So I'm listening to @sullydish's interview with Rufo and I have a question. In defense of his anti-CRT bills, Rufo claims that California *requires* teaching about systemic racism (as fact, presumably). What he's referring to? The Ethnic Studies mandate?…
@sullydish His argument is that Red states are simply banning what Blue states are mandating. Setting aside for a moment that justification from reciprocity, I just want to establish the facts. Because the Ethnic Studies law says zero about systemic racism.
@sullydish The Model Curriculum might (I've read it, but it's been a while), but that curriculum is purely voluntary. Schools are not required to adopt it in whole or in part.

So that's my question. What is Rufo referring to? And if it is to the ES law, does @sullydish know he was lied to?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jeffrey Sachs

Jeffrey Sachs Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JeffreyASachs

Jan 10,
This thread from Rufo is further evidence for the theory that anti-CRT advocates know how insane this legislative session is going to be. They can see what's coming and want to ever so slightly disassociate themselves from it. I doubt it will work.

First, you can see more evidence of that effort here. It's a trend!

Rufo thinks he can deflate the argument further by shifting to curriculum transparency (which, to be clear, has been a part of these bills since the beginning; Rufo isn't breaking new ground here). What he fails to consider is that curriculum transparency bills can be crazy too.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 9,
Apparently I was peripherally involved in a twitter spat earlier today. Anti-CRT laws: Who's the blame? Is the Harper's Letter crowd responsible? Etc. etc. Scintillating stuff! This is the sort of high stakes cultural frisson I miss for shabbat.
But without tooting my own horn *too* much, I actually do think I have a better read on this than most. I've kind of been on all sides of the debate, and having spent the last year reading every one of these bills, I think I have a good sense of where they're coming from.
But it's such an impossible discussion to have without coming across totally obnoxious. Is it even worth writing about?
Read 7 tweets
Jan 7,
Hey free speech folks, I have a question. I know I've read articles that frame the Chicago Statement as a form of pre-commitment. That admins should adopt it so that when they're under pressure, they can point to the policy and say "My hands are tied!" Where is that case made?
@glukianoff @JoeatFIRE @adamsteinbaugh @sarahemclaugh For some. But it could also be an expression of values. The point of the original argument is that even weak admins who have only a lukewarm commitment to free speech might choose to adopt the policy as a kind of alibi for when the shit hits the fan.

Read 4 tweets
Jan 5,
Nobody on this website hates college educated blue check libs more than college educated blue check libs five inches to their Right.
The working class is lucky to have those college educated blue check libs five inches to the Right of the other college educated blue check libs on their side and ready to speak on their behalf. They really have their best interests at heart.
Someone needs to write an @olivertraldi-style tear down of these folks and their desperate status jockeying.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 4,
I missed it over the holidays, but apparently MRU has fired Frances Widdowson. It's unclear precisely what happened (everyone is keeping quiet b/c the union is taking it to arbitration), but apparently MRU is saying she created a toxic work environment.
Obviously "toxic work environment" can constitute just cause for termination, but it's also a loophole admins use all the time to discipline faculty for offensive but protected speech. Hopefully the union and @CAUT_ACPPU are watching this one closely.
@CAUT_ACPPU Here's how @mountroyal4u's collective agreement defines academic freedom. Under any plain reading of the text, there would be no grounds for disciplining faculty for their research, tweets, articles, or whatever.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 29, 2021
It’s a little thing, but she has him dead to rights and he doesn’t even see it. Why not? He’s a smart guy and it’s not complicated. But contempt can make a smart person dumb.
People like GG and Taibbi are okay in my book. They do more good than harm and there are plenty of other people I’d like to see disappear first. But their only way of dealing with a critic is to attack and it’s made them so sloppy. GG especially (Taibbi less so).
Also, on the actual underlying issue, please bear in mind that one of the most powerful activist groups in the country on this stuff has some very extreme beliefs.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!