Teaching Anti-Racism is Malpractice Because It Violates Many Provisions of the NEA’s Code of Ethics

I was looking at the National Education Association (NEA) Code of Ethics. It is titled: "Code of Ethics for Educators:

The National Education Association believes the education profession consists of one education workforce serving the needs of all students and provides standards by which to judge conduct."

I challenge you to take a look at Principle I of this Code of Ethics and try to count the many ways that "anti-racism" (Critical Race Theory) violates this code of ethics. The main problem is that CRT involves cult indoctrination based on preaching, not an open and vibrant exchange of ideas. I'll help by turning the code violations into red text below:

PRINCIPLE I

COMMITMENT TO THE STUDENT

The educator strives to help each student realize his or her potential as a worthy and effective member of society. The educator therefore works to stimulate the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of worthy goals.

In fulfillment of the obligation to the student, the educator--

1. Shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning.

2. Shall not unreasonably deny the student's access to varying points of view.

3. Shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter relevant to the student's progress.

4. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety.

5. Shall not intentionally expose the student to embarrassment or disparagement.

6. Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly--

Exclude any student from participation in any program Deny benefits to any student Grant any advantage to any student

7. Shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantage.

8. Shall not disclose information about students obtained in the course of professional service unless disclosure serves a compelling professional purpose or is required by law.

Continue ReadingTeaching Anti-Racism is Malpractice Because It Violates Many Provisions of the NEA’s Code of Ethics

No Real Teeth for “Anti-Discrimination” Efforts to Protect Asian-Americans

An amendment was offered to an "Asian hate crime" bill:

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz introduced a change to a Democrat-authored “Asian hate crime” bill making its way through Congress, expanding on the bill’s prohibitions against anti-Asian racism by stripping federal funding from colleges and universities that discriminate against Asians in their admissions process . . .

The bill, Cruz said, “is not designed to do anything to prevent or punish actual crimes. It is instead a Democratic messaging vehicle designed to push the demonstrably false idea that it is somehow racist to acknowledge that Covid-19 originated in Wuhan, China and that the Chinese Communist Party actively lied and suppressed information about the outbreak, allowing it to become a global pandemic.”

Here is the vote on the Cruz Amendment:

Democrats apparently have no problem with the fact that Ivy League Colleges are viciously and openly discriminating against Asian-Americans.

Continue ReadingNo Real Teeth for “Anti-Discrimination” Efforts to Protect Asian-Americans

Enthusiastic Racism From the Academic Left

I agree with the message of this short video. I despair of the way that "anti-racism" is being implemented in many schools. What does it tell young people who identify as "black" that we need to lower standards for all "blacks" because they, as a group, cannot cut it?  Two things:

1. This claim is false. "Black" students can cut it.  If given high-quality education and parental involvement from the start, I believe that "blacks" are every bit as capable of educational achievement as any other "color" of student. Many "black" students are high performers.

2. This quick solution sends the same pernicious message that one would expect to hear from American slave-holders in the 1850s.  This is not what students need to hear.

Let's give all students (and their families) the tools they need to succeed.  And let's not shy away from inconvenient facts, including these the fact that 69% of "black" children were born outside of marriage (compared to 30% for "whites" and "15% for people categories as Asian.  I don't bring this up to be moralistic, but only to suggest that many more "black" children lack some of the resources available, on average, to children of other "races." A two-parent household (whether or not married) can, on average, offer more resources to the children of that household.  I also suspect that in some "black" communities (not all), education is approached differently than in some other communities (of all "races). John McWhorter has discussed this different approach on occasion (see, for example, the 30 min mark here). Both of these factors (and others) need to be addressed unflinchingly so that every child, including every single "black" child, gets the resources and encouragement he or she needs to excel as a student.

Nothing I have written here suggests that we should judge any child on any basis other than as an individual.  Every child is unique and there are high achievers and low achievers of every so-called "race."

[I no longer use the term "race" or the colors referring to "races" without scare quotes.  Use of these terms is horribly imprecise, unscientific and inherently divisive.  Claiming that there are "races" is the first step on the slippery slope toward racism.  We need a two-pronged attack: 1) We need to move away from claims that there are "races," as nothing good results from this divisive term. 2) At the same time, we need to ostracize and vigorously litigate against any person or organization that discriminates on the purported basis of "race." ]

Continue ReadingEnthusiastic Racism From the Academic Left

Easy Reading According to Sigmund Freud

Our social intuition is strong. Here is one of my favorite quotes on this topic, by Sigmund Freud:

Psychological discernment is not as difficult as one might think: Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear soon become convinced that mortals cannot keep a secret. He whose lips are sealed talks with his fingertips; disclosure oozes out of his every pore.

"Fragment of an Analysis of Hysteria" (1901-5), VI, 148

Continue ReadingEasy Reading According to Sigmund Freud

Conversations versus Performances

Scott Barry Kaufman says this well.

I have this exact same thought many times every day.  It's like we are trapped in blue-dress-brown-dress argument every time we open our mouths.

One fruitful solution to this mess is to re-learn how to have conversations using Heterodox Academy's HxA Way:

  1. Make your case with evidence.
  2. Be intellectually charitable.
  3. Be intellectually humble.
  4. Be constructive.
  5. Be yourself.

The above five points are merely the headings - the HxA Way is carefully thought out.  Here's a more detailed (yet succinct) description.

Then again, this solution of the HxA way assumes that both parties are interested in having a conversation, which is not the case with many of today's tribally charged performative chants that only pretend to be conversations.

Conversations and performative chants look similar in that they both involve two people talking in the presence of each other.  The way I distinguish the two is that to be a conversation, one or both parties is/are at least potentially open to changing the way they understand some aspect of the world. This is often extremely difficult to tell.  And the likelihood that we are witnessing a meaningful conversation diminishes greatly as 1) more and more people actively participate as speakers, 2) one or more of the parties fail to accurately restate the other side's position, 3) one of the sides refuses to give up the floor, or 4) voices get louder or more impassioned.  In other words, one's best shot at having a real conversation involves one-on-one conversation where people listen closely to each other's words, restate those thoughts accurately and want their thoughts and world-view challenged--they both seek a new version of truth and neither seeks to "win" the interaction.  The opposite of a conversation can be found in a religious sermon.

I'll close with this quote by Nietzsche:

"Madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule."

--Beyond Good & Evil, Aphorism #156

Continue ReadingConversations versus Performances