{"id":26086,"date":"2021-05-27T08:38:12","date_gmt":"2021-05-27T15:38:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=26086"},"modified":"2021-05-27T08:50:39","modified_gmt":"2021-05-27T15:50:39","slug":"the-anti-critical-race-theory-movement-advocates-censorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=26086","title":{"rendered":"The Anti-Critical Race Theory Movement Advocates Censorship"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

(Transcript of cartoon<\/a>.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

In a recent open thread<\/a>, Fibi writes:<\/p>\n

[David Goldberg’s article “The War on Critical Race Theory<\/a>“] is a long, interesting, but ultimately unpersuasive article. It\u2019s certainly true that many on the right (and the left) don\u2019t map out the different nuances between CRT, \u201canti-racism,\u201d \u201cwholeness,\u201d etc. That\u2019s not surprising. But the Ur Text of the anti-CRT movement is President Trump\u2019s now rescinded Executive Order<\/a> banning CRT trainings with Federal contractors. It just so happens that I work for a Federal contractor and got pulled into a compliance review of our D&I trainings after the EO came out. And we barely changed anything. In fact, all of the slides, instructor notes, discussion questions, scenarios were fine. We just had to trim a couple of items from the Resources page (mostly eliminating websites and podcasts for fear that future changes or content would run afoul of the EO). So I certainly don\u2019t agree that the anti-CRT movement calls into question \u201cany mention of race or racism at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

I considered quoting Section 2 of the EO here. And while the EO is rescinded it\u2019s basically word for word what\u2019s in the new Florida law. But I think I will just leave the link where it is for those who are inclined to follow. Also, I\u2019m not really weighing in on whether CRT trainings are better or worse than traditional D&I trainings. Just taking issue with the claim that they aren\u2019t easily distinguishable and\/or the anti-CRT movement isn\u2019t distinguishing them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So does the anti-CRT movement make the distinctions Fibi claims they do?<\/p>\n

Fibi’s “compliance review” is one anecdote. Here’s another: After being threatened with budget cuts from the Republican-dominated state legislature, Boise State University suddenly suspended 55 courses mid-semester, screwing over hundreds of students, because someone claimed to have a video of a student in one class had been insulted for being white. The video never turned up, and an extensive investigation didn’t find any evidence that the event had ever happened. From FIRE<\/a> (emphasis mine):<\/p>\n

As FIRE previously reported, Boise State suspended all sections of its University Foundations 200 course on March 16, shortly after the state\u2019s joint budget committee proposed a $409,000 cut in the university\u2019s funding as part of lawmakers\u2019 ongoing efforts to contain teaching and activities related to \u201csocial justice\u201d and \u201ccritical race theory.\u201d<\/strong> At the time, Boise State said it had \u201cbeen made aware of 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is absolutely a case of anti-“CRT” Republicans pressuring a university into censoring allegedly “CRT” views, without even a hint of distinguishing between “indoctrination” and just teaching about racism and social justice. Which is no surprise – Idaho Republicans are pretty open about wanting to eradicate views they don’t agree with.<\/p>\n

Idaho Lt. Governor Janice<\/a> McGeachin is working on putting together a task force to examine indoctrination in Idaho education and to protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism, and Marxism.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs I have traveled around the state and spoken with constituents and parents, it has become clear to me that this is one of the most significant threats facing our society today. We must find where these insidious theories and philosophies are lurking and excise them<\/strong> from our education system,\u201d Lt. Gov. McGeachin said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By the way, the University’s attempt to prevent cuts by giving in to the GOP failed; the legislature voted to cut millions<\/a> from public University budgets to “send a message” about CRT. These people are not being nuanced and careful about who they attack.<\/p>\n

Another anecdote<\/a>, this one directly about the Trump executive order:<\/p>\n

Harper is involved with Arts In The Armed Forces (AITAF), a non-profit organization co-founded by Adam Driver that brings free arts programming to active-duty service members, veterans, and military support staff and their families. The actor and AITAF set up a screening of \u201cMalcolm X\u201d for military academies…<\/p>\n

Three of the four academies scheduled for the \u201cMalcolm X\u201d event took part in the screening, but one academy did not \u201cfor fear of potential consequences of stemming from an Executive Order from the White House.\u201d Harper concluded, \u201cThe fact that the film \u2018Malcolm X\u2019 could be considered \u2018anti-American\u2019 by this administration is very frightening to me.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One important thing to keep in mind, with anti-CRT laws, is that the decisions will often be made by a principal who is being screamed at by the City’s lawyers to do whatever it takes to avoid even a chance of liability. Especially when the laws are full of ambiguous language, of course the result is some schools will ban anything anti-racist for fear that it might be the dreaded “CRT.”<\/p>\n

And the language is ambiguous, in a way that would have given the Trump administration wide latitude to punish disfavored views if a court hadn’t enjoined from enforcing it. From the Urban League’s complaint<\/a> against Trump’s executive order:<\/p>\n

Under the terms of EO 13950, there is no objective way to determine which activities are permitted and which are prohibited, creating a broad chilling effect and inviting unpredictable, uneven, and potentially selective enforcement.<\/p>\n

For example, EO 13950 prohibits employers from holding \u201cworkplace training\u201d that \u201cinculcates\u201d certain \u201cdivisive concepts\u201d in employees. EO 13950 \u00a7 4(a)(1). However, the Order never defines \u201cworkplace training,\u201d which can occur in many contexts and for many reasons\u2014such as an employee\u2019s onboarding, part of the promotion process, ongoing professional education, or an effort to address workplace conduct issues.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Order does not explain, or otherwise define, the prohibited act of \u201cinculcat[ing].\u201d There are no criteria in the Order for a federal contractor or subcontractor to understand whether training needs to reach a certain level of repetition, admonition, and insistence to be deemed to \u201cinculcate\u201d employees or whether, for example, a single training that references a so-called \u201cdivisive concept\u201d is enough to trigger the Order.<\/p>\n

Nor are the prohibited \u201cdivisive concepts\u201d sufficiently defined. For example, the Order prohibits training that \u201cinculcates\u201d the concept that \u201cthe United States is fundamentally racist or sexist.\u201d But there is no description of what \u201cfundamentally\u201d racist or sexist means. Under the Order\u2019s prohibitions, it is unclear if explaining the historical context of race or gender inequality (e.g., discussing the Nation\u2019s history of slavery, the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women\u2019s Liberation Movement, the Stonewall uprising, mass incarceration, pay equity or other topics related to racial injustice, gender discrimination or inequity) and the foundational ways this history shapes present-day manifestations of discrimination and biases, would be considered an assertion that the United States is \u201cfundamentally\u201d racist or sexist. […]<\/p>\n

The Order\u2019s prohibition on inculcating \u201cdiscomfort, guilt, [and] anguish\u201d is similarly inscrutable. The Order apparently prohibits training that includes the view that \u201cany individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.\u201d However, the Order leaves unclear whether any training that leads to feelings of discomfort by virtue of the nature of the subject matter itself, rather than by \u201cinculcation,\u201d is prohibited.<\/p>\n

The Order also prohibits the concept that \u201cmeritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist.\u201d Purported objective measures of merit, such as workplace tests and evaluations, have been used historically to exclude qualified members of protected groups from employment opportunities. The Supreme Court has recognized that the disproportionate impact of these tools of purported meritocracy can undermine equality and fairness in the workplace and can, in fact, violate federal law…. Under the Order, a reasonable employer has no way of knowing whether a seemingly appropriate discussion about the interplay between purportedly \u201cmeritocratic\u201d standards and discriminatory impact\u2014even a faithful explanation of the law\u2014may be prohibited \u201cinculcation\u201d of the view of \u201cmeritocracy\u201d as \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The administration’s official guidance about the executive order made it plain that they intended the order to be read expansively, not narrowly.<\/p>\n

On September 28, 2020, OMB published a Memorandum entitled \u201cEnding Employee Trainings that Use Divisive Propaganda to Undermine the Principle of Fair and Equal Treatment for All\u201d (\u201cMemorandum\u201d), which provided additional content to EO 13950\u2019s directives. The Memorandum expanded on the Order by highlighting terms, such as \u201ccritical race theory,\u201d \u201cwhite privilege,\u201d \u201cintersectionality,\u201d \u201csystemic racism,\u201d \u201cpositionality,\u201d \u201cracial humility,\u201d and \u201cunconscious bias,\u201d as key to identifying the targeted \u201cdivisive\u201d diversity training programs.<\/p>\n

This Memorandum singled out specific terms and subject matter, such as critical race theory or white privilege, as targets of the Order even though they were not explicitly included in the definition of \u201cdivisive concepts\u201d proscribed by the text of the Order. […]<\/p>\n

The FAQs provide that \u201c[u]nconscious or implicit bias training is prohibited to the extent it teaches or implies that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, sex, and\/or national origin, is racist, sexist, oppressive, or biased, whether consciously or unconsciously.\u201d The FAQs do not explain how a training may \u201cimply\u201d the prohibited concept; nor does it indicate who determines whether there has been such an implication.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So entire subjects are effectively banned. And what’s prohibited is not just the express statements of “divisive” ideas, but anything that, in the Trump administration’s subjective opinion, “implies” a prohibited concept.<\/p>\n

Some of the state laws based on Trump’s EO are, remarkably, even worse. For instance, Texas’s anti-CRT law bans any course instruction that requires an “understanding” of the 1619 Project. So teachers aren’t just prohibited from forcing students to agree with the 1619 Project, as some of the law’s proponents claim; they’re effectively enforced from teaching about it at all. (Since it would be impossible to teach something while not trying to get students to understand it). <\/p>\n

It also says that if any current controversy is taught, teachers must teach all sides “without giving deference to any one perspective.” That means that a science teacher can’t teach evolution unless they give equal weight to “intelligent design,” or deference to climate change science over denialism, without possibly bring legal consequences down on their school. (But it’s more likely they’ll be ordered not to teach such subjects at all.)<\/p>\n

A pro-CRT-ban member of Utah’s board of education provided a list of terms<\/a> that indicate CRT is in use. Terms on her list include “equity,” “anti-racism,” “systemic racism,” “social justice,” “diversity,” and “inclusion.” Again, imagine the decision being made by a principal while a district lawyer urges her to avoid anything that possibly could lead to liability – and they both have a copy of this list. The results would not be narrow or carefully controlled.<\/p>\n

Trump’s executive order was attempted censorship, and so are the state laws based on it. And the anti-CRT movement is not making distinctions; they’re in effect defining “CRT” very broadly to include any left-wing anti-racism views.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Transcript of cartoon.) In a recent open thread, Fibi writes: [David Goldberg’s article “The War on Critical Race Theory“] is a long, interesting, but ultimately unpersuasive article. It\u2019s certainly true that many on the right (and the left) don\u2019t map … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-speech-censorship-copyright-law-etc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=26086"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26086\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26089,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26086\/revisions\/26089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=26086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=26086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}