Nowhere in this statement does Ricketts explain what he means by critical race theory—he just refers to his own broad conception of its effects.
That’s by design—& it’s a dangerous precedent for policing ideas.
“If you’re white, you’re evil” is not CRT. No one is teaching that.
That’s by design—& it’s a dangerous precedent for policing ideas.
“If you’re white, you’re evil” is not CRT. No one is teaching that.
https://twitter.com/govricketts/status/1404980765545406466
If by banning CRT, Ricketts means that race can’t be discussed as an explanatory variable for historical events—it seems he’d have trouble teaching the 3/5s Compromise or Jim Crow or sit-ins or much of America’s 20th century progress.
Race is part of our story—good, bad & ugly.
Race is part of our story—good, bad & ugly.
Alternatively, if by no CRT Ricketts means the unobjectionable point that we can’t instruct students in public schools that white people are evil b/c they are white or that America is evil because of racism among its citizens—then of course, literally no one disagrees with him.
So why be so imprecise with what he’s talking about & focusing state policy on?
Because the controversy & the uproar & the confusion is the point! His supporters hear one thing, his opponents hear the other, and he can define it later when asked.
That’s not bold leadership.
Because the controversy & the uproar & the confusion is the point! His supporters hear one thing, his opponents hear the other, and he can define it later when asked.
That’s not bold leadership.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
