophy, history, science--as having been created by the European race oppressors for the purpose of oppression. This writer has sprinkled sugar on that to make it easier for white people to swallow, but here he's stated, basically, that the race problem can only be discussed and responded to by non-European concepts. This is a basic Critical Theory function...that only "the oppressed" can be heard and only their opinions taken for action because whatever the Oppressor says is for his own good only. In fact, CRT states that even if the Oppressor does pursue justice for the oppressed (such as the Civil Rights Act), it's still only for his own good.

(5) beyond academic or purely scientific advances, critical race theorists should seek to propagate social justice.

So, where you and others keep saying CRT is just taught in university, we see the intention is to "propagate social justice" across society beyond the university.

And then, in this final sentence, this writer proposes to copy CRT tenets out of the legal sphere and paste them onto mental health medicine. How are they currently applying tenets 2 and 4 to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? That's like cutting and pasting blindly in a Microsoft Word document.

 

[RDKirk]

But that is not what they are saying. If I understand correctly they are saying there are ongoing issues of race, not as bad as your experience obviously, but ongoing none the less. They are not using CRT but trying to be sensitive to how POC might need a different cultural space in order to succeed. Not sure how that could be a bad thing?

Was there a problem? I've got children who entered school during the 80s and 90s...were they suffering? How? CRT points to 1970s issues and applies them to 2024 as though nothing has changed in the interim.

My own generation did not need "a different cultural space in order to succeed," and frankly I reject the concept. If we are intelligent human beings we should be able to function successfully within multiple "cultural spaces" the same way all the various immigrant groups function successfully.

 

[BPPLEE]

Sort of right. According to the link it is not being taught to students but instead used as a framework to asses on the ongoing issues from the civil rights era.


But that is not what they are saying. If I understand correctly they are saying there are ongoing issues of race, not as bad as your experience obviously, but ongoing none the less. They are not using CRT but trying to be sensitive to how POC might need a different cultural space in order to succeed. Not sure how that could be a bad thing?

Because to single them out is a form of discrimination. They have to succeed in a world that will not afford them the same exceptions. Anything that doesn’t treat them equally is a soft form of bigotry.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You read the sentences and don't even accept that Critical Race Theorists believe what they say.

I have no reason to doubt them. And they say race is socially constructed. What else could a "one drop rule" law be? It's certainly not some kind of objective measure of anything real.

So, where you and others keep saying CRT is just taught in university, we see the intention is to "propagate social justice" across society beyond the university.

Propagating social justice everywhere neither requires nor implies "teaching CRT to elementary school students".

 

[RDKirk]

I have no reason to doubt them. And they say race is socially constructed. What else could a "one drop rule" law be? It's certainly not some kind of objective measure of anything real.

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it can't be treated as real. The point is that CRT states race is a social construct, then states it must be handled as a real thing.

Propagating social justice everywhere neither requires nor implies "teaching CRT to elementary school students".

If a person is a public school teacher who believes in CRT, then that is what it requires. That's like saying to a Christian fundamentalist that believing in Jesus does not require evangelizing.

 

[Belk]

Read the seminal literature yourself and stop looking for Cliff's Notes. Better, go deeper and read Critical Theory itself.

Or, heck, you can read post #39.

I read post 39. Not seeing your claims represented in it.

 

[Belk]

I think what's being described as "culturally relevant teaching" isn't CRT, but there is a degree in overlap with regards to some of the underlying ideas.


Critical Race Theory (based on the ideas of Derrick Bell) could be summarized as follows (Reader's Digest Version)
Racism is baked into all of the institutions of the US, and any proposed "neutral system" is just a guise for racial power since the aforementioned institutions were structured around white people, so any approach that upholds those existing institutions is still racism.

For example, Derrick Bell opposed the Brown v. Board of Education ruling for reasons of (I'm paraphrasing) "removing barriers that prevented black people from being able to participate in the institution, is still racism because that institution was still tailored to white people, so allowing black people easier access to a white-centric institution isn't solving the problem"

OK. I disagree but I understand his point.

What that idea boils down to, in practical terms, is the theory that any system/institution in which you can find a disparity in outcomes between white people and black people, is due to the fact that those systems were designed for white people.

Which seems overly simplistic but certainly looks like it contains at least some validity.

So when schools propose things like lowering grading thresholds, or having different sets of standards for different demographics to alleviate disparity in outcomes... the are, in essence, employing ideas that are an outgrowth of CRT. (even though it's not through direct teaching methods)

Or some theory that comes up with similar ideas on recourse.

But some actually are employing a more direct method of teaching some of those ideas.

GR - Middle Grades | Are.na

Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledge

www.are.na

GR - High School | Are.na

Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledge

www.are.na

Not sure what you are trying to show me here.

Like I noted before, there are cities implementing these in their curriculums (like Seattle and NYC...I'm sure there are others), and these recommended reading lists actually contain things from The 1619 project and some of the works of Derrick Bell.


So when people say "They're teaching CRT in schools", the defense of "No they're not, that's a college level course, nobody's teaching that", it's a bit of a semantics game... They may not be teaching the full in-depth college level content, but they're certainly conveying some of the ideas that are a subset of the subject.

Or the remediation if your examples are on point.

Another analogy... Political Science and the study of the various political positions isn't (at least not any in-depth version) taught in middle schools. However, if a middle school civics teacher was adding books by Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises to the reading list, one could certainly say they're delving into that topic a bit, and injecting a certain viewpoint into it... and it would certainly be understandable if some of the parents accurately identified that there was a "pro-libertarian viewpoint" being promoted.

That would be fair. If I saw a bunch of parents saying "We are not sure the attempts at dealing with race the school is employing are correct and appropriate" I would be a lot less dismissive. As it is I am seeing very little nuance and a whole lot of knees jerking.

 

[Belk]

Was there a problem? I've got children who entered school during the 80s and 90s...were they suffering? How? CRT points to 1970s issues and applies them to 2024 as though nothing has changed in the interim.

My own generation did not need "a different cultural space in order to succeed," and frankly I reject the concept. If we are intelligent human beings we should be able to function successfully within multiple "cultural spaces" the same way all the various immigrant groups function successfully.

I do know that statistically there is a fair amount of disparity. You claim "your generation did not need a different cultural space in order to succeed", yet the numbers paint a rather different picture. Life expectancy, average household income, education level, all lower among blacks. That certainly looks like there needs to be some sort of effort to correct the issue to me.

 

[Belk]

Because to single them out is a form of discrimination. They have to succeed in a world that will not afford them the same exceptions. Anything that doesn’t treat them equally is a soft form of bigotry.

The idea that we can't attempt to correct issues of the past because there are ongoing issues people will face strikes me as a poor argument. Should schools be extra hard on Jewish students since they will face bigotry?

 

[RDKirk]

That would be fair. If I saw a bunch of parents saying "We are not sure the attempts at dealing with race the school is employing are correct and appropriate" I would be a lot less dismissive. As it is I am seeing very little nuance and a whole lot of knees jerking.

The problem that gets parents riled here is similar to the issue of sexual books in the library: School officials blatantly gaslight parents. The parents are standing there with the incriminating evidence on paper in their hands, sometimes even videos, and school officials are saying, "We never did that."

 

[RDKirk]

I do know that statistically there is a fair amount of disparity. You claim "your generation did not need a different cultural space in order to succeed", yet the numbers paint a rather different picture. Life expectancy, average household income, education level, all lower among blacks. That certainly looks like there needs to be some sort of effort to correct the issue to me.

You're rather deliberately ignoring the details that make a difference. And you know that economics matters. If it were merely a matter of race, then I would be doing poorly. My children would be doing poorly. All the black people in the north Texas suburbs living in million dollar homes driving Range Rovers would be doing poorly.

Black poverty has decreased tremendously since 1964. The divide is between those who stay in the urban areas and those who get out. It's literally a matter of having the self-determination to move and make a life change...not a lot different from the Exodusters such as my maternal great-grandparents. I met many, many black men in the military who got out of the ghetto that way and succeeded.

But you--even you--don't bother to look at us as anything but a monolith of misery.

 

[BPPLEE]

The idea that we can't attempt to correct issues of the past because there are ongoing issues people will face strikes me as a poor argument. Should schools be extra hard on Jewish students since they will face bigotry?

You’re suggesting doing the same thing I’m against, treating people differently because of their ethnicity

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it can't be treated as real.

Correct.

The point is that CRT states race is a social construct, then states it must be handled as a real thing.

Correct. Like marriage. Marriage is a social construct. And it has real consequences on taxes and other real things.

So there is nothing contradictory about CRT saying that race is a social construct. Which it clearly does, contrary to your objection.

If a person is a public school teacher who believes in CRT, then that is what it requires. That's like saying to a Christian fundamentalist that believing in Jesus does not require evangelizing.

I doubt that. Propagating social justice does not require teaching CRT. People pursued social justice before CRT existed.

 

[Belk]

The problem that gets parents riled here is similar to the issue of sexual books in the library: School officials blatantly gaslight parents. The parents are standing there with the incriminating evidence on paper in their hands, sometimes even videos, and school officials are saying, "We never did that."

Not buying the idea it is a giant school conspiracy.

 

[Belk]

You're rather deliberately ignoring the details that make a difference. And you know that economics matters. If it were merely a matter of race, then I would be doing poorly. My children would be doing poorly. All the black people in the north Texas suburbs living in million dollar homes driving Range Rovers would be doing poorly.

That is a poor argument that trades absolutes for nuance. Race is a factor in the same way being young and male is a factor in auto accidents. It is statistically significant but that does not mean every young man is going to get in to an accident.

Black poverty has decreased tremendously since 1964. The divide is between those who stay in the urban areas and those who get out. It's literally a matter of having the self-determination to move and make a life change...not a lot different from the Exodusters such as my maternal great-grandparents. I met many, many black men in the military who got out of the ghetto that way and succeeded.

Indeed. I never claimed otherwise. Obviously those who are motivated to get out of the cycle of poverty do well. This doers not negate the statistical evidence that blacks, on average, do worse in the same system as whites.

But you--even you--don't bother to look at us as anything but a monolith of misery.

RDKirk, I have nothing but respect for you which is why I am listening to your arguments. Kindly provide me the same courtesy and do not assign my positions to me.

 

[Belk]

You’re suggesting doing the same thing I’m against, treating people differently because of their ethnicity

Should we treat American Indians the same when it comes to alcohol even though they are genetically more at risk? We should give all people equal opportunity and treat them equally under the law but to act as if everyone in society has the same experience and makeup strikes me as short sighted.