A few days ago, as RedState reported, the New York Times published a joint column in which David French, Thomas Williams, and two others conducted a report on states that tried to pass legislation prohibiting schools from criticizing racial theories. Severely condemned.
As i wrote at the time, Their understatement of the threat posed by the CRT and their insistence on filing a lawsuit is obviously a failure strategy, because for Conservative companies and companies, failure is the point.
Litigation can produce narrow results, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and often take years to reach a conclusion. A more effective way to stop CRT is to get the state legislature that has established school standards to take action. The actions of Tennessee, Florida and other states angered the French and his associates. Through their narratives, such legislation calmed the market of ideas, which has nothing to do with discussing K-12 public schools.
The writer, film producer, and senior researcher of the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufu responded that the entire premise of the New York Times article, that the state legislation is too broad and goes too far, is either based on a complete misunderstanding of the relevant laws, or It was deliberate. lie.
Their article is based on an absolute lie, claiming that Tennessee prohibits any material that “may cause” pain, while the bill actually prohibits directly teaching students that they “should” “feel” guilt or shame because of their race. pic.twitter.com/f5I6mhwHN1
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) July 10, 2021
As you can see, French’s description of Tennessee law (I assume he made a legal fault in the joint column because he is a lawyer) is completely wrong. For example, if children are taught about slavery, the law does not prohibit them from feeling unwell or guilty. On the contrary, it prohibits teachers from teaching children that they should feel uncomfortable or guilty. This will be an ideological assertion, not just an assertion based on teaching history. However, the French created a scarecrow by distorting the law and then continued to beat him to death.
Rufo didn’t mention it in his rebuttal.
But in practice, they are the promoters of the worst leftist ideology, leaving American families defenseless against them. Their three core arguments-criticizing the limitations of racial theory as a violation of “freedom of speech,” state legislatures should stay away from “ideological markets,” and citizens should file civil rights lawsuits-are empty at the core.
In reality, they will usher in a specific tyranny Critical race theory, Which clearly seeks to subvert the principles of individual rights and equal protection of the law. Although there are apparent ideological differences between the four authors, they have only one role: to block, delay, and interfere with the blitzkrieg of critical racial theory through American institutions.
This is correct, in my opinion.
Again, as i am in my Original criticism In the Times article a few days ago, losing was the focus of these people. This is why their argument is so obviously dishonest. There is no conservative or liberal principle that states that the state legislature is wrong to set school curricula. In fact, bureaucracy should not be unconstrained. This is often a conservative bottom line, and the public school system is such a bureaucracy.
It does not pose a threat to freedom of speech, because public schools do not mean to become experimental laboratories for freedom of speech. Instead, the curriculum and students follow them. Teachers teach these courses without the freedom to deviate, nor should they deviate. The most direct way for parents to influence what their children learn is through their elected representatives.
The author’s main mistake is to treat the debate as a question of freedom of speech. This is strange. The First Amendment aims to protect citizens from the government, not to protect the government from citizens.
Public schools with coercive powers are pushing toxic racial theories to children, teaching them that they should be judged by race and must atone for the historical crimes committed by members of their racial group.
Of course, critical race theorists have The right to express one’s faith As individuals, voters and taxpayers are not obliged to subsidize their speeches and include them in public school curricula.
This is a reality that liberals like Williams and conservatives like the French refuse to admit—the school curriculum is a zero-sum game. Someone wants to set them up. They either contain CRT and other racial essentialism, or they don’t. Public schools either cease to exist or exist as “ideological markets.” There is no third option. The authors of the Times wanted to argue in a bubble that did not represent reality, because if they did not admit it, their whole argument would have no practical meaning, and they knew it.
Rufo’s column The scope is very wide, I only share a few clips here. I strongly encourage everyone to read it. This is a thorough and thoughtful deletion of his malicious critics, who seem to be more worried about failing gracefully than truly protecting the children. Nothing is more important than preventing negative indoctrination of children.
