If Blacks are, indeed, 1% of all Math SAT takers with scores between 700 and 800, after going through our shameful educational system, just how is every field in academia along with every business competing with each other to hire that 1% going to help?
Most of his post is about the Trump Administration’s attempt to remove the “diversity training” programs from the Federal bureaucracy. As John points out, this is a topic that deserves more coverage in the media. The public should know more about what is going on.
Interestingly, another politician also decided to draw the line on indoctrination in critical theory. Did you hear about what happened in California? I have a hard time finding details, but I think that the gist of it is this.
1. The California education bureaucrats proposed to the legislature an “ethnic studies” requirement and described the curriculum.
2. Jewish groups saw that BDS was included, and they went ballistic.
3. The bureaucrats revised the curriculum. They submitted the new curriculum, saying “We took out BDS, and we even added Jews as an American ethnic group. Now are you happy, Jewish Groups?”
4. Jewish groups: “No.”
5. The law passed the California legislature with overwhelming majorities.
6. Governor Newsom vetoed the law.
As far as I know, this is where it stands.
I’d be more comfortable if Jews objected because its wrong then because “its not good for the Jews.”
Newsome’s quotes on the law indicate a basic level of support and merely a desire to tweak certain details. If Jews only objection is the place of Jews in the hierarchy, that can be negotiated with. I don’t get the impression that Jews are FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to the whole idea, nor that Newsome is.
“If Blacks are, indeed, 1% of all Math SAT takers with scores between 700 and 800, after going through our shameful educational system, just how is every field in academia along with every business competing with each other to hire that 1% going to help?”
He goes on to say that blacks are 1% of such scores because the education system has failed them (no mention of the bell curve). Even if we accept his frame, isn’t this just trying to push the problem onto K-12. We need to teach anti-racism to kindergarteners! It’s genes or insanity, this is just a university coward trying to push his problem onto someone else. This bought them time for a little while but “blame K-12” is already played out.
We already tried charters and all the rest and you and I both know its not going to move the needle on black performance at scale. The Null Hypothesis is what it is.
“Will this be the first executive order that the Biden-Harris administration overturns? Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes an administration wisely and quietly lets its predecessor’s work stand. The predecessor did the dirty work, why cause trouble? If they are smart, they will let Betsy DeVos’s work on Title IX courts stand, and this one too. I suspect they won’t enforce it much, but as long as it is in place people can sue to stop egregious parts of such programs. ”
Perhaps. I do know that they would never initiate such an executive order. They need people like Trump to protect them from their own weak selfs.
P.S. My mother buys Joe Biden line that Critical Race Theory that Trump cancelled is nothing more than racial sensitivity training to let people know not to look down on Irish Catholics. She’s never read the stuff once, but that’s what the candidate on TV said.
“He goes on to say that blacks are 1% of such scores because the education system has failed them (no mention of the bell curve).”
Yeah – he’s just repeating the noble lie, which is basically an ad nauseam requirement for all of academia. Group genetic differences in athletic ability = ok. Group genetic differences in intelligence = not ok. Rinse and repeat.
Separately, why not focus on the areas that are somewhat under your control? Are you not able to enlighten your mom at all?
So the question at hand, which is an open question, is to what extent the political opinions of people close to you matter a damn.
My wife votes Democrat when she bothers to vote, but my wife is also super disengaged, doesn’t watch the news, doesn’t have any kind of political ideology, and would disagree with a lot of modern Dem party lines. She votes Dem because her family does and they vote D because Unions! and Vietnam! You can see how out of date it all is. I think its easier to not talk about politics at all and do the 100 other things on our to do list than open that can of worms.
Voting doesn’t matter (mathematically). But attitudes can affect how we act in our lives and what ideas and values we transfer to children. To the extent any left leaning ideas would have a real effect on our lives I confront it. If we get to the point were are kids are taught this in school I will have to deal with it head on. But they aren’t in school yet.
With my mother-in-law while COVID is the immediate trigger she never visited much before…or quite frankly did much of anything. The woman would get a 0/100 on an “openness to experience” score. She won’t eat purple potatoes because “they’re different.” What was already an uphill battle is just harder than usual.
“So the question at hand, which is an open question, is to what extent the political opinions of people close to you matter a damn.”
Zoom out 1-2 levels from political opinions and call it “worldview” (aka ideology).
Is that important to me in selecting a mate or friends?
Absolutely…! (But, how that worldview gets translated to mundane political positions is less important to me.)
“To the extent any left leaning ideas would have a real effect on our lives I confront it. If we get to the point were are kids are taught this in school I will have to deal with it head on.”
That’s right – I’m looking forward to this with our 6 yo daughter. Enlightenment values (from me) vs. woke nonsense (from school). Challenge accepted!
“So the question at hand, which is an open question, is to what extent the political opinions of people close to you matter a damn.”
He probably won’t respond, but this question is actually an interesting one for ASK.
How does he manage to get along so well with his fellow parishioners in the synagogue when their ideological outlooks are so divergent?
Perhaps this provides a template of some kind?
As to discussions that were affective. I convinced them that outdoor events were safe by showing them some data and that let us do lots of fun stuff all summer. I also showed that preschool wasn’t a danger by showing data from the Virginia COVID website and other sources, plus noting that she needs socialization and my parent can’t handle two full time, so we have her on a waiting list for preschool we like.
That’s something where confrontation might have an important real world impact on our family. If they were school age I’d be more pissed off they were voting for the school closers, but honestly that’s all beyond my power. I can actually decide on preschool.
My mother in law not visiting does hurt my wife, but what can I do? Inaction is a bid in her personality to start with.
“Even if we accept his frame, isn’t this just trying to push the problem onto K-12. We need to teach anti-racism to kindergarteners!“
No, the issue, under this circumstance, would be that they’re not being taught math, and teaching them anti-racism would be counterproductive by wasting valuable time and giving students and teachers a convenient excuse for being bad students and teachers.
Right or wrong, to the extent that bad schools, parenting, or culture explain differences, the indoctrination is useless at best.
But we’ve already tried to teach them math. Lots of different ways, in lots of different setting, spending lots of money, using lots of different methods.
After decades of all that not working, and having been told genetics can’t be and answer, aren’t we left with “racism must be super super evil and powerful if all that stuff we did failed to work.”
Only if one operates from the assumption racism is the default explanation and doesn’t require positive evidence in support of it, which doesn’t describe the position of most people who think there are cultural/education-related explanations.
“Interestingly, another politician also decided to draw the line on indoctrination in critical theory.”
I cannot tell if you’re being sarcastic here or not. It’s merely a temporary veto while the legislature further irons out which minority groups get included vs. tossed aside. Note: Newsom has already signed an ethnic studies course requirement for the California State University.
In related CA woke news, the San Diego school district is changing its grading policies to “combat racism.”
“According to data presented by the district, under the old grading system, teachers fail minority students more than White students – a lot more.”
“This is part of our honest reckoning as a school district,” says SDUSD Vice President Richard Barrera. “If we’re actually going to be an anti-racist school district, we have to confront practices like this that have gone on for years and years.”
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-unified-school-district-changes-grading-system-to-combat-racism/2425346/
Here is something I don’t understand. For me, and for most of the people I know that are my age (~60ish), the sweet spot in politics was the liberal consensus described so well by Fukuyama in his essay.
What I don’t understand is why people who want to restore the liberal consensus (and this is most of the people that I know) believe that the way to do that is for the Dems to win convincingly in the upcoming election. In my view, it will be impossible for Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer to hold back a sharp leftward turn if they achieve power, and I see a vote for Biden as a vote for the AOC crowd.
So, the question is, are my friends fooling themselves, or am I fooling myself?
They are fooling themselves. Whenever one is forced to make common cause with radicals to win power, the radicals end up with almost all of the power. Intensity always overcomes numbers in such circumstances.
>—-“I see a vote for Biden as a vote for the AOC crowd.”
Within the Democratic Party, Biden is as far from AOC as it gets. He is a longtime establishment figure who brags about his years of working with Republicans and his desire to be a President who seeks to benefit all Americans not just those who support him. Nothing would empower the AOC wing more than having the moderate wing of the party discredited by two consecutive losses. Sitting Presidents always take increasing ideological control of their parties during their terms.
The people you know think Trump is illiberal because he is the most illiberal President we have ever had. He openly admires all the world’s worst dictators. In his own words he “fell in love” with Kim Jong Un. He fawns over Putin. He praises Duterte. The only time he has anything good to say about another nation’s democratic leader is when they flatter him.
He calls a free press “the enemy of the people.” His half hearted and plainly reluctant disavowals of fascists and Neo-Nazis are openly celebrated by them as clearly implied endorsements – an impression he makes no effort to correct. He celebrates the extra-judicial killing of an antifa linked murder suspect as badly needed “retribution.” He responds to a plot to kidnap and imprison the Governor of Michigan by encouraging a mob to chant “lock her up.” He openly declares the only election result he will view as legitimate is one where he wins as he speculates on a third term and as he congratulates China’s President Xi on becoming President for life. Trump openly calls for his entire political opposition to be locked up to long prison terms (he recently suggested 50 years would be the right length of time).
And it’s still a big mystery to you why people think Biden is a better choice to restore the liberal consensus? I can’t even tell if you are serious or just trolling.
I am happy to stipulate that Trump says a lot of mean and crazy things, but you should also admit that people deliberately misquote and misunderstand Trump to make him look worse than he is. For example, in the “enemy of the people” quote that you reference, Trump was clearly referring to journalists who just make stuff up as being enemies of the people. Still, I am happy to stipulate that Trump is rude and crude.
But–putting aside what Trump says–what has he actually done that you think is particularly illiberal?
First of all, advocating something IS doing something especially when it comes from the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Death threats to Whitmer go up every time Trump criticizes her and encourages chants of “lock her up.” And he knows this and likes it. He is constantly bragging about how rough and tough and ready to take to the streets his supporters are.
Breaking up the families of of people legally seeking asylum and putting their kids in cages is particularly illiberal and not just a speech act.
Firing Inspector Generals is illiberal and not just a speech act. You’d realize quick enough how illiberal that was if a Democratic President ever tried it.
Appointing people in the Justice Department who enforce the idea that a sitting President cannot even be investigated for any crime regardless of the evidence while he is in office is illiberal and not just a speech act. You’d realize quick enough how illiberal that was if a Democratic President ever tried it.
Dangling and delivering pardons to criminals who could have incriminated him is illiberal and not just a speech act. You’d realize quick enough how illiberal that was if a Democratic President ever tried it.
You don’t have any comparable difficulty in detecting illiberality in leftists who only talk about the policies they would like to see. The words of the President of the United States matter a lot more than the words of some idiot protester or social media troll.
I can see why authoritarians like Trump but to support him as someone to “restore the liberal consensus” is beyond bizarre.
I can see why TDS-ill people like Biden but to support him as someone to “restore the liberal consensus” is beyond bizarre.
Note for those interested in knowing about Biden: in 40 years in politics, he created just one job, for Hunter.
Greg G, here is another thing to consider. Most of the moderate Dems elected in 2018 that allowed the Dems to retake the House pledged not to impeach Trump if they were elected. Yet they ended up voting to impeach.
What makes you think that a similar dynamic will not play out if Biden is elected, with moderates more or less being forced to go along with the extreme left wing of the party?
A sitting President sets the political agenda for his party and has the ability to define what it is that people have to choose whether or not to go along with.
Because GWB proposed Medicare Part D the Republican Party got behind it. No chance they would have done that if Gore had been President. When GWB was President the party was pro-immigrant because GWB was. The Republicans approved the 2008 bank bailouts with a level of support that a Democratic President never would have gotten from them.
When Trump was elected he decided the party would switch from being in favor of free trade and opposed to government picking winers and losers in the economy to the polar opposite of that. From being friendly to immigrants to despising them. The party went along because he established the agenda. The Republican party used to be the more anti-Russian KGB of the two parties. I remember when Obama was criticized for not doing more to combat the Russian invasion of Georgia. Now whatever Putin says is quickly endorsed by Trump and the party.
The more you are afraid of the AOC wing of the Democratic Party the more you should hope to see a strong moderate wing of that party. Neither party is out of power for long in our two party system. If the AOC wing of the Democratic Party comes to power you I predict will suddenly become much less indifferent to the authoritarian precedents set by Trump.
I was not aware that any Democratic congressmen had pledged to vote against impeachment before seeing the evidence. If they really did that they should never have made that pledge.
The more you are afraid of the AOC wing of the Democratic Party the more you should hope to see a strong moderate wing of that party.
I actually agree with this. But I see Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer as just barely hanging on by their fingernails, with AOC, et al. stepping on their fingers.
Biden (77)
Pelosi (80)
Schumer (69)
These folks are a bunch of political dinosaurs and I don’t consider the latter two to be particularly centrist.
Are you really expecting me to believe that they will be able to build a firewall between the moderates and the far left fringe? It just seems like a bridge too far.
Also, did we watch the same Democrat primaries? Other than Tulsi, what kind of a moderate bench do they have? All the others went full woke, including Harris.
Now whatever Putin says is quickly endorsed by Trump and the party.
It is true that Trump will say nice things about people he wants to make deals with, like Kim Jong Un. Before Trump, this used to be called “diplomacy.”
But, in the case of Russia, Trump’s policies have been devastating:
-killing 215 Russian mercenaries in Syria
-sending arms to Ukraine
-encouraging fracking in the U.S. which has kept the price of oil and gas down.
-giving Germany a hard time about gas deals with Russia and the Nord Stream pipeline
All of these policies have seriously hurt Russia.
>—“Other than Tulsi, what kind of a moderate bench do they have?”
Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Yang were the ones who most exceeded expectations and formed the alliance to stop the socialist wing of the party. Bernie is too old to run again. Half the reason AOC has as high a profile as she does is that she gets so much free unearned attention on right wing media.
>—“It is true that Trump will say nice things about people he wants to make deals with, like Kim Jong Un. Before Trump, this used to be called “diplomacy.”
I missed the part where any previous American politician ever said that they “fell in love” with the world’s worst dictator and called it diplomacy. You wouldn’t have any problem calling that unprecedented and crazy if a Democratic President did it. But when a Republican President does it suddenly it’s how diplomacy should be done even though he has nothing at all to show for it except a full speed ahead North Korean nuclear program.
“Most of the moderate dems” and “pledged.” One example of a moderate dem who pledged not to impeach Trump. Surely you have one example at hand.
Here you go:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/max-rose-donald-trump-house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry
Ty. That certainly is one. We will see if he loses his Staten Island district in a few days.
Thank you, Greg.
That’s not at all an argument for why any non-leftist should want democrats to ‘win big.’ Indeed, best case scenario even for a moderate Democrat is likely for Biden to win and Republicans to keep the senate.
Given control over both houses of Congress, Biden will not govern as a moderate. You cite his record as a moderate, but he’s a creature of the times, as most of them are. He’s already mulling packing the Supreme Court. That’s not moderate. He (and Pelosi) are already being pulled by their base.
Biden says Critical Race Theory is just racial sensitivity training. He’s for it.
He also thinks eight year old transexuals are A-OK.
What the hell is this guy moderate about? He doesn’t want to abolish the police outright? He wants to greatly expand all the Obama era programs without a great idea of how to pay for it (80% socialism instead of 100% socialism). Do you think everybody on the public option with huge subsidies is that different from Medicare for All.
I share your instinct because Critical Social Justice is a memoplex evolved to thrive in and invade formal institutions populated by centre-leftists.
The element of doubt is that centre-left political parties might be the exception becaus they need votes. The recent trajectory of British Labour is a case in point.
Here is more detail on the ethnic studies agenda…..
https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/14/hxrstory-cisheteropatriarchy-and-the-remaking-of-america-a-new-curriculum-emerges-in-california
Reading Cochrane and his links, I regard CRT as a new version of the old idea that oppressors are oppressing the oppressed. CRT is to be used only in the U.S. and therefore the new version is focused on race, apparently the only card that U.S. radical leftists have for grabbing power. In Chile, we don’t have a CRT, but we have radical leftists pushing the old idea without a new version (today they are celebrating the first anniversary of the social outbreak but they are still discussing how to define a new version focused on a well-defined group of oppressors –it’s not easy). To understand radical leftists the focus should be on how to identify clearly oppressors: in CRT’s new version they are the White Supremacists, in Chile, we don’t know yet but you can bet they are looking for “the oppressors”. Who are White Supremacists? Right now, those that have not got a pass in training programs, but they will “fine-tune” the group once the grab power (with or without the complicity of the D-Party).
Perhaps part of the solution is to make sure high school students learn at least the rudiments of economics. Get rid of geometry and pre-calculus, and substitute economics and statistics.
It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans know about capitalism.
Unfortunately, it will never happen. But, I’d make the following incremental changes to your wish list:
+ logic/reasoning and ethics
– foreign languages and physical education
What do you suppose logic/reasoning would look like if taught by our current colleges of education?
Sorry, I meant to include the “and ethics”. That’s actually the scarier part.
My son is currently taking a philosophy class in high school. Although he is learning some philosophy, there is more than a dash of critical race theory thrown in.
That’s a fair concern. But, I’d still opt for a left of center ethics course (for most people) over 4 worthless years of “me llamo Hans, como esta usted?”
Note: I’m originally from NorCal, so courses with a left of center slant were par for the course. I actually took an ethics course in college from a lefty and I loved it.
Leander — exactly. Critical Race Theory IS their idea of ethics.
Arrg. Didn’t notice that autocorrect had changed Lysander.
“Most of his post is about the Trump Administration’s attempt to remove the ‘diversity training’ programs from the Federal bureaucracy. “
No. False.
Conflating diversity training with “sex stereotyping or scapegoating” is inaccurate and confuses the issue.
Cochrane does not use the phrase “diversity training “ in reference to the federal government. And for good reason, the EO doesn’t attempt to remove diversity training programs, which are different things altogether from the hate-based “anti-racism” and critical race theory training that promote “sex stereotyping or scapegoating.”
One simply cannot conflate the two types of training, the way that the imbecile Chuck Todd did at the debate, because the EO actually makes the distinction and encourages the normal EEO training as it had been delivered for decades:
“Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics. Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.”
Quite clearly the Trump Administration is not in fact trying to remove diversity training programs, only training that “
“Most of his post is about the Trump Administration’s attempt to remove the ‘diversity training’ programs from the Federal bureaucracy. “
No. False.
Conflating diversity training with “sex stereotyping or scapegoating” is inaccurate and confuses the issue.
Cochrane does not use the phrase “diversity training “ in reference to the federal government. And for good reason, the EO doesn’t attempt to remove diversity training programs, which are different things altogether from the hate-based “anti-racism” and critical race theory training that promote “sex stereotyping or scapegoating.”
One simply cannot conflate the two types of training, the way that Chuck Todd did at the debate, because the EO actually makes the distinction and encourages the normal EEO training as it had been delivered for decades:
““Most of his post is about the Trump Administration’s attempt to remove the ‘diversity training’ programs from the Federal bureaucracy. “
False.
Cochrane does not use the phrase “diversity training “ in reference to the federal government. And for good reason, the EO doesn’t attempt to remove diversity training programs, which are different things altogether from the hate-based “anti-racism” and critical race theory training that promote “sex stereotyping or scapegoating” that the EO specifically addresses.
One simply cannot conflate the two types of training, the way that Chuck Todd did at the debate, because the EO actually makes the distinction and encourages normal EEO training as it has been delivered for decades:
“Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics. Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.”
And further:
“Sec. 10. General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order.”
To suggest Trump is doing away with diversity training, or EEO training as others have alleged, is dishonest and libelous.
Not that normal EEO training in the government was ever all that benign. At the first session I can remember back in the early 80s we were instructed that the workforce is like a salad: whites are the iceberg and minorities are the tasty, interesting bits.
This is pretty much what school children are taught as well. The higher rates of suicide among white children is the inevitable result.
Ahhh BDS. Free speech except that gets you cancelled.
So you’re ok with mandatory prayer in public schools then, right? Because of freedom of religion?
Back in July, a Fairfax County high school announced:
1. “Social Studies Teachers Collaborate with Colleagues Statewide to Create Anti-Racist, Culturally-Responsive Curriculum”.
Please check out the pdf of the plan is from tolerance.org. It is awful, terrifying, and goes all the way down to Kindergarten.
Your 14 year-old freshman will be scored on whether they get on the bandwagon and actively help the cause. Not just extra credit for leftist activism, but any normal credit at all:
This is, unfortunately, nothing new, and merely a new level of escalation of what is already borderline CRT baloney that is taught in public schools. As it happens, the private schools are even worse, a few years ahead on the latest delusional fashions.
A parent of a student in FCPS is sent all kinds of consent and opt-out forms for all kinds of totally trivial things. But there is no opt out for the existing “anti-racist curriculum”, not will there be one for the new doubled-down version of it, coming right at our kids. Maybe you should tell the kids at home that government school is all a bunch of malevolent lies? On the one hand, maybe they believe you, and the pedagogical spell of respect for and trust in authority that is useful and important for young teenagers is broken too early. On the other hand, maybe they go full Pavlik Morozov and rat you out as problematic and get you cancelled?
There is already plenty of African American history, which has been the case for at least a generation. Don’t believe me? Just check out a typical textbook from, say 2005, you’ll see. Still not enough, because nothing is ever enough, so gotta make room, and history involving people of European heritage is getting cancelled:
Actually, part of the reason there isn’t enough African American history is that some of the old African American history is now not considered woke enough and is also getting cancelled in favor of news, woker writings. Booker T. Washington, and his “Up From Slavery” with his famous line, “Cast down your bucket where you are,” are out. Kendi is in.
2. Speaking of books, there is also book club, which is now “social justice book club” in which students will read either 200 proof CRT / BLM, or maybe just 180 proof sometimes.
Apparently, from what I read, it is now the case that anyone who wants to actually do anything more than complain about any of this and take active steps to solve the problem is no longer a “real conservative” or “principled libertarian” and instead some kind of institution-killing radical.
So be it.
Apparently, lots of parents first became aware that this sort of thing is being taught to their children during the lockdowns, when remote classes were conducted over video chats. Newsweek, of all places, has a big story on it.
Indeed. Here’s the sort of post-election ideas that are being floated right now:
“Reconciliation” here is used similarly to “conversation”: just as “conversation” in prestige press normally means “us lecturing you”, “reconciliation” here means “you reconciling yourselves to our rule”. It meant about the same thing in South Africa, which the author of the above tweet used as an example to show how un-radical and un-undemocratic his idea is.
Arnold, have you had a chance to go through Ron Unz’s giant article on the history of white racialism in the US, which mentions Richard Lynn’s stats on “extremely low IQs in so many African countries, often running 30 points or more below the white American average” and Unz’s own rebuttal of Lynn’s “strict hereditarian explanation,” among many other interesting points? Might be worth one of your reviews.