Noah Carl on fashionable indignation versus probity and thinking:
There are several things to notice here. First, the signatories use the word ‘revisits’ – rather than say ‘examines’ or ‘investigates’ – to imply that the theories in question have already been disproved, and hence that [economic historian, Gregory] Clark is engaged in some sort of futile exercise. Second, so far as I’m aware, ‘naturalization’ refers to the process of becoming a citizen of another country. I presume the signatories meant ‘naturalization’ in the sense of “nature versus nurture,” but it’s a very odd word to use. Third, the signatories refer to the “vast amount of research” that supposedly refutes Clark’s thesis, but don’t actually bother to cite any.
The unhappy signatories do, however, mention race and racism repeatedly - as, it seems, is the custom - despite the offending paper referring to race precisely zero times.
Regarding the above, it occurs to me that if people are obliged, on pain of social exclusion and near-immediate career destruction, to mouth pieties that are illogical, blatantly question-begging, and which jar with observable reality, this will tend to result in an erosion of probity, a habit of pretence, and perhaps a kind of neuroticism.
Speaking of academic standards, an Ohio resident shares her displeasure with woke educators and their niche preoccupations:
“Now, the residents with kids who did find out about your deviant curriculum, they pulled their kids out as fast as they could. More are withdrawing their kids because the school has lost control of the classroom environment,” she said. She took a moment to collect her thoughts, and then went on to say that “in the document for critical race theory, the stated goal is to make children activists in their own home. What does that mean?” She asked. “Why are you trying to create an adversarial relationship between parents and child when that is the relationship that needs to be strengthened?”
And somewhat related, Christopher F Rufo shares a conference for North Carolina’s public school teachers:
At the first session, “Whiteness in Ed Spaces,” school administrators provided two handouts on the “norms of whiteness.” These documents claimed that “(white) cultural values” include “denial,” “fear,” “blame,” “control,” “punishment,” “scarcity,” and “one-dimensional thinking.” […]
Parents, according to the teachers, should be considered an impediment to social justice. When one teacher asked, “How do you deal with parent pushback?” the answer was clear: ignore parental concerns and push the ideology of antiracism directly to students. “You can’t let parents deter you from the work,” the teachers said. “White parents’ children are benefiting from the system” of whiteness and are “not learning at home about diversity (LGBTQ, race, etc.).” Therefore, teachers have an obligation to subvert parental wishes and beliefs. Any “pushback,” the teachers explained, is merely because white parents fear “that they are going to lose something” and find it “hard to let go of power [and] privilege.”
Subverting the preferences of parents regarding their own children, and disdaining parents who object as moral and cognitive inferiors, driven only by ignorance and “privilege” - and doing all this with an air of self-satisfaction and self-elevation, as “equity leaders” bravely correcting the world – well, this has obvious appeal, for certain kinds of people. Certain personalities.
And given their preoccupation with “microaggressions,” at least when purported victims are deemed sufficiently brown, our woke educators seem oddly unconcerned by the likely effect on white peers, and on white children, of continually being told, based on clown-shoe woo, that their pallor is problematic, harmful, the cause of all injustice. Something to atone for. Something to be fixed.
*Added via the comments.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.