This is disingenuous to put it mildly. Banning "divisive concepts", taken literally, means banning concepts, and certainly any concepts relating to history and society.
It's obvious (as the author implicitly concedes, telling legislators to keep quiet about the racial animus that motivates them) that the only divisive concepts to be banned are those that offend white people.
I've recently (in a comment on John McWhorter's blog) looked at the "anti-CRT" bills that have actually been passed in 5 states, and spotted similarly overdrawn language in one of them (Tennessee). It was the only red flag that I found. 4 out of 5 bills avoided that pitfall. Quite possibly the RI bill will do likewise once it gets its polish. My takeaway is thus that the same as the author's: the bills are well-intentioned and mostly well-designed, but some need more work. The proper comparison is not "anti-CRT bills vs. K12 as we remember it" but "anti-CRT bills vs. K12 education progressively infested with woke rhetoric that at best is useless and takes time away from actual education, and at worst ruins students' grades and creates rifts between demographics". We don't consider the side effects of COVID vaccines in a vacuum either; we measure them against the likely outcomes of a likely infection.
Let me also quote from my comment on McWhorter's blog, as I think it's helpful to have the links to the 5 bills collected in a single place:
> To complement your look at CRT and "CRT", let me take a look at the "anti-CRT bills" and the strange shadows they seem to be casting all over the grand debate. 5 states have signed "anti-CRT" bills according to https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06 : Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa and Idaho. Here the respective bills:
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Darij. I find McWhorter's work to be invaluable, and appreciate your point in the comments. The bad faith readings are exhausting when the language is generally so plain.
You're too charitable - this article is an illogical mess. If it weren't for the clear inability of the author to engage in good faith arguments, I might be tempted to rebut some of the more egregious points...
This is disingenuous to put it mildly. Banning "divisive concepts", taken literally, means banning concepts, and certainly any concepts relating to history and society.
It's obvious (as the author implicitly concedes, telling legislators to keep quiet about the racial animus that motivates them) that the only divisive concepts to be banned are those that offend white people.
I've recently (in a comment on John McWhorter's blog) looked at the "anti-CRT" bills that have actually been passed in 5 states, and spotted similarly overdrawn language in one of them (Tennessee). It was the only red flag that I found. 4 out of 5 bills avoided that pitfall. Quite possibly the RI bill will do likewise once it gets its polish. My takeaway is thus that the same as the author's: the bills are well-intentioned and mostly well-designed, but some need more work. The proper comparison is not "anti-CRT bills vs. K12 as we remember it" but "anti-CRT bills vs. K12 education progressively infested with woke rhetoric that at best is useless and takes time away from actual education, and at worst ruins students' grades and creates rifts between demographics". We don't consider the side effects of COVID vaccines in a vacuum either; we measure them against the likely outcomes of a likely infection.
Let me also quote from my comment on McWhorter's blog, as I think it's helpful to have the links to the 5 bills collected in a single place:
> To complement your look at CRT and "CRT", let me take a look at the "anti-CRT bills" and the strange shadows they seem to be casting all over the grand debate. 5 states have signed "anti-CRT" bills according to https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06 : Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa and Idaho. Here the respective bills:
> TX HB3979: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/id/2339637 ;
> OK HB1775: https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1775/id/2387002/Oklahoma-2021-HB1775-Enrolled.pdf ;
> TN SB0623: https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0623&GA=112 (scroll down to amendment #2);
> Iowa HF802: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/89/HF802.pdf ;
> Idaho H377: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377.pdf .
The rest of the comment can be found at https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/you-are-not-a-racist-to-criticize/comments#comment-2199157 (alas, it doesn't immediately load the right comment, so you'll have to "Load More" and then search for "Idaho H377").
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Darij. I find McWhorter's work to be invaluable, and appreciate your point in the comments. The bad faith readings are exhausting when the language is generally so plain.
You're too charitable - this article is an illogical mess. If it weren't for the clear inability of the author to engage in good faith arguments, I might be tempted to rebut some of the more egregious points...