Let's create a new national holiday to facilitate communication. It should be called "I Don't Know Day." Two purposes: To encourage people to say they don't know something when they don't know it, and B) Remind them that they look smarter when they admit that they don't know something that they don't know. We could also create a separate holiday called "Don't Make Shit Up Day."
Andrew Sullivan is perplexed and deeply concerned. I'm talking about same Andrew Sullivan who was far ahead of the curve on gay marriage. He supported Barack Obama. He has leaned left on many issues. To call him a conservative (or a liberal) cannot be done without a huge asterisk. I've followed Sullivan for years and I value his heterodox viewpoints. I share his concern with what is happening to America's political left. Here's an excerpt from his article, "What Happened To You? The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism."
“What happened to you?”
It’s a question I get a lot on Twitter. “When did you become so far right?” “Why have you become a white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic eugenicist?” Or, of course: “See! I told you who he really was! Just take the hood off, Sully!” It’s trolling, mainly. And it’s a weapon for some in the elite to wield against others in the kind of emotional blackmail spiral that was first pioneered on elite college campuses. But it’s worth answering, a year after I was booted from New York Magazine for my unacceptable politics. Because it seems to me that the dynamic should really be the other way round.
The real question is: what happened to you?
. . .
Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone.
Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. Non-violence? Exceptions are available if you want to “punch a fascist.” Free speech? Only if you don’t mind being fired and ostracized as a righteous consequence. Free association? You’ve got to be kidding. Religious freedom? Illegitimate bigotry. Equality? Only group equity counts now, and individuals of the wrong identity can and must be discriminated against. Color-blindness? Another word for racism. Mercy? Not for oppressors. Intent? Irrelevant. Objectivity? A racist lie. Science? A manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex? Replaced by socially constructed gender so that women have penises and men have periods. The rule of law? Not for migrants or looters. Borders? Racist. Viewpoint diversity? A form of violence against the oppressed.
What are people (I'm included) concerned about when we talk about "critical race theory" being taught in the classroom, especially K-12? What should we be teaching instead of "CRT"? Greg Lukianoff of FIRE nails it:
What these bills are trying to address doesn’t map directly to the academic definition of critical race theory, which is, in short, an academic school of thought pioneered by Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, and Richard Delgado (among others) that holds that social problems, structures, and art should be examined for their racial elements and impact on race, even when they are race-neutral on their face.As a result, a lot of arguments dismiss the bills by claiming “they don’t teach critical race theory in K-12!”, pointing to the fact that Bell’s work is on few, if any, K-12 syllabi. But that is a refutation of a point no one is actually making.
Like it or not, the acronym “CRT” as commonly used in 2021 doesn’t refer to the foundational texts and authors in the academic movement. It’s a shorthand for certain ideas that have filtered (in reductive forms or not) from CRT thinkers into the mainstream, including in bestselling books like “White Fragility” and “How to Be an Antiracist” — ideas like how relationships between individual white and nonwhite people are those of the oppressor and oppressed, that all white people are consciously or unconsciously racist, that ostensibly raceblind concepts like “meritocracy” are the result of white supremacy, among others.
. . .
What opponents of “CRT” are getting at is a philosophy that comes directly in conflict with small-L liberalism — and I am among the many Americans who believe the ideals of small-L liberalism are worth defending. What critics of CRT fear is the rise and widespread adoption of a philosophy that relies on genetic essentialism, overgeneralization, guilt by association, what we call in Coddling “The Great Untruth of Us versus Them,” shame and guilt tactics, and deindividuation. This is a formula for reinforcing group difference, undermining the hope of future social cohesion, and returning to the kind of tribal politics of the country in which my father grew up: Yugoslavia.
What should we be doing instead of preaching K-12? Lukianoff has some ideas on that topic too. His article is titled: "The Empowering of the American Mind: We need to fix K-12 education. These 10 principles are a path for reform.". Here are some excerpts from Lukianoff's article:
Principle 1: No compelled speech, thought, or belief.
Principle 2: Respect for individuality, dissent, and the sanctity of conscience.
Principle 3: Foster the broadest possible curiosity, critical thinking skills, and discomfort with certainty.
Principle 4: Demonstrate epistemic humility at all levels of teaching and policymaking.
Principle 5: Foster independence, not moral dependency.
Principle 6: Do not teach children to think in cognitive distortions, e.g.:
Emotional reasoning
Catastrophizing
Overgeneralizing
Dichotomous thinking
Mind-reading
Labeling
Negative filtering
Discounting positives
Blaming
Principle 7: Do not teach the “Three Great Untruths.”
As a society, we are teaching a generation three manifestly bad overarching “untruths”—ideas that contradict both ancient wisdom and modern psychology:
The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
The Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good and evil people.
Principle 8: Take student mental health more seriously.
This brings me to the most frustrating thing I’ve seen since publishing the original “Coddling” article. We know anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide are up among young people, and up dramatically. In light of this fact, it is cruel to nevertheless advocate political philosophies that assume:
The majority of students are both oppressors and oppressed due to the color of their skin, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and/or national origin, and that therefore not only is life rigged against such students, they are also active participants in harming other students;Words, arguments, and images can be so harmful that students must be shielded from many of them in order to prevent serious psychological harm;
Some students are in a war against oppression, where they don’t have friends but rather “allies”—which implies a conditional, utilitarian arrangement, not a deep and personal bond;
Students must always be on the lookout for slights, as these always mean something much more pernicious than a simple faux pas; and
A single bad joke, dumb comment, or unwise tweet at any moment could, and even should, derail future academic or professional careers.
Principle 9: Don’t reduce complex students to limiting labels.
Sorting students into politically useful categories that involve assigning them character attributes or destinies based on immutable traits circumscribes their potential and hampers their growth. Self-determination is foundational to the American promise and central to our unique national identity. Students must be permitted to decide for themselves how much, or how little, emphasis they wish to place on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, or economic background.Principle 10: If it’s broke, fix it.
Be willing to form new institutions that empower students and educate them with the principles of a free, diverse, and pluralistic society. Is this a formula for peace and quiet? No. But free societies aren’t supposed to be particularly quiet. As Justice Robert Jackson gravely warned in 1943, attempts to coerce unanimity of opinion have only resulted in “the unanimity of the graveyard.”
You don't know how strong the current is until you try to swim against it.
There's a big argument raging about what to call this thing. I refer to it as Critical Race Theory because these teachings have their roots in CRT, even though these teaching have morphed into what we are currently seeing in many classroom. Whatever you call it, you can find it in all these places.
Are there other things to be wary of? Absolutely. Climate issues, current and future pandemics, the false narratives of the far right. Many of these discussions are unproductive for the same reason that we can't discuss CRT: because we can't even agree on the basic facts. I'm not in the mood for what-about-ism at the moment, because unapologetic woke struggle sessions now inhabit many of our once-schools and universities. Why do I keep "obsessing" about this trend? Because unquestionable facts (e.g., the biological fact that there are two--and only two-sexes) mean nothing to many of those who lead these sessions. They proclaim that striving for excellent and reaping the rewards of hard work is inappropriate.
On racial issues, the leaders of these sessions are smearing the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. When I read their words, I imagine these loud and rude Wokesters throwing rotten fruit or rocks at MLK and jeering him. They claim to be leading a new improved Civil Rights Movement, but they are reversing the gains of the past 60 years. They call it progress when they go into third grade classrooms, dividing the children by color and sow lifetime seeds of suspicion and distrust when they tell the "white" children that they are oppressors of the "black" children. These kids should be freely playing with each other at recess, but now they are being told to fear each other. Further, the "black" children are being fed huge doses of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Yet social media bristles with accusations that to have these concerns makes one a "conservative" or a "Republican" and that people like me are paranoid because the new syllabus merely teaches "racial history," as though previous generations of children have not been taught about racial history.
Hell, yes, I'm concerned. And I will keep speaking out as long as larges swathes of social media are motivated to get the facts wrong. I feel the moral imperative to be, if necessary, the only one in the large room to speak up.