"I don’t like struggle sessions; I think critical race theory as it developed in the academy is intellectually rich, but some of the ways it’s been adapted by workplace diversity trainers..."

"... and education consultants seem risible.... The right-wing caricature of progressive public schools as pampered re-education camps is extremely far from my own family’s experience, but if any kids are being bullied and shamed for refusing to espouse social justice principles, even principles I agree with, that’s wrong. However, the claim that the right’s war on critical race theory doesn’t threaten academic freedom is also wrong. Consider what just happened in Idaho, where last week Boise State University suspended dozens of classes, online and in person, dealing with different aspects of diversity. This week, they were reinstated, but online only and 'asynchronously,' without any live discussions.... Some of the facts behind the class suspensions are unclear. In an email to the campus, university leaders described 'a series of concerns, culminating in allegations that a student or students have been humiliated and degraded in class on our campus for their beliefs and values.' An English professor at the university tweeted that the allegation concerned a taped Zoom discussion of white privilege that had been handed over to the Legislature, but so far it hasn’t emerged publicly. (The tweets have since been deleted.) It’s obviously impossible to evaluate the allegations without knowing what they are. If a student was humiliated, that’s serious and should be addressed. But it’s hard to see how whatever happened implicated 52 different classes, and the political pressure the university is under is undeniable."

Michelle Goldberg writes carefully in a column with the inflammatory headline "The Social Justice Purge at Idaho Colleges/Republican lawmakers try to cancel diversity programs" (NYT).

We can't "Consider what just happened in Idaho" unless we know just what happened, and Goldberg acknowledges that. She's also right that CRT has some intellectual value and that it shouldn't be foisted on people. 

Those who want to teach and learn about it should be free to pursue their intellectual interests, but even if they decide — in their freedom — that they believe it's something that they must compel others to believe, they don't have the right to act on that belief and apply coercion within a government institution. 

I don't know what, exactly, happened in Idaho, but seems as though the CRT believers adopted oppressive educational techniques, the legislature responded in an effort to protect students from coercion, the colleges took steps to follow the legislation, and the CRT believers now feel intimidated about pursuing their intellectual interests. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that this is an intellectual field that entails deep beliefs about how other people think, critiques the freedom of others, and demands action to restructure their minds.

From the comments at the NYT: "The best proof that CRT is legitimate is the enraged reaction it engenders among white people." 

But here's the highest-rated comment (by a lot):

"The right likes to pretend that social justice-inflected academic disciplines are full of ideological commissars browbeating conservative students." 

Oh come on. I'm a center-left academic and it's as obvious as dirt that academic environments, including my RI university, are tilted against conservative perspectives, especially for students in the classroom, and that the problem has gotten intensely worse in the last few years. Surely MG must know this is not something "the right likes to pretend." It's a fact that is helping to drive social and political polarization, and that needs to be honestly reckoned with by people on the center/left, not pooh-poohed and dismissed.

And I like this comment, which is very straightforward:

The backlash was/is inevitable. Proponents of CRT and social justice inquisitors have overplayed their hand. I for one am happy to see the push back.

"Teachers taking the backseat — that flies in the face of white Western thought, right?"

"This is propaganda."

Teaching kids to be neoracists. Note how the assumption in this story is that this is a self-evident good. Not a single source suggesting this has critics. Not a one. This is propaganda. https://t.co/kQc79MfC1l

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 22, 2021

Little children are always subjected to propaganda, though, so the real question is whether this is the propaganda we want for them. Let's look at the article: 

Leigh Wilton and Jessica Sullivan, Skidmore College psychology professors who study race and social interaction, say that children develop implicit bias as early as 3 months old, and at 4 years old are categorizing and developing stereotypes.... 

 Children must use cues from their parents to interact with the world around them, says Shauna Tominey, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and the author of “Creating Compassionate Kids.” “From the very beginning, children look to the adults in their lives for cues as to how to respond to others, how to interpret what they see and hear, how to respond to people they meet or learn about. Even before young children can engage in conversations, they engage in ‘social referencing’ to figure out how to respond," says Tominey.

Some of this is ordinary instruction that I've seen all my life, including as a child in the 1950s. It seemed rather anodyne to me. There are a bunch of people trying to sell their anti-racist materials. I'd like to see a deep, critical look at what's in those things. I see the reason to be skeptical. That's all I'll say.

"Suddenly, Robinson’s daughter went from being an outlier to finding herself in a six-student pod where most of the children were mixed-race, like her."

"The teacher Young had hired to run the pod, Teenisha Toussant, a former teaching assistant at P.S. 41, happened to be Black, too. Robinson said that her daughter seemed to notice the difference. 'I think, for her, it was, like, "Oh, it’s not so strange to have biracial parents."' Another student in the pod told Toussant, 'This is my first time not being the only brown person in my class and having a brown teacher. It makes me happy.' As for the parents, Robinson said, the pod had created a 'temporary reprieve' from school politics. 'It’s just taken the stress level down.'... Life may be easier in a pod, Robinson said, but that’s because it’s not the real world. 'It’s a fake world that we created,' she said, 'because the real world is dysfunctional. We can’t have our children growing up thinking that life is always like that. Like, "You’re only going to be surrounded by people who love you, and you’re not going to have any conflicts, because, even if you did, your parents are friends and they’re going to fix it for you."'"

From "Why Learning Pods Might Outlast the Pandemic" (The New Yorker).

Robinson is Katrina Robinson, who is identified as a lawyer who lives in the West Village (in NYC). Her daughter is a kindergartner, who, we're told "has one Black parent and one white parent." I didn't read the article carefully enough to know if the mother — the parent who's quoted a lot in the article — is the black parent or the white parent. Here's another of her quotes:

"The issue of race isn’t discussed at the school, period.... The kids are not being equipped with the tools to talk about race... Here’s my daughter, who’s Black—and who recognizes that she looks different from everyone else, and that she has one Black parent and one white parent—but there’s no discussion of any of it. It can leave a kid feeling rather isolated. It’s sort of like being the only alien in the classroom. And thinking there might be other aliens around but not knowing for sure.”

Do you think that's the black parent or the white parent talking? I don't know! Isn't it important? Why is The New Yorker being race blind about just this one thing? I'll just guess it's because this is the white parent speaking. 

The husband is referred to at one point and just called "Robinson's husband." That low level of recognition makes me think he's the white parent. I genuinely don't know, and I feel it's a little rude to wonder about the internal dynamics of mixed-race couples and the effect on their children, though I've noticed that there are academic papers on this subject — as well as folk theories.

Anyway, notice that Robinson is saying that racially segregated education is good for nonwhite children (at least in the context where the parents are choosing it voluntarily). By the way, the public school Robinson was complaining about is PS 41, a famously great school.

Cancel adjacent, Part 2.

The previous post discusses the ordeal of Sharon Osbourne who found herself in the "cancel adjacent" position. 

I observed that the new rule seems to be "that you have to proactively denounce people, or you yourself will become the target," and I linked back to a March 11th post where I learned the term "cancel adjacent." 

Now, I want to show you "Georgetown law professor resigns for 'failing to correct' colleague on Zoom about 'Black' students comment" (Fox News). 

[Georgetown law professor David] Batson appears to nod his head but mostly remains silent as Sellers is talking.... Batson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News....

Silence didn't work the first time, but he's still going with silence. He was cancel adjacent, and the cancellation did reach out and engulf him. We are in dangerous times. What will terrified "cancel adjacents" do to save themselves?

Here's the video if you want to check out how little Batson did. That's what not to do, so learn your lesson:

.@GeorgetownLaw negotiations Professors Sandra Sellers and David Batson being openly racist on a recorded Zoom call.

Beyond unacceptable. pic.twitter.com/q5MoWjBok8

— Hassan Ahmad (@hahmad1996) March 10, 2021