Two South Carolina reps have just pre-filed what is the most extreme, absurd, and flat out destructive anti-CRT bill I have come across in any jurisdiction in the country to date. Bar none.
The bill would prohibit any school (public or private), university, non-profit, state agency, contractor or sub-contractor, or private business that receives state funds from "promoting, engaging, or treating" individuals in relation to the following concepts:
Note well the inclusion of terms like "political belief" and "culture". Under this bill, it would illegal to make, say, a Nazi feel guilt or discomfort because of their beliefs.
Hell, a church or non-profit would be legally PROHIBITED in South Carolina from have employees treat race is a social construct. Which I guess means that they have to insist it's...a biological reality? I'm really grasping for alternatives here, folks.
"But I'm a professor. What does this bill mean for me?"
Well, here are a few things that would now be illegal:
- omitting relevant and important context
- creating an atmosphere hostile to open and respectful inquiry and discussion
- marginalizing students w/ differing opinions.
What's the penalty if you get caught in violation? Complete lose of state funding, tax exemption status, and any other state-provided accommodation or privilege.
"Well I'm an anti-Woke warrior and I think this is great. It's about time we started owning you libs!"
Not so fast. Liberalism is a political belief and owning me makes me feel discomfort. Sir/Madam, you have broken the law. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
By the way, a lot of people want to know how Dems can get out of their defensive crouch and start pushing back against this stuff. I'd suggest they begin by running ads warning darkly that two members of the SC GOP want to take away your basic American freedoms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's a nice one for you. @UTAustin has suspended a research study on anti-racist education after rightwing criticism and a Title VI complaint. The details are extremely damning.
@UTAustin What was the study? The researchers had 200 white pre-K children watch professional videos related to anti-black racism. The goal was to study whether/how they affected the kids' attitudes toward racism.
@UTAustin It's an important question, regardless of what you think of anti-racism efforts. For instance, @mattyglesias wrote just this week about a study showing that this sort of thing can have a major downside. This is research we should all support!
Duke’s student senate continues to embarrass itself by refusing to recognize a student chapter of Students Supporting Israel — and for the most patently absurd and pretextual reason possible. If necessary, @DukeU must intervene. thefire.org/duke-student-s…
For those unwilling to click, the gist is that the student senate is accusing SSI of “singling out” a student in an offensive and unwelcoming way. How so? By posting this to Instagram.
Scandalous stuff! The sheer gall of SSI, inviting its critics to have a conversation. How dare they.
Late last Friday, after about one week of debate, North Dakota became the 56,618,877th state to pass an anti-CRT law covering K-12 schools. I want to talk about it real quick.
The ND law is unique in that it specifically targets (what it takes to be) instruction related to Critical Race Theory. Most of the other anti-CRT bills are both grander in scope and more jumbled (e.g. by targeting a laundry list of "divisive concepts").
Why this approach? According to Janne Myrdal, who sponsored the bill in the senate, CRT is "a political ideology…It is an ideology that if we can indoctrinate it into our children young it would have a political consequence on our children later.”
For whatever reason, this week-old tweet is getting a lot of attention today. I think more and more people are starting to appreciate how dangerous these bills are and how sloppily they’re written. The threat is very, very real.
It was passed by the House on Thursday. On Friday, by the Senate. Late yesterday evening, the Governor signed it into law. The entire process, from conception to enrollment, was eight days. The purpose of the special session was COVID relief, by the way.
Said one state Rep: "If we can do something to reassure parents that in public schools we are not having a political agenda, then I think that we should do that. The fear and the outrage are very real, even if I may believe that fear and outrage was manufactured."
As promised to @Noahpinion, I'm going to run through some of the recent work (2019-present) on the claim that university makes students more liberal and/or that faculty are responsible. I'm focusing on post-2018 because I cover the older research here. medium.com/arc-digital/no…
@Noahpinion For those uninterested in reading it, the gist of the above piece is: a) student ideological ID changes very little; b) attitudes change a bit; and c) what change does occur is due to peers, not profs.
With few exceptions, subsequent research bears that out. Here's a round-up.
@Noahpinion Rauf 2021: Network effects rule everything around me. Students rarely change their political ideology in college, but when they do, it is driven by their peer network's diversity (e.g. is it all lib? con?) and density (e.g. how tight knit is it?).
StandWithUs continues its assault on academic freedom with a new Title VI lawsuit. This time, it is against Hunter College, with SWU claims has violated the civil rights of its Jewish students by allowing for the creation of an anti-Semitic atmosphere.
At issue is a May 2021 end-of-year class meeting on Zoom. During that class, a number of students changed their background pictures to the Palestinian flag and their Zoom names to "Free Palestine - Decolonize." You can read about it in SWU's complaint.
Some of the students then began to read a manifesto, which the professors on the call did nothing to prevent. Some students also made controversial comments in the chat, like about how Israel is a "white supremacist" state.