The attack on CRT is just the start

I can't tell what he's arguing against.

Seems like he's upset about access to education.

People should just get on with things and stop complaining about the system says man complaining that the system is unfairly trying to be equitable.

He's tilting against windmills.

"Giving everyone what they need to succeed" doesn't generally include rigging outcomes so that people still succeed if they choose to not take advantage of the resources they're given. That you believe otherwise is more proof that rightwing boomer Facebook memes have rotted your brain.

People having trouble grasping certain concepts might receive extra tutoring, or a student that has difficulties writing might have the option of completing in a different format, and kids that fall behind for whatever reason will get the opportunity to catch up if they're willing to put in the extra work, but a student that doesn't show up for the final exam or fails to submit a single assignment isn't going to get an A+.

Have you ever seen that picture of the "same height party?"



That's equity. Everyone gets the assistance they need, everyone now has the same opportunity to reach the top shelf of a bookcase if they so choose, but none of that help matters if someone isn't willing to stand up and take advantage of it. There's no elevated chair for people sitting down, there's no bed on stilts for anyone that wants to nap.

Do you honestly think there need to be people that lose catastrophically in society in order for your wins to really count?

Unrelated: Ben Garrison keeps making unintentionally accurate political cartoons because he never actually read or even skimmed the basic plot of Don Quixote.

It means you get in, by hook or by crook. Even if it necessitates lowering entrance standards or weighting your demographic with extra priority versus others.

Not how I would do it. My way would involve extra work to catch you up where necessary, but you would earn it, and by the same standards and methods applied to everyone else.

Inconvenient comparisons

Happiness is irrelevant. I am satisfied to teach them that life isn't fair, that they must adapt to their strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. You can tailor primary education to someone's specialness, but that won't happen in the real world. It will just make it all the more jarring for them.

I have never spent time on facebook, dickhead. If you don't rig it, you accept disparate outcomes, period.

Extra tutoring to meet the same standards and pass the same tests, fine.

It's not a competition, and your dumb little picture illustrates my point exactly. You seek to cut some people off at the knees and give others and unearned boost.

Then you're not paying attention. I've cited sources, supplied quotes. Explained my objections at length. You seem to think you get to set the options from which I may choose.

Well that's swell but no one is advocating for that. The position is that the ONGOING EFFECTS of systems which were initiated during segregated society should be addressed.

IOW, it's not "your grandpa work at a redlining bank so you are obliged to pay myy mortgage because of your guilt for his sins" but rather "Redlining has been going on since your granpa's day and while it is technically illegal, home and property values are still affected by that system, and the effects of that system should be addressed.

The conflation is what YOU are doing.

*I* am describing what is literally actually happening, YOU are parroting white supremacists fever dreams that are not affecting education anywhere in the country, nor is it proposed except in the minds of the smallest fringe of radicals on the left.

Much like Rufo's admitted campaign to "we will associate literally everything that pisses people off with the term 'CRT'" even when the thing in question isn't at all related (say, for example, gender studies which Republicans slide into all their "anti-CRT" bills) - you've been propagandized ... while viewing yourself as the great crusader against propaganda.

A good thread discussing relevant pissing and moaning about history education

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1415755911176638467.html

You can't define what you're arguing against other than equal access to education. Is that such a bad thing?

1. Not a single person in that photograph was made shorter by letting other people be taller. You seem convinced life is a zero sum game, when it doesn't have to be.

2. Disparate outcomes based on certain variables are fine, catastrophic outcomes are not.

SURE! No one I ever heard of would suggest otherwise. There are a multitude of circumstances that cannot be controlled for that will result in unequal outcomes. You don't have to be a sociologists to grasp that.

As for the former comment:


What Do We Mean By Equity, Anyway?


There are many different ways that we can define equity. The dictionary definition of equity is “justice according to natural law or right; freedom from bias or favoritism.” When we talk about equity in education, we usually mean something similar to “fairness.” But what does this look like in practice at the national, district, school, classroom, or individual student level?


Much has been made of the difference between equity and equality. While equality means treating every student the same, equity means making sure every student has the support they need to be successful.


Equity in education requires putting systems in place to ensure that every child has an equal chance for success. That requires understanding the unique challenges and barriers faced by individual students or by populations of students and providing additional supports to help them overcome those barriers. While this in itself may not ensure equal outcomes, we all should strive to ensure that every child has equal opportunity for success.


https://www.thinkingmaps.com/equity-education-matters/

This has been explained to you previously, but you can't get out of the white supremacists/libertarian talking points.

The problem is you cannot lay everything at the feet of ongoing effects. You cannot draw a straight line from history to every aspect of race relations in modern times. There are other factors at play, and when you refuse to acknowledge them your intentions become suspect.

And then it becomes a question of what solutions you propose. You cannot make a piece of property more attractive, and you cannot force someone to pay more than it is worth. You can attempt to raise the value with physical improvements, but that has the secondary effect of pricing locals out of their homes.

If critical race theory isn't being taught in schools anyway, why would you care if someone made a rule against it? Possibly because you're indulging in some greasy bullshittery where you just call it something else?
You're not "just teaching history" when you include the subjective, imply or state outright that some of your students do not deserve their quality of life.

Sometimes they are. When you arrive at that point as the outcome of your own choices. When you could have done better and you didn't.

I have already posted quotes just like that, assplow. And then we went into those "systems" and it was ridiculous.

Not in a system easily capable of preventing those catastrophic outcomes.

What justifies intentionally letting other human beings suffer, other than spite?

Who gets to decide that? Absent some sort of machine that shows the exact stats for every element of a human being like in a computer game, who had the right to say "this guy could have done better, but this other guy tried his best?" Or is failure in and of itself proof of not trying? Do you get to factor in allowances for the consequence-free mistakes some people get to make? George W. Bush was a big fan of cocaine in his 20's and possibly his 30's, and he got to be president. Is every cokehead that doesn't get elected president just not trying hard enough?

So they should know their place?

Provided, of course, their parents can afford an education for them at all?

Albertopia is a progressively unpleasant place the more I learn about it.

Kinda like the US.

Albert wouldn't survive Albertopia.

Another repackaging of "the ends justify the means."

Ideally, your own personal integrity. Practically, whomever holds the purse strings. That will never be me, so you can all relax.

He dodged this.
Knew he would.

There is no "place." There is only your capabilities, your advantages, and how much effort you invest into capitalizing on them.

Most people should not have children. Maybe some day the human race will learn that lesson.

Life is unpleasant. You adapt or you perish. You make practical choices or you devote your attention to making excuses for your failures.

Say a little girl is drowning in front of me.
Do I have an obligation to reach down and pull her out of the water?

If so, what if there's 20 drowning girls, and I have Reed Richards stretchy arms??

What if I there's 50 drowning girls, and I have Yoda level telekinesis?

What if there's 200 drowning girls, and I have Wanda Maximoff level molecular-kinesis?

If by "the ends" you mean "preventing unnecessary human suffering" and by "the means" you mean "providing basic assistance to everyone in need no matter what," then yeah, the ends do justify the means. No one should have to starve, for any reason. No one should have to sleep on the sidewalk, especially in a country where that'll literally kill you a third of the year. No one should have to die because they can't afford a necessary product or service that they require to live.

That doesn't mean they all get to live in mansions or receive endless free caviar, but there's enough more than resources to go around for everyone, more than enough for a basic safety net or general insurance for every man woman and child in the western world.

Life was unpleasant. Then humanity worked it's collective ass off for centuries to develop the technology so now it doesn't have to be.

Why do you want to throw that fruits of that labour away? What else was the point of it all?

No suffering is necessary, but I insist on the distinction between those who stood no chance and those who could have made better choices.

No matter what? No. Absolutely fucking not. That's just awarding everyone a blank check to behave as irresponsibly as they want, on the promise that their fellow citizens will be forced to bail them out of their bad decisions. It CANNOT be unconditional.

Even if they had every chance to provide for themselves and they chose immediate pleasure and gratification instead? I cannot agree.