I find myself increasingly frustrated with all sides of this conversation. The right wing media has made a crude caricature of a varied body of academic work their flavor-of-the-week boogieman, while the pushback is veering toward “CRT? Never heard of it. Does it even exist?"
Simultaneously true:
(A) The CRT backlash is badly confused about what CRT is, and often in bad faith.
(B) There really does exist a line of CRT, influential in some ed departments & teacher trainings, that views pedagogy as a locus of activism for racial equity.
That second part, however distorted the noise machine’s picture of it, is not a conspiracy theory or made up. There are books and conferences and everything. Pre-backlash nobody would have seriously denied this part.
And that’s… good. A consciously antiracist pedagogy is a good idea. It’s not the same as “teaching CRT,” which is, you know, for grad students. Particular instances of how that manifests in classrooms may also be ill-conceived...
…which is the kernel of reality that gives a largely fictive moral panic traction. We are having a dumb and dishonest debate. There’s also a legitimate topic we could, in magical Christmasland, be having a conversation about.
I mean, I get this. The valid debate is not realistically available, there’s very little to gain from engaging with the fanfic version, and from Obi-Wan’s “certain point of view,” the thing they are talking about doesn’t exist, so why waste time?
And I guess “why waste time” is that even when Fox moves on & the ed board meetings aren’t circuses, there will be parents with both reasonable & unreasonable objections to stuff that happens in classrooms.
And maybe you can convince some of them their objections are misplaced, or that the valid objections are not usefully parsed in terms of the hegemony of inherently racist CRT ideology. But you’re not going to convince them there’s not a thing bothering them.
And if the only choices they see are the Chris Rufo theory of the case and “you’re imagining things,” a lot of them are going to default to buying the narrative on offer.
I’m not sure this is quite what Jamelle meant, but this seems like an apt analogy, in that McCarthyism was a deranged moral panic launched for cynical political advanatage, but also Soviet esponiage was an actual thing.
(Possibly a slightly uncharitable analogy, in that the actual Soviet espionage was a significantly more serious problem, but structurally pretty on point.)
Juuust to flip back to the original tweet I started rambling from: I didn’t mean to endorse a critique of this particular event. On face this sounds fine to me. Good, even.
It’s… not a “novel legal theory,” it’s a 155-year-old constitutional provision that explicitly disqualifies people from federal office, and which a bunch of prominent conservative legal theorists believe applies squarely to Trump.
The “novel legal theory” would be that an express Constitutional clause doesn’t apply when it’s politically inconvenient.
I’ll note the courts have already applied this to Jan 6 insurrectionists: A county commissioner in NM was removed from office under this clause, and his appeal was rejected by the state’s supreme court. So apparently not entirely unserious. krqe.com/news/politics-…
As someone who was a pretty successful formal debater in college, I can say very confidently that live public debate is a terrible way of discovering truth, and being good at debate has almost nothing to do with being correct.
It appeals to the sort of shallow lazy thinkers who get suckered by conspiracy theories because it flatters the soi-disant “critical thinker” that a lay audience can listen to a couple experts talk at each other for an hour and apprehend truth with their unschooled native savvy.
In reality it is virtually always, assuming a basic level of rhetorical competence by the debaters, just a permission structure for believing the thing you wanted to believe at the outset.
TIL that in France, Batman baddie Two-Face is called “Pile ou Face” (Heads or Tails), and now I can’t stop imagining Mike Lindell as a supervillain called PillowFace.
You can just hear that perpetually vaguely drunk sounding bellow: “IT’S NO USE DARK KNIGHT! I’VE CAPTURED THE PACKETS! ALL OF THEM!” Then he pokes a big red button on some remote detonator contraption… and nothing happens.
AW FER THE LOVE OF PETE. MY CYBER GUYS TOLD ME THIS ONE WOULD WORK FER SURE.
Dear Built to Spill: Your fans are at this point getting a little long in the tooth for a Thursday night show that starts at 9:30
Turns out I still remember all the words to “Center of the Universe” tho
Also, I have come to grips with the fact that while Perfect From Now On is their objectively best & most cohesive work, my favorite is Keep it Like a Secret because I am a basic bitch and it has the bops.
I love FIRE, but this is a disappointingly mechanical recitation of the generic case for welcoming controversial speakers on campus, which doesn’t really account for either the special nature of commencement addresses or the particular objections to Youngkin.
Above all, it’s a reflexive effort to squeeze the student objectives into the Procrustean bed of “censorship,” which is almost completely irrelevant here.
The objections the students raised are to POLICIES Youngkin has implemented, which they believe to be harmful to LGBTQ folks. Their problem is not with the content of his speech, which will doubtless be banal, but with the SCHOOL’S expressive act in deeming him worthy of honor.
A lot of responses to this seem to be deeply confused about the function of a commencement speech. It’s not like some guest speaker who’s there to provoke discussion and debate. It’s meant to honor the students, but also incidentally it’s an honor for the speaker.
It is fundamentally unlike other kinds of college talks, and students are absolutely in the right to say “this guy is garbage and not a person we wish to honor on an occasion dedicared to celebrating our achievement”
Getting a lot of non-sequitur “but he’s the governor!” So what? If it’s someone most students disapprove of—governor, president, or pope—it’s a bad choice to foist on them during a celebration of their graduation. You want some elected you hate giving your wedding toast?