Deep dive by @JeffreyASachs into the anti-CRT bills and how — regardless of whether you agree with their core concerns — the legislative language could prevent teaching even basic history and concepts arcdigital.media/p/laws-aimed-a…
One thing I appreciate about @JeffreyASachs approach to this story is acknowledging that both A) there is a partisan political effort going on that's deliberately lumping a lot of stuff together under "CRT" and B) there IS an actual change here that people are reacting to.
Because "CRT" is deliberately used as a vague catch-all term to categorize and then demonize things its critics don't like, you get a muddled debate where elites are arguing 1970s academic texts and long-running philosophy debates and average people about something else.
But the "something else" people have in mind is real, even if definitions are also muddled. You can't keep people out of discussion just because they can't perfectly identify which thing was directly endorsed by Derrick Bell in 1983 and which is technically outside the movement.
Last year saw calls for a national conversation and reckoning on race. This is what that process always looks like: New momentum behind ideas and voices that had been marginalized in the past, followed by criticism and backlash. There's no way to skip steps and leap to the end.
FWIW, when there's an unwinnable argument over definitions (usually because it's strategically left too vague to win) its usually best to stick to specific examples. Is THIS housing policy discriminatory? If you asked that q from different perspectives, how would they disagree?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
