Level of chutzpah and dishonesty is really something here. Again, this "requirement" was only put in place in June by the Republican anti-CRT bill that Ifill and others were railing against. Now they are using a slight adjustment to the law they opposed as proof of wrongdoing.
https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/1417527568568176640
To explain: In June, Texas Republicans passed an anti-CRT bill (HB3979) that is set to become law in Sept. That law, which critics on the left falsely suggested was whitewashing history, included a ton of specific examples that were listed as "essential" parts of the curriculum.
After passage, some TX education officials and R's pointed out those specific examples had a ton of overlap with already existing standards (TEKS) and that all of those things are mandatory (instead of optional/suggested).
To try to correct what they viewed as an error in the original bill, Texas Senate R's proposed a new bill (SB3) taking out many of the specific examples (esp those already covered by TEKS). It does not ban or discourage teaching any of those items.
So now the same people/publications that vigorously attacked and opposed the original bill that put in those examples are amazingly claiming that removing them is indefensible and an attempt to whitewash those topics from history. Hoping no one notices.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
