undefined | Better HN

0 pointsklyrs4y ago0 comments

It's a technical field of legal scholarship that isn't taught outside of law school. It's not designed for "the citizenry," but it's been scapegoated and demonized by folks on the right. That they never define what it is should be a red flag for any critical thinker. The easiest boogeyman to construct is completely amorphous. It requires zero evidence, just a constant onslaught of fearmongering.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Clubber4y ago· 1 in thread

>It's not designed for "the citizenry," but it's been scapegoated and demonized by folks on the right.

Again, don't care one way or the other but I'll take the "bait," if it was never designed for the citizenry, why is it being taught in elementary, middle and high schools, or is it?

As an aside, police are allowed to lie about evidence when interrogating suspects. Police are allowed to interrogate children without their parents consent or knowledge. Police are allowed to confiscate any cash they find in your car during a routine traffic stop without due process. This is typically done to bolster police budgets. I deem these as a way more important reforms that people are distracted from thinking about with this new wedge issue.

klyrsOP4y ago

> or is it?

That's the question, isn't it? We're being told that it is. We're told that 42 out of 54 rejected math books "incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies, including CRT." Of those 42 books, how many included CRT and not some other "prohibited topic" or "unsolicited strategy"? Doesn't say. What does an example of a math book including CRT even look like? Doesn't say.

And as much as I agree with your aside... this was done by the Florida Department of Education and textbook review is within their mandate and abusive policing is not. While I wish it wasn't a partisan issue, it seems that everything is a partisan issue these days, even chicken sandwiches.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse