Richard Hanania on the ideological capture of state education:

[T]he movement to ban Critical Race Theory is naive if it thinks it’s going to change much about public schools… A CRT ban might mean a teacher won’t say “Ok, kids, today we’re going to learn about Critical Race Theory!” but they’ll still teach variations of the same ideas. Neither Robin DiAngelo nor Ibram X. Kendi, the two thinkers that seem to offend conservatives the most, identifies as a Critical Race Theorist. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers just announced a campaign to bring Kendi’s teachings to every student in the country, and they don’t appear to be deterred by CRT bans. This is their full-time job, and they’ll still be at it whenever public attention has moved on from the controversy of the day… A state can ban CRT, but if it does, kids are still being taught by the same people who thought CRT for kindergartners was a good idea in the first place.

Somewhat related. And also. And, you know, for eight-year-olds. 

An emeritus professor, who wishes to remain anonymous, on the ideology of “white fragility” and its trajectory:

The fundamental claim of White Fragility ideology is that income, wealth, academic, and other outcome gaps are solely the result of white supremacy and can only be eradicated through “anti-racist” measures—that is, by addressing white supremacy, white privilege, and white racism. The behaviour of individuals in groups experiencing negative outcomes is never admitted as a possible driver of disparate outcomes…

If one believes (as is asserted in White Fragility) that all inequality between whites and blacks is due to racism, then racism is a very evil thing indeed and must be eradicated. The mildest action that might be taken to attempt to accomplish this goal is the voluntary re-education of whites. However, according to White Fragility dogma, whites benefit enormously from white racism… [and] are generally unaware that they are doing this. It follows that, given the benefits whites receive from racism, their denial of their own racism, and the discomfort associated with re-education, it is unlikely that many whites would voluntarily submit to re-education. Moreover, even if whites were to voluntarily submit to re-education, according to White Fragility dogma, it is not possible for whites to free themselves of racism. The author, Robin DiAngelo, who is white, makes her living trying to re-educate whites and works very hard at trying to eliminate her own self-confessed racism, but admits that she is still not free of racism.

“The teacher did not appear to know she was being recorded.”

The inclusive, caring world of sixth grade education.

More here. 

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker. 

And yet they say you must gargle it.

In her blueprint, [Tigard-Tualatin School District Director of Equity and Inclusion, Zinnia Un] describes the new oppressor as an amalgamation of “whiteness,” “colour-blindness,” “individualism,” and “meritocracy”… For Un, they are the values of white society, the primary impediment to social justice.

What is the solution to pathological whiteness? According to Un and the Tigard-Tualatin School District, the answer lies with a new form of “white identity development.” In a series of “antiracist resources” provided to teachers, the Department of Equity and Inclusion includes a handful of strategies for this identity transformation… Couched in the language of professional development, the process assumes that whites are born “racist,” even if they “don’t purposely or consciously act in a racist way.”

The first step in the training document is “contact,” defined as confronting whites with “active racism or real-world experiences that highlight their whiteness.” The goal is to provoke an emotional rupture that brings the subject to the next step, “disintegration,” in which he or she feels intense “white guilt” and “white shame,” and admits: “I feel bad for being white.”

Christopher F Rufo on the indoctrination of children, and their teachers, in Portland schools.

Once suitably ashamed and disintegrated, the victim – and the word victim is entirely apt – is quizzed on whether their submission to this psychological abuse has resulted in sleep deprivation and broken relationships – these are good signs, apparently. Signs of “change-making” and “solidarity.” Of emerging wokeness.

At which point, readers may recall the openly sadistic ravings of “diversity” pioneer Jane Elliott, another psychological molester of children, and who described, with satisfaction, how one of her younger victims went from being a “brilliant, self-confident, excited little girl to a frightened, timid, uncertain little almost-person.” This state of demoralisation and neurosis – of children being manipulated and bullied, and bullied again, until they feel “discomfort, guilt, shame, embarrassment and humiliation” – is an achievement, you see. The way white children should feel – if they are to be saved.

If the prospect of eight-year-olds being told that they are “of course” racists, by definition, and that they are, on account of being white, complicit in oppression and murder… if that sounds too grotesque to actually be happening – in taxpayer-funded schools – do read Mr Rufo’s article in full.

Update, via the comments:

The more problems they made for themselves, the more they were rewarded [by the welfare state]. We had a peculiar demoralisation… I mean, an actual removal of morality from all human consideration.

I remember, I had a patient with multiple sclerosis, and her husband worked, but he didn’t earn a lot of money, and they needed some adjustments to their house so that she could get out of the house more easily and so on. It seemed to me this was a place where the welfare state could actually help. So, I phoned a social worker… and I made a grave mistake. I said, “I have a particularly deserving case…” And there was a stony silence on the other end. And then the social worker said that all cases were deserving. In other words, you couldn’t distinguish between this case of need, which was nobody’s fault, and someone who took drugs and set fire to his house in a state of intoxication. There was no difference.

And since, of course, people who behave badly become more needy, they actually gain more attention and more sympathy. If you remove desert from all considerations, this means that one source of meaning in life is completely removed.

Jordan Peterson interviews Theodore Dalrymple.

Plenty to chew on and at times darkly funny. Regarding the quote above, this isn’t entirely unrelated.

Update, via the comments, another snippet:

At which point, this came to mind.

Faced with complaints from parents about the indoctrination of children, an official in Rockwood School District, Missouri, instructed teachers to create two sets of curriculum: a false one to share with parents, and then the real set of curriculum, focused on topics like activism and privilege.

These instructions were sent to all middle and high school principals in the district. “This is not being deceitful,” wrote Natalie Fallert, the official in question, before adding, “I hate that we are even having to have this conversation.” 

It occurs to me that when your solution to such complaints includes the words “so parents cannot see it,” it may be time to revisit your assumptions. A subsequent non-apology, issued by a different official when the instructions to deceive became more widely known, insisted that the school district views parents as “allies” in the education of “our children.”

An unhappy phrasing, all things considered.