Skip to main content
Asked a question last year

What are your thoughts on Critical Race Theory? More information in the comments.

Summer Hom Staff Member
On June 9, 2021, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill (HB) 2906, which prohibits state and local governments from "Requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." (See June 9 press release here: https://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/2021/07/governor-ducey-legislature-take-strong-action-stop-critical-race-theory)

On June 30, the Governor also signed HB 2898. According to the same June 9 press release, "Students cannot be taught that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics."

It's stated in that press release that these two bills are aiming to prohibit any instruction on Critical Race Theory (CRT), whether that's inside the classroom or in the workplace.

According to Anthony Zurcher's BBC article, CRT aims to address "shortcomings in understanding how discrimination and inequity are perpetuated in the law." (See Zurcher's BBC article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57908808) The theory was headed by Harvard law professor Derrick Bell in the 1970s.

What are your thoughts on this? Should CRT be taught in our K-12 schools? Why or why not?

The Herald/Review is looking to include your feedback and thoughts on this topic in our upcoming feature about HB 2898, CRT, and its effect on schools in Cochise County. Feel free to reach out to me at summer.hom@myheraldreview.com to share your thoughts.

See HB 2906 here: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/bills/HB2906H.pdf
See HB 2898 here: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/bills/HB2898H.pdf
Wayne Switzer
Summer Hom I found the CRT 'prohibition' on page 5 of 6 of HB2906. But it seems bizarre, as it first prohibits 'presenting blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.' Huh? Blame or judgment are already prohibited. Presenting blame or judgment - hard to understand what it's referring to. It goes on to define that, but in me the confusion just increased. As did my concern about a nanny state AND about presenting an ideology while expressly prohibiting another. It's chilling frankly.
HB2898 is a 231 page document, mostly not about CRT. I gave up at page 11, no better educated about what the bill says on the subject. If you have the time I'd appreciate a summary on its intent regarding CRT, and the pages I'll find it in the bill.
Michael F.S.W. Morrison
Wayne Switzer You seem to have grasped just what nonsense it all is. You didn't say it, and probably won't, but I see this tempest as just one more reason to abolish government involvement in schools.
Here's the conundrum: Do we put into schools, and public libraries, only what a majority of people support? Or do we put everything in since everybody pays to support them?
"Support" with stolen money, I must add.
If a member of a really primitive church opposes such modern stuff as electricity or indoor plumbing, not to mention such transmitters of evil as television and the Internet, why should they be taxed at all to pay for the things and stuff they religiously oppose?
Looks like a violation of the First Amendment, to start with.
But the ultimate nonsense is having politicians, who are often not the brightest people, and nearly always not very objective, try to write legislation dealing with basic philosophy, with ideas and issues and premises of ethics and morality.
At most, governments should protect rights.
Anything else leads to some people being violated, in rights and/or beliefs.
Wayne Switzer
Well put Michael F.S.W. Morrison - I guess I have to say (ouch) you're right. That IS what bothers me - a bunch of people - the Arizona legislature - picked to hammer out compromises, build understanding between widely different points of view - oh let's just chuck it and let the majority (of legislators) dictate to everybody else and heavily politicize the school agenda. I can't see this surviving a test of - I don't know, the Bill of Rights? That pesky little thing we call a constitution? Maybe it's a good thing to have an extreme legislature - because maybe we won't have it for long. Still hurts me to agree with you so please don't rub it in (and pass the aspirin - thanks man). Remember that image created by DC Comics, 1949, and distributed on a school book cover by the Institute for American Democracy, an offshoot of the Anti-Defamation League? In it Superman tells a bunch of kids, quote "... and remember, boys and girls, your school - like our country - is made up of Americans of MANY different races, religions and national origins. So . . . if YOU hear anybody talk against a schoolmate or anyone else because of his religion, race or national origin - don't wait: tell him THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN" (quote and image are found at URL https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2017/08/25/superman-a-classic-message-restored ). Uh oh - Superman just presented judgement about race in a classroom - what was he thinking - that's against Arizona law!! Or is it? I just can't tell, it's so vaguely written that it'll be difficult to enforce - unless you (wink) know what they really mean. Only one type of judgment is not okay, that anybody ever was in the wrong about Native Americans, slavery - you pick it since MANY of our sins of the past are explicitly named, and no right or wrong is to be taught about those sins. So we're looking at DEFINITE selective enforcement here - I submit that this law was specially made for it. Now it's up to the courts to protect minority opinions - in fact any other opinion than the legislative majority. This law certainly targets everything but a Pollyanna view of history. FYI, Pollyanna is a 1913 novel by American author Eleanor H. Porter. The title character's name has come to mean a person who absurdly believes that all is sweetness and light in the world. I use it here to point out the absurdity we have just inflicted on ourselves in Arizona education. Well, rant over. It's dark in Arizona education right now - the darkness before the dawn?
Michael F.S.W. Morrison
Wayne Switzer -- bravo!
You remember a few years ago when the (censoreds) in the legislature passed a bill mandating that any non-dairy product cannot be called "milk"?
I had fun making fun.
I reminded my readers that Big Daddy Unruh, of California, called money "the mother's milk of politics."
And I asked "What about the milk of human kindness?"
And finally I warned them they better hurry to their grocery or pharmacy to stock up on Milk of Magnesia, especially if they're gonna be wasting their time and our money on such petty nonsense.
Wayne Switzer
Let's see if we can gather debate AGAIN on this topic. I'll post a current statement by the NAACP on CRT in schools. This time regarding a Florida instance of the national Republican movement to ban the subject.
NAACP Statement on CRT bill in Florida
- Director of Education Innovation and Research, Dr. Ivory Toldson
"Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is backing legislation that prohibits public schools and private businesses from teaching aspects of history that make white people feel "discomfort." Like most Americans, I can trace my lineage back to the same racist enslavers whose crimes Gov. DeSantis is trying to conceal. However, we can also trace our lineage to abolitionists, enslaved insurrectionists, civil rights activists, and humanitarians.
Undoubtedly, the intent of the white "discomfort" legislation is not to conceal the atrocities of historical white racists; it is to facilitate the agenda of present-day white racists. We recognize this tactic as nothing more than a way to revise the reality of history and erase the crimes committed against humanity. We will continue to push back against any and all attempts to dispel true American history."
Source:
https://naacp.org/articles/statement-governor-desantis-support-anti-critical-race-theory-bill
Wayne Switzer
Wayne Switzer Also posting as a new question, in order to include a photo of Dr. Toldson
Chuck Griffiths
Republicans can not change our history. So stop trying.
Michael F.S.W. Morrison
Chuck Griffiths -- you must not be paying much attention: It's not the spineless Republicans who are trying to "change our history."
It's Democrats, and the Cancel Culture Crowd, the left-collectivists, and their emotional, but not very bright, allies who -- so much like the Soviets who deleted individuals from photos -- try to "change our history" by tearing down statues, altering photos and textbooks, and forbidding movies and even popular songs from public performance.
It's interesting -- and I find it very curious -- that no one seems to be calling for changing the Robert Byrd name on so many government buildings. Yet it was Byrd who had been an officer, a leader, an organizer, of the Ku Klux Klan (in addition to being, in her own words, "mentor" to Hillary Clinton).
Wayne Switzer
Michael F.S.W. Morrison so Republicans AREN'T trying to change history? Hmmmm . . . Trying to remember the Latin name for the logical misstep where a debater brings up a different wrong to distract from the wrong in question. I'm going to go with non sequitur or red herring.
Wayne Switzer
PS be careful what you wish for my friend Michael! We Forest Service professionals are, incredibly, right now engaged in removing the word 'squaw' from every peak, canyon, stream and other physical landmark at the cost, literally, of millions of dollars changing signage, maps and heedlessly, (insensitively?) obliterating important history. And we have the hypocrisy to censure Muslims for the obliteration of ancient art and architecture that displays images of the Buddha. Sorry, got carried away. It's just senseless as well as destructive to apply modern mores to other times, in innocuous stuff like word usage.
Michael F.S.W. Morrison
Wayne Switzer -- you need to re-read, and more carefully, what I wrote.
Wayne Switzer
Michael F.S.W. Morrison a little help for a dense person - I did re-read and still don't see where you identify Republicans as guilty of attempting to smother (re-write) history. That to me was the main movement and support of the anti CRT law trend in state legislatures around the nation. So I called you names - I apologize for the ad hominem attack (red herring etc) and I really want to pick up the other parts of your statement that I missed. I suspect others, just as dense as me, need a little help too - as I know your opinions are well thought out and well supported, without exception that I've experienced.
Michael F.S.W. Morrison
Wayne Switzer -- maybe I didn't read your comment entirely correctly. My original point was merely that it was not the Republicans who are doing the history ignoring or re-writing. I carry no brief for the spineless Republican Party, and find it is more dishonest in its stated intentions than the Democrat Party.
Democrats pretty well tell us up front they intend to take our property, divide us into identity groups, and make us serfs, if not slaves.
Republicans, though, tell us they believe in individual rights and the Constitution, then vote to take our property, and join the Democrats in making us serfs, if not slaves.
BUT it is not they who keep inventing new groups ("LatinX") in which they want us divided, and it is not they wanting to tear down statues and rename schools.
That's pretty exclusively Democrats and their allies.
And, as I said, they are not wanting to rename all those "Robert Byrd Pork Building" or "Robert Byrd Pork Highway" payoffs.
So obviously the Cancel Culture hogwash is as often about helping Democrats to more power as about anything else.
Opposing CRT is not strictly Republican. All rational people do or should oppose teaching such stuff in government schools. It is one-sided and inaccurate. And to force young people to ingest such propaganda is wrong.
As I have stressed, nor should it be censored or banned. NO IDEAS should be banned, suppressed, or censored, but also such ideas should not be propagated by tax dollars.
To whatever degree Republicans say that, say what I just wrote, they are not "re-writing history." To make such a claim that Republicans are "re-writing history" is like Democrats claiming they oppose tombstone voting.

Replies are for members only. Login or create a free account on NABUR to see the full conversation!

Question Stats

441 views
4 followers
Asked a question last year
Views this month