I had a comment, but am revising it. If you saw the previous one, ignore that, it's deleted. This feels familiar. I've lived it. I grew up around conservatives in Orange County, CA in the 90s....
Exemplary
I had a comment, but am revising it. If you saw the previous one, ignore that, it's deleted.
This feels familiar. I've lived it. I grew up around conservatives in Orange County, CA in the 90s. They talked like this then, and talk like this now. This has that same "...and everybody clapped" vibe that you only see in the far reaches of any online community where it's all congratulations, slaps on the back, and jerking each other off for their made up victimhood. I've seen this happen in real life, too, but it's much less common and typically only gets snickers and eye-rolls.
I looked for a sponsoring organization because this left a bad taste in my mouth. It was too perfect. This site is sponsored by the conservative thinktank The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, I'm completely willing to chalk this up as the sort of story where "everybody clapped at the end." It sounds like the conservative white folks I grew up with complaining about being victimized for being white because three Mexican families got seated at Denny's first. It sounds like me when I thought I was being victimized for being white because I was bullied and live in a part of the city that is majority Latino (this was just me being bullied, and the demographics of my city).
It's actually very normal, and a powerful tactic for misinformation. In middle or high school, early/mid 00s, I had a teacher who told the class about martinlutherking.org (this is just a Daily...
It's actually very normal, and a powerful tactic for misinformation. In middle or high school, early/mid 00s, I had a teacher who told the class about martinlutherking.org (this is just a Daily Beast link, the real thing is on the Wayback Machine), which was run by the notorious stormfront.org, a white supremacist site I'd known of for a few years before then. I believe I'd accidentally made this connection myself when I stumbled into the site and found it was too hard to learn anything about the man and conveniently moved on.
I’m confused as to why they don’t just send their kids to a public school if they find the indoctrination at this private one too intense? I’d also be curious as to the actual ethnic makeup of the...
I’m confused as to why they don’t just send their kids to a public school if they find the indoctrination at this private one too intense?
I’d also be curious as to the actual ethnic makeup of the student body at a place where tuition is $50k per year per student! That’s a staggering amount of money. That’s college tuition amounts of money!
The article is weird too. It’s not that clear to me to what extent this is the kids complaining about not feeling safe or the parents complaining that their kids might be judging them. It’s all reported as kind of hearsay so it’s hard to substantiate what the facts are.
It should also be noted that the author, Bari Weiss, has a track record of being really mendacious about this “cancel culture is out of control” beat. She’s made stuff up, exaggerated, and thrown public tantrums when called out on it. I’d wait to hear from a less compromised source before reckoning how big of a deal this actually is.
I thought it was a bit hilarious to cast private school parents and their children as victims. It doesn't surprise me that the author has written other pieces about cancel culture, the bias is...
I thought it was a bit hilarious to cast private school parents and their children as victims. It doesn't surprise me that the author has written other pieces about cancel culture, the bias is clear.
And yes, lots of anecdotes.
At the same time, there are more and more people sounding the alarm on these topics, and they aren't all on the extreme right anymore. One of the things I find interesting here is the larger conversation about how change is happening.
I believe part of how we ended up with Trump, and the Qanon crowd, was as blowback from the "we're right, stfu if you can't get on board" mentality that some of the left has adopted.
The goals are right: equity, inclusion, rationality, climate, a social saftey net to offset rampant late stage capitalism. And the problems are severe enough that we need extreme change. But I think we could do a lot better in terms of messaging. I'm concerned we haven't learned anything from the Trump mistake, and will keep polarizing everything and trying to silence too many voices.
That's the true irony of this article. They're filthy rich! They could hire private tutors on every subject and indoctrinate their children to believe anything they want. Religious people have...
I’m confused as to why they don’t just send their kids to a public school if they find the indoctrination at this private one too intense?
That's the true irony of this article. They're filthy rich! They could hire private tutors on every subject and indoctrinate their children to believe anything they want. Religious people have been doing this for millennia at this point, with or without money.
The truth of the matter is that what they are actually spending money is not education, but social status. They are spending money so that their children can rub elbows with other rich kids so they can take advantage of social networks that normal people couldn't even dream of. What they are actually upset about is that their kids are actually getting a good education that will be legitimately useful in the future. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
To put things in a different light, having these kids understand "wokeness" is key to how they, as the ruling elite, can have the skills to stay in the powerful positions which they will inevitably find themselves. And in a best/worst case scenario, it will give them the ability to subvert these ideologies to fit their needs and desires. Complaining about children being taught these concepts is incredibly short-sighted.
Before I dive into my opinion on the piece, I want to suggest that if anyone found this piece interesting give "Nice White Parents" a listen. In my opinion it is a much more coherent and well...
Before I dive into my opinion on the piece, I want to suggest that if anyone found this piece interesting give "Nice White Parents" a listen. In my opinion it is a much more coherent and well thought out discussion on race and education.
This piece feels a bit ridiculous. It could literally be the set piece for "white fragility".
The framing is that we are creating this "culture of fear" around race and identity. I believe that there are some issues to be dissected here, but it feels to me like the majority are finally having to take minority wishes into account. We have to address where our wealth disparity and racial inequality comes from and it is going to make some students uncomfortable. If a student feels uncomfortable about their place in the system, that is called learning. It's uncomfortable to learn that you have a leg up because of what the past actions of your ancestors, community, or even society.
Secondly, to anyone who has been on a college campus recently, this statement is ridiculous: "Woe betide the working-class kid who arrives in college and uses Latino instead of “Latinx,” or who stumbles conjugating verbs because a classmate prefers to use the pronouns they/them." There are assholes in any section of society, but generally if you mess up a pronoun the worst that happens is a correction and I think that is fair. This is a bad faith argument that those who are seeking recognition and visibility are irrational and aggressive.
If anyone wants to have a real discussion on the topic I'm happy to dive in more.
Agreed, as I said in a different comment reply, that the story uses rich people as an in on the topic is a funny choice. It takes tone deaf to a new level To add to that, in another part of the...
Agreed, as I said in a different comment reply, that the story uses rich people as an in on the topic is a funny choice. It takes tone deaf to a new level
To add to that, in another part of the story there are anecdotes from students who feel that the new rule is something to the effect of "if you're a white man your voice comes second".
As a white man my first thought is, great, that's how everyone else already feels, welcome to the human race. Let your voice come second for a bit, or work harder to find a way to express your views that will land. Either way don't take it personally.
But I'm also aware that a lot of people won't see it that way, and that the counter arguments to social justice changes are going to get louder, more compelling and recruit more people.
That is unless we can find a way to change things while also gently teaching the people who don't get it yet. Slapping someone in the face (metaphorically speaking) is memorable, but it rarely conveys your argument.
What would your suggestion be to change the messaging? The guidelines and requests these movements are making aren't extreme, it's just articles like this that couch them that way. I'm not sure...
What would your suggestion be to change the messaging?
The guidelines and requests these movements are making aren't extreme, it's just articles like this that couch them that way. I'm not sure how asking someone to consider race or use a different set of pronouns are a slap in the face.
If you want to craft messaging it helps to understand the target audience, which generally isn't the already converted. Imagine all of it was foreign to you. Imagine you grew up surrounded by...
Exemplary
If you want to craft messaging it helps to understand the target audience, which generally isn't the already converted.
Imagine all of it was foreign to you. Imagine you grew up surrounded by straight white people and no one ever really introduced the idea to you that other people's experience was vastly different from your own. You absorbed a set of ideas about right and wrong, good and bad, normal and deviant before you were even old enough to question santa claus. Radical social change is a shock from that perspective.
Imagine also that you're struggling. The consolidation of wealth at the top has made you poorer and less secure. Or perhaps you were doing relatively ok but then the pandemic hit. You're spending every day stressed, in low key fight or flight because you're scared you won't be able to support your family.
Now introduce modern social justice. They're going to let men into your daughter's bathroom. White people are inherently racist by birth. We need to spend tax money on doing a better job of taking care of the vulnerable... "Wait a minute, I'm working my ass off and I feel pretty vulnerable, what about me?"
Of course there are really good reasons for all of these things, but remember that you have no tools to understand the importance of this stuff. It's all vague and distant, while your problems are real and present.
Now introduce the far right propaganda machine. It tells you that your problems are someone else's fault, minorities or the educated or whatever. It tells you that they're coming for your rights. You're already worried and scared, it's easy to manipulate your emotions.
That's one example, there are other demographics of people for whom this stuff is shocking, the wealthy, libertarians, etc.. They all have stories. We should be trying to understand them, because at least some of them are teachable, fundamentally good people.
Right, I'm not demonizing them, but my question is what changes would you make to the messaging? How do you make them palatable for a group that will find them uncomfortable regardless? Just for...
Right, I'm not demonizing them, but my question is what changes would you make to the messaging? How do you make them palatable for a group that will find them uncomfortable regardless?
Just for context, I'm a early 30's white guy who was raised around majority straight white people. I understand the perspective, I just don't see the alternative.
You didn't demonize them, but you did suggest that it wasn't a slap in the face. But it's a shock to some people, they feel defensive, they don't understand. And somehow that isn't making it into...
You didn't demonize them, but you did suggest that it wasn't a slap in the face. But it's a shock to some people, they feel defensive, they don't understand.
And somehow that isn't making it into the larger conversation. Largely, I think, because dunking on people is so much more gratifying and wins more internet points.
I don't imagine it's news that a lot of people are onto social justice for egocentric reasons, and the way it's talked about and handled in the public square reflects that. The messaging needs to invite rather than compel or shame. Which starts with empathy.
Right, but what is the ideal messaging? How do you cushion the slap to the face? How do you take: "Hey, it would be cool for you to use some one's preferred pronoun. I know it's confusing and...
Right, but what is the ideal messaging? How do you cushion the slap to the face? How do you take: "Hey, it would be cool for you to use some one's preferred pronoun. I know it's confusing and feels weird, but the person your talking to is going to be much happier." and make it more palatable?
The author of this article is purposefully making it seem like there is a dystopian overlord enforcing gender identity. There are still trans people being assaulted for simply being trans. There are still plenty of people who will refuse to use differing pronouns and do you know the consequence? Some one might call them a asshole, for well being an asshole.
In many cases people opposed to these changes will be losing out in order for these changes to be made. White people will lose funding (even though they will still garnish a disproportionate amount) due to equity and inclusion programs. Rich people will lose out (again even as they still take the largest slice of the economic pie) if more equitable financial regulation is enacted. The outcomes are small loses (financial, language, employment...) and uncomfortable situations. They will have to start to shoulder a larger portion of burden everyone else has been bearing for centuries. I don't see any messaging going over well.
If you want to talk about empathy, I'd say everyone in that article needs to find their own slice of it. It really feels like the call for 'empathy' always falls to one side of the argument here (those who are in favor of changes) and it seems like we've finally past the tipping point where it can no longer be ignored.
As to the egocentric reasons, sure there are assholes and people who will be performative in every group. Are they harmful to change, yes. But it's an extremely small minority that is being blown out of proportion by megaphones like this article. I am tired of having to have perfect communication when the topic gets brought up when the opposing side gets to response with ridiculous, unfounded statement a la: “Then you’ll be blacklisted from all the private schools and you’ll be known as a racist, which is worse than being called a murderer.”
I agree about the article and the worldview it represents. I meant to use it as a jumping off point for larger conversations. You don't need to have empathy for poor white people (or die hard...
I agree about the article and the worldview it represents. I meant to use it as a jumping off point for larger conversations.
You don't need to have empathy for poor white people (or die hard capitalists or racists or fire and brimstone religious people or any of the other groups threatened by social change) if you don't have the bandwidth for it. You're entitled to your frustration or whatever else you feel.
I'm only suggesting that the movement should try to incorporare more empathy (which then informs messaging). People need time to change, education takes time. I believe it will go faster if we connect more effectively.
That's great and it did get us talking. I have empathy for poor whites, they are victims of the system like everyone else. I understand their opinion and frustrations. There are so many legitimate...
That's great and it did get us talking.
I have empathy for poor whites, they are victims of the system like everyone else. I understand their opinion and frustrations. There are so many legitimate frustrations that they have. But having tolerance is a different question. I have empathy when religious groups believe the gay community is a abomination against god, I understand how they came to that conclusion (generally through community conditioning). That said, you better believe I will have no tolerance for actions by that group agains the gay community be it physical, political, or anything else. I don't think me taking the time to understand their perspective means that I have to respect or tolerate everything that comes with it.
This is where I'm having a hard time in our debate. Where do you draw the line on acceptable behavior (as racism in Asheville looks and sounds different than NYC) and as you keep saying how do we change the messaging (I've asked this in each response and feel like I haven't actually gotten an answer). I'm not being rhetorical, I'm really curious to hear how you think messaging can be improved. Like if you could give an example of current messaging and then give how you would like to see it reworked I would really appreciate it.
I was in the camp of gentle nudging for a very long time, but to me it doesn't actually seem to drive change. It feels like we took more steps forward last May/June on civil rights than we had the entire decade before it and nothing about that was gentle. Suddenly abolishing the police, white fragility, and redlining are part of the collective vocabulary.
I think we're talking about slightly different things. I don't think we should tolerate racism, or homophobia or any sort of bigotry. Especially not when it's overtly practiced. That should be a...
I think we're talking about slightly different things. I don't think we should tolerate racism, or homophobia or any sort of bigotry. Especially not when it's overtly practiced. That should be a hard line.
Regarding messaging, I noticed you kept asking, I thought I was answering :) When I think of messaging (at least in this case) I'm thinking about it in the sense of brand strategy. What are the core concepts, what are the tangible traits, how do they inform the tone of the message and the identity from which it speaks.
In this case I think the core identity of the social change brand needs more empathy and less condemnation. So, for a specific example, if the change we were talking about was related to institutionalized sexism, one aspect of the messaging might be telling stories that try to emotionally bring home the way life is deeply different for a women as a result of sexism. As opposed to stories about asshole men who should feel ashamed (they should, but making them feel defensive won't make inspire them to entertain a new perspective). If you wanted to go full marketing on it you could tell stories about how sexy inclusive men are. Rap video style. The irony would be fun.
The goal ultimately being to paint a picture about different experiences while encouraging the conclusion that society will reward and celebrate the behaviors we want.
At the same time fed up, angry stories from people who are sick of our juvenile power structures have value too. They live that and there's persuasive power in their truth.
All of this as an addition, rather than instead of, making it clear through legislation and policy that we don't tolerate bigotry in any form
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you are bang on with how messaging needs to be produced. I know there are some sectors of the internet or town squares that aren't adhering to those...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you are bang on with how messaging needs to be produced. I know there are some sectors of the internet or town squares that aren't adhering to those principals, but when it comes to educational curriculum content I think folks are taking that into consideration. I had a whole write up on how individual driven messaging conflates systematic messaging (ie student vs school system), but after going over the article for examples a different pattern emerged: the subject itself is the core issue.
So after our back and forth my thoughts had changed to this: "systematic change is critiqued because of and conflated with individual messaging." Essentially that well thought out messaging is muddied, sometimes purposefully by opposition, with poor individual messaging which I think is your main point. It is well reasoned and I went through the article again to look for examples, but ended up changing my mind again. Before I dive into why I changed my mind again, I want to say I agree I think it would be great to get a number of campaigns like you suggested going. Bring on the sexy inclusive men! I think it's great that you are championing this and I don't want to change that, I just want to share my opinion and thought process on this if it is helpful (and because our common ground is the article, I'll use that as an example as flawed as it is).
So I started going through the article and found that there were lots of examples of what you are talking about around poor messaging from individuals making people retreat from potentially beneficial conversations. So again, let me get those sexy inclusive men! But what I also found a ton of was people just having an issue with the subject all together. I think this is why I am skeptical that changing messaging will be successful, buuuuuut would love to see some real attempts at it. When I talk about systematic messaging (and for this discussion I'm going to focus on systematic messaging in education) I'm making 2 main assumptions here: 1. while not perfect, I assume teachers are getting a good amount of training on how to talk about and discuss these subjects. 2. The majority of teachers are going to follow those guidelines when they talk discuss race/politics/gender/etc in class because it is such a contentious subject. (similar to sex ed). Will there be exceptions, of course, but I think by and large they will follow the set messaging. I'm also going to say that as the author trying to claim she got a representative look at the subject by talking to students/parents/teachers across the economic, political, and geographic spectrum, it works for what we're looking at too.
The article starts out by laying out that what the parents are uncomfortable with is that schools "[are] making their kids fixate on race and attach importance to it in ways that strike them as grotesque" So immediately it's not about the messaging, it is about the subject. This is compounded later in the article with: "What does it say about the current state of that meritocracy, then, that it wants kids fluent in critical race theory and “white fragility,” even if such knowledge comes at the expense of Shakespeare?" To me this reads as "change is unimportant". Again it's a subject issue. These pepper the article.
Ok, so back to my points above: 1. present well defined educational messaging, 2. teach compliance to provided material.
The article starts attacking the vetted "systematic" messaging: “I am in a cult. Well, that’s not exactly right. It’s that the cult is all around me and I am trying to save kids from becoming members.”
Then they couch it as a middle of the road position by saying he is liberal: "He is not politically conservative. “I studied critical theory; I saw Derrida speak when I was in college,” he says, “so when this ideology arrived at our school over the past few years, I recognized the language and I knew what it was. But it was in a mutated form.”
The final "logical" conclusion. “I started seeing what was happening to the kids. And that’s what I couldn’t take. They are being educated in resentment and fear. It’s extremely dangerous.”
This was taken from the systematic messaging, which I think takes messaging into account and leans heavily on lived experience. Could teachers be departing from curriculum standards? Of course, but I'd guess it is closer to how other contentious subjects, like sex ed, are taught, close to the guidelines of the curriculum. With that in mind this again feels like an issue with the subject. ie critical race theory does not have a place in schools.
Again: "One of her classmates says that he tries to take “the fact classes, not the identity classes.” But it’s gotten harder to distinguish between the two. “I took U.S. history and I figured when you learn about U.S. history maybe you structure it by time period or what happened under each presidency. We traced different marginalized groups. That was how it was structured. I only heard a handful of the presidents’ names in class.”"
This conveniently leaves out the fact that history innately has a perspective, opponents to change are just having to see it from someone else's now. This is why I don't think "telling stories that try to emotionally bring home the way life is deeply different for a women as a result of sexism" will change opinion. That is what this class is doing and yet there is still an issue. This is about the subject.
Again: “They are making my son feel like a racist because of the pigmentation of his skin,” one mother says. Another poses a question to the group: “How does focusing a spotlight on race fix how kids talk to one another? Why can’t they just all be Wolverines?”
The subject is at fault.
Again: "All of this “has made me think about race more,” said one teen boy in Manhattan. The curriculum, he explained, was trying to teach him to feel obsessed with his whiteness, the opposite of what his parents had taught him to do. Making students separate out by race in affinity groups is racist, he said. “MLK would condemn my school.”"
The subject is at the heart of the issue.
I'm not sure what is being taught, but just from the small samples here they seem to be different but don't fall from what you were advocating for. Do you think the reading list (listed after this comment) is too radical for building empathy? (again curious not rhetorical) Stamped, Dear Martin, Dear Justice, and Yaqui Delgado Wants to Kick Your Ass. I haven't read any of the ones listed, but they all seem to focus on following a young person through a tough part of their life and highlight the challenges they face in an endearing way.
The critical classes are even reference as an elective, which to me would just target the students who are interested in learning more about the subject. "At Fieldston, an elective is offered to high school juniors and seniors called “historicizing whiteness.” At Grace Church School, seniors can take a course called “Allying: Why? Who? and How?” The curriculum includes a ’zine called “Accomplices Not Allies” that declares “the work of an accomplice in anti-colonial struggle is to attack colonial structures & ideas,” alongside a photograph of a burning police car. " As extreme as she is purposefully trying to make it, it isn't mandatory.
It just seems like so much thought has gone into the messaging in education and we're still running up against a wall. Ironically the "Two sides to every story" sums up my feelings about this issue. When the common response to "police violence against people of color has gotten out of hand", "gay conversation therapy should be banned", or "we should remove redlining from our zoning ordinances" is met with "well there are two sides to every story" suddenly bigoted ideas are elevated to well reasoned, expert led ideas. "I want to feel valued and seen by my peers" is equivalent to "I don't want to feel guilty".
I think the article uses anecdotes to espouse a number of perspectives spanning both the subject and individual messaging. Without knowing exactly what educators are learning/implementing with...
I think the article uses anecdotes to espouse a number of perspectives spanning both the subject and individual messaging.
Without knowing exactly what educators are learning/implementing with regards to critical race theory, I'd say that if they are telling stories about different perspectives, and managing to make it land as authentic, it absolutely will contribute to changing minds. Not the people in the article of course, but a lot of the kids.
At the very least, as someone brilliantly pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it will prepare them for the sort of world they'll be adults in. Hopefully.
Though I gave a specific example, as requested, what I'm advocating for isn't so easily pinned down.
I couldn't agree more that the "two sides" trope is sometimes maddeningly inapplicable and used anyway. When it's objective reality (climate change) there can't be two sides. When it's simple decency (all humans deserve equal rights) there shouldn't be two sides.
Thanks for your insights, I appreciated the opportunity to explore this stuff.
That's just it, isn't it. If you hammer them, then the other side gets go "See, they're basically the thought police. I thought this was America." It's unfair and it's exhausting, but at the end...
I am tired of having to have perfect communication when the topic gets brought up when the opposing side gets to response with ridiculous, unfounded statement a la: “Then you’ll be blacklisted from all the private schools and you’ll be known as a racist, which is worse than being called a murderer.”
That's just it, isn't it. If you hammer them, then the other side gets go "See, they're basically the thought police. I thought this was America."
It's unfair and it's exhausting, but at the end of the day, the right wing message of "just keep things as it is" is a LOT easier to sell than "work, change, improve". Change is scary, the best thing we can do for people on the fence is to make that change less scary.
Firstly, this is a perfect distillation of the "conservative oppressed by orange libleft/SJWs" stereotype/strawman, alongside with "actually, progressives are also segregationists/the real...
Firstly, this is a perfect distillation of the "conservative oppressed by orange libleft/SJWs" stereotype/strawman, alongside with "actually, progressives are also segregationists/the real racists" and "actually, leftists control the world and we are the anti-establishment counter-cultural underdogs". This could make the frontpage of r/conservative in record time, if it hasn't already, a dozen times. This is the definition of "big brain(definition 4) logic".
But, taking the article as if it were a serious, genuine article and all the testimonials here are genuine, I think the big problem with the people in this article is that they interpret themselves as the ones in the frontlines of this who need to do the most work, when, as children of wealthy people, they're possibly the farthest away from any real trouble (and, unless they have substantial power over a tech company, are also far away from any more power to change this than 'the rest of us'). They're also taking corporations like the "See color" video they linked sincerely and as representative of leftists and leftism, when most of these corporations don't really believe what they're saying and often oppose people who would help. All the same points above apply to these people feeling they're being pressured to embrace anti-capitalism and leftist orthodoxy.
As for the authoritarianism, it's obviously bad and a fault of the colleges, but the thing is that, by virtue of being expensive and targeting the super-ricj, these colleges were given the cultural authority to say what's classy or trashy, is said by successful people, or politically correct by these very people.
I thought so too. Not only that, it's a comparitively lucid presentation. I expect this kind of framing will continue to improve. Perhaps even start to be taken seriously in more circles. Which is...
this is a perfect distillation
I thought so too. Not only that, it's a comparitively lucid presentation. I expect this kind of framing will continue to improve. Perhaps even start to be taken seriously in more circles.
Which is reason for pause.
In the court of public opinion, truth and righteousness often lose to the appearance of truth and righteousness. And lose even more often to blatant appeals to emotion.
Y'all have a lot more patience than I do. After getting a third of the way through the article and only learning that there are some rich people who send their kids to expensive private schools...
Y'all have a lot more patience than I do. After getting a third of the way through the article and only learning that there are some rich people who send their kids to expensive private schools who are uncomfortable with ... something related to race? and/or capitalism? ... I gave up because it didn't seem like the author was ever going to reveal anything or get to the point.
It was the capitalism reveal that ironically kept me reading. After I got done laughing. I was thinking... capitalism?? These rich kids are being oppressed for being pure capitalists while late...
It was the capitalism reveal that ironically kept me reading. After I got done laughing.
I was thinking... capitalism?? These rich kids are being oppressed for being pure capitalists while late stage capitalism rapes the world? The horror!
"Social justice is making it (slightly) harder for me to funnel my kids into the top 1% without them being exposed to other viewpoints."
The irony is too thick to pass up. In the author's defense, she makes some compelling points later on, even if I disagree.
I don't blame you. It feels like the author just kept giving anecdote after anecdote because they're too afraid to draw any real conclusions. Frankly speaking, conservative parents fundamentally...
I don't blame you. It feels like the author just kept giving anecdote after anecdote because they're too afraid to draw any real conclusions.
Frankly speaking, conservative parents fundamentally not understanding what is being taught in their kid's primary schools is such a common story that it's practically a trope at this point. Remember how "New Math" was supposed to be rotting kids' brains, and how Common Core was going to turn kids into robots?
Like @post_below said, you've got to see the humor in it. It's like that one comedy sketch with the Nazi asking "are we the baddies?" The fact that it's the children with the lucidity to see this and not the parents is just icing on the comedy cake.
I'm not familiar with the author, or the publication, and didn't do any checking. But I thought this article potentially leads into a variety of interesting conversations. I know I had a range of...
I'm not familiar with the author, or the publication, and didn't do any checking. But I thought this article potentially leads into a variety of interesting conversations. I know I had a range of reactions. I'll resist the urge to share my thoughts on it in advance, so as not to bias anyone's take.
It seems like everything depends on how much you trust the reporter, since you can’t independently check anything. I will rate it as plausible, but that hardly counts for anything since I know...
It seems like everything depends on how much you trust the reporter, since you can’t independently check anything.
I will rate it as plausible, but that hardly counts for anything since I know nothing about these people or their schools. Many plausible stories turn out to be wrong in the end.
Largely true, but the story is interspersed with actions and events that can be checked, I was already familiar with some of them, though I disagree with the author's interpretations. We live in...
Largely true, but the story is interspersed with actions and events that can be checked, I was already familiar with some of them, though I disagree with the author's interpretations.
We live in interesting times.
One thing I found interesting was the quality of the writing. It's not literature but it's miles above the level I normally I associate with these kinds of viewpoints. And this isn't the first piece that has surprised me that way recently.
It feels like there are a host of culture skirmishes brewing, and it won't be as simple as it has been in terms just two distinct sides.
I hope we can embrace the nuance and keep anger out of it as much as possible. Not a particularly realistic hope, but nevertheless :)
I had a comment, but am revising it. If you saw the previous one, ignore that, it's deleted.
This feels familiar. I've lived it. I grew up around conservatives in Orange County, CA in the 90s. They talked like this then, and talk like this now. This has that same "...and everybody clapped" vibe that you only see in the far reaches of any online community where it's all congratulations, slaps on the back, and jerking each other off for their made up victimhood. I've seen this happen in real life, too, but it's much less common and typically only gets snickers and eye-rolls.
I looked for a sponsoring organization because this left a bad taste in my mouth. It was too perfect. This site is sponsored by the conservative thinktank The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, I'm completely willing to chalk this up as the sort of story where "everybody clapped at the end." It sounds like the conservative white folks I grew up with complaining about being victimized for being white because three Mexican families got seated at Denny's first. It sounds like me when I thought I was being victimized for being white because I was bullied and live in a part of the city that is majority Latino (this was just me being bullied, and the demographics of my city).
Thanks for the background, it's about what I imagined, though the conservative think tank sponsoring the magazine is surprising.
It's actually very normal, and a powerful tactic for misinformation. In middle or high school, early/mid 00s, I had a teacher who told the class about martinlutherking.org (this is just a Daily Beast link, the real thing is on the Wayback Machine), which was run by the notorious stormfront.org, a white supremacist site I'd known of for a few years before then. I believe I'd accidentally made this connection myself when I stumbled into the site and found it was too hard to learn anything about the man and conveniently moved on.
I’m confused as to why they don’t just send their kids to a public school if they find the indoctrination at this private one too intense?
I’d also be curious as to the actual ethnic makeup of the student body at a place where tuition is $50k per year per student! That’s a staggering amount of money. That’s college tuition amounts of money!
The article is weird too. It’s not that clear to me to what extent this is the kids complaining about not feeling safe or the parents complaining that their kids might be judging them. It’s all reported as kind of hearsay so it’s hard to substantiate what the facts are.
It should also be noted that the author, Bari Weiss, has a track record of being really mendacious about this “cancel culture is out of control” beat. She’s made stuff up, exaggerated, and thrown public tantrums when called out on it. I’d wait to hear from a less compromised source before reckoning how big of a deal this actually is.
I thought it was a bit hilarious to cast private school parents and their children as victims. It doesn't surprise me that the author has written other pieces about cancel culture, the bias is clear.
And yes, lots of anecdotes.
At the same time, there are more and more people sounding the alarm on these topics, and they aren't all on the extreme right anymore. One of the things I find interesting here is the larger conversation about how change is happening.
I believe part of how we ended up with Trump, and the Qanon crowd, was as blowback from the "we're right, stfu if you can't get on board" mentality that some of the left has adopted.
The goals are right: equity, inclusion, rationality, climate, a social saftey net to offset rampant late stage capitalism. And the problems are severe enough that we need extreme change. But I think we could do a lot better in terms of messaging. I'm concerned we haven't learned anything from the Trump mistake, and will keep polarizing everything and trying to silence too many voices.
That's the true irony of this article. They're filthy rich! They could hire private tutors on every subject and indoctrinate their children to believe anything they want. Religious people have been doing this for millennia at this point, with or without money.
The truth of the matter is that what they are actually spending money is not education, but social status. They are spending money so that their children can rub elbows with other rich kids so they can take advantage of social networks that normal people couldn't even dream of. What they are actually upset about is that their kids are actually getting a good education that will be legitimately useful in the future. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
To put things in a different light, having these kids understand "wokeness" is key to how they, as the ruling elite, can have the skills to stay in the powerful positions which they will inevitably find themselves. And in a best/worst case scenario, it will give them the ability to subvert these ideologies to fit their needs and desires. Complaining about children being taught these concepts is incredibly short-sighted.
$50k can buy you a Bachelor's degree and then some at many state colleges. Maybe even a Master's.
Before I dive into my opinion on the piece, I want to suggest that if anyone found this piece interesting give "Nice White Parents" a listen. In my opinion it is a much more coherent and well thought out discussion on race and education.
This piece feels a bit ridiculous. It could literally be the set piece for "white fragility".
The framing is that we are creating this "culture of fear" around race and identity. I believe that there are some issues to be dissected here, but it feels to me like the majority are finally having to take minority wishes into account. We have to address where our wealth disparity and racial inequality comes from and it is going to make some students uncomfortable. If a student feels uncomfortable about their place in the system, that is called learning. It's uncomfortable to learn that you have a leg up because of what the past actions of your ancestors, community, or even society.
Secondly, to anyone who has been on a college campus recently, this statement is ridiculous: "Woe betide the working-class kid who arrives in college and uses Latino instead of “Latinx,” or who stumbles conjugating verbs because a classmate prefers to use the pronouns they/them." There are assholes in any section of society, but generally if you mess up a pronoun the worst that happens is a correction and I think that is fair. This is a bad faith argument that those who are seeking recognition and visibility are irrational and aggressive.
If anyone wants to have a real discussion on the topic I'm happy to dive in more.
Agreed, as I said in a different comment reply, that the story uses rich people as an in on the topic is a funny choice. It takes tone deaf to a new level
To add to that, in another part of the story there are anecdotes from students who feel that the new rule is something to the effect of "if you're a white man your voice comes second".
As a white man my first thought is, great, that's how everyone else already feels, welcome to the human race. Let your voice come second for a bit, or work harder to find a way to express your views that will land. Either way don't take it personally.
But I'm also aware that a lot of people won't see it that way, and that the counter arguments to social justice changes are going to get louder, more compelling and recruit more people.
That is unless we can find a way to change things while also gently teaching the people who don't get it yet. Slapping someone in the face (metaphorically speaking) is memorable, but it rarely conveys your argument.
What would your suggestion be to change the messaging?
The guidelines and requests these movements are making aren't extreme, it's just articles like this that couch them that way. I'm not sure how asking someone to consider race or use a different set of pronouns are a slap in the face.
If you want to craft messaging it helps to understand the target audience, which generally isn't the already converted.
Imagine all of it was foreign to you. Imagine you grew up surrounded by straight white people and no one ever really introduced the idea to you that other people's experience was vastly different from your own. You absorbed a set of ideas about right and wrong, good and bad, normal and deviant before you were even old enough to question santa claus. Radical social change is a shock from that perspective.
Imagine also that you're struggling. The consolidation of wealth at the top has made you poorer and less secure. Or perhaps you were doing relatively ok but then the pandemic hit. You're spending every day stressed, in low key fight or flight because you're scared you won't be able to support your family.
Now introduce modern social justice. They're going to let men into your daughter's bathroom. White people are inherently racist by birth. We need to spend tax money on doing a better job of taking care of the vulnerable... "Wait a minute, I'm working my ass off and I feel pretty vulnerable, what about me?"
Of course there are really good reasons for all of these things, but remember that you have no tools to understand the importance of this stuff. It's all vague and distant, while your problems are real and present.
Now introduce the far right propaganda machine. It tells you that your problems are someone else's fault, minorities or the educated or whatever. It tells you that they're coming for your rights. You're already worried and scared, it's easy to manipulate your emotions.
That's one example, there are other demographics of people for whom this stuff is shocking, the wealthy, libertarians, etc.. They all have stories. We should be trying to understand them, because at least some of them are teachable, fundamentally good people.
Right, I'm not demonizing them, but my question is what changes would you make to the messaging? How do you make them palatable for a group that will find them uncomfortable regardless?
Just for context, I'm a early 30's white guy who was raised around majority straight white people. I understand the perspective, I just don't see the alternative.
You didn't demonize them, but you did suggest that it wasn't a slap in the face. But it's a shock to some people, they feel defensive, they don't understand.
And somehow that isn't making it into the larger conversation. Largely, I think, because dunking on people is so much more gratifying and wins more internet points.
I don't imagine it's news that a lot of people are onto social justice for egocentric reasons, and the way it's talked about and handled in the public square reflects that. The messaging needs to invite rather than compel or shame. Which starts with empathy.
Right, but what is the ideal messaging? How do you cushion the slap to the face? How do you take: "Hey, it would be cool for you to use some one's preferred pronoun. I know it's confusing and feels weird, but the person your talking to is going to be much happier." and make it more palatable?
The author of this article is purposefully making it seem like there is a dystopian overlord enforcing gender identity. There are still trans people being assaulted for simply being trans. There are still plenty of people who will refuse to use differing pronouns and do you know the consequence? Some one might call them a asshole, for well being an asshole.
In many cases people opposed to these changes will be losing out in order for these changes to be made. White people will lose funding (even though they will still garnish a disproportionate amount) due to equity and inclusion programs. Rich people will lose out (again even as they still take the largest slice of the economic pie) if more equitable financial regulation is enacted. The outcomes are small loses (financial, language, employment...) and uncomfortable situations. They will have to start to shoulder a larger portion of burden everyone else has been bearing for centuries. I don't see any messaging going over well.
If you want to talk about empathy, I'd say everyone in that article needs to find their own slice of it. It really feels like the call for 'empathy' always falls to one side of the argument here (those who are in favor of changes) and it seems like we've finally past the tipping point where it can no longer be ignored.
As to the egocentric reasons, sure there are assholes and people who will be performative in every group. Are they harmful to change, yes. But it's an extremely small minority that is being blown out of proportion by megaphones like this article. I am tired of having to have perfect communication when the topic gets brought up when the opposing side gets to response with ridiculous, unfounded statement a la: “Then you’ll be blacklisted from all the private schools and you’ll be known as a racist, which is worse than being called a murderer.”
I agree about the article and the worldview it represents. I meant to use it as a jumping off point for larger conversations.
You don't need to have empathy for poor white people (or die hard capitalists or racists or fire and brimstone religious people or any of the other groups threatened by social change) if you don't have the bandwidth for it. You're entitled to your frustration or whatever else you feel.
I'm only suggesting that the movement should try to incorporare more empathy (which then informs messaging). People need time to change, education takes time. I believe it will go faster if we connect more effectively.
That's great and it did get us talking.
I have empathy for poor whites, they are victims of the system like everyone else. I understand their opinion and frustrations. There are so many legitimate frustrations that they have. But having tolerance is a different question. I have empathy when religious groups believe the gay community is a abomination against god, I understand how they came to that conclusion (generally through community conditioning). That said, you better believe I will have no tolerance for actions by that group agains the gay community be it physical, political, or anything else. I don't think me taking the time to understand their perspective means that I have to respect or tolerate everything that comes with it.
This is where I'm having a hard time in our debate. Where do you draw the line on acceptable behavior (as racism in Asheville looks and sounds different than NYC) and as you keep saying how do we change the messaging (I've asked this in each response and feel like I haven't actually gotten an answer). I'm not being rhetorical, I'm really curious to hear how you think messaging can be improved. Like if you could give an example of current messaging and then give how you would like to see it reworked I would really appreciate it.
I was in the camp of gentle nudging for a very long time, but to me it doesn't actually seem to drive change. It feels like we took more steps forward last May/June on civil rights than we had the entire decade before it and nothing about that was gentle. Suddenly abolishing the police, white fragility, and redlining are part of the collective vocabulary.
I think we're talking about slightly different things. I don't think we should tolerate racism, or homophobia or any sort of bigotry. Especially not when it's overtly practiced. That should be a hard line.
Regarding messaging, I noticed you kept asking, I thought I was answering :) When I think of messaging (at least in this case) I'm thinking about it in the sense of brand strategy. What are the core concepts, what are the tangible traits, how do they inform the tone of the message and the identity from which it speaks.
In this case I think the core identity of the social change brand needs more empathy and less condemnation. So, for a specific example, if the change we were talking about was related to institutionalized sexism, one aspect of the messaging might be telling stories that try to emotionally bring home the way life is deeply different for a women as a result of sexism. As opposed to stories about asshole men who should feel ashamed (they should, but making them feel defensive won't make inspire them to entertain a new perspective). If you wanted to go full marketing on it you could tell stories about how sexy inclusive men are. Rap video style. The irony would be fun.
The goal ultimately being to paint a picture about different experiences while encouraging the conclusion that society will reward and celebrate the behaviors we want.
At the same time fed up, angry stories from people who are sick of our juvenile power structures have value too. They live that and there's persuasive power in their truth.
All of this as an addition, rather than instead of, making it clear through legislation and policy that we don't tolerate bigotry in any form
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you are bang on with how messaging needs to be produced. I know there are some sectors of the internet or town squares that aren't adhering to those principals, but when it comes to educational curriculum content I think folks are taking that into consideration. I had a whole write up on how individual driven messaging conflates systematic messaging (ie student vs school system), but after going over the article for examples a different pattern emerged: the subject itself is the core issue.
So after our back and forth my thoughts had changed to this: "systematic change is critiqued because of and conflated with individual messaging." Essentially that well thought out messaging is muddied, sometimes purposefully by opposition, with poor individual messaging which I think is your main point. It is well reasoned and I went through the article again to look for examples, but ended up changing my mind again. Before I dive into why I changed my mind again, I want to say I agree I think it would be great to get a number of campaigns like you suggested going. Bring on the sexy inclusive men! I think it's great that you are championing this and I don't want to change that, I just want to share my opinion and thought process on this if it is helpful (and because our common ground is the article, I'll use that as an example as flawed as it is).
So I started going through the article and found that there were lots of examples of what you are talking about around poor messaging from individuals making people retreat from potentially beneficial conversations. So again, let me get those sexy inclusive men! But what I also found a ton of was people just having an issue with the subject all together. I think this is why I am skeptical that changing messaging will be successful, buuuuuut would love to see some real attempts at it. When I talk about systematic messaging (and for this discussion I'm going to focus on systematic messaging in education) I'm making 2 main assumptions here: 1. while not perfect, I assume teachers are getting a good amount of training on how to talk about and discuss these subjects. 2. The majority of teachers are going to follow those guidelines when they talk discuss race/politics/gender/etc in class because it is such a contentious subject. (similar to sex ed). Will there be exceptions, of course, but I think by and large they will follow the set messaging. I'm also going to say that as the author trying to claim she got a representative look at the subject by talking to students/parents/teachers across the economic, political, and geographic spectrum, it works for what we're looking at too.
The article starts out by laying out that what the parents are uncomfortable with is that schools "[are] making their kids fixate on race and attach importance to it in ways that strike them as grotesque" So immediately it's not about the messaging, it is about the subject. This is compounded later in the article with: "What does it say about the current state of that meritocracy, then, that it wants kids fluent in critical race theory and “white fragility,” even if such knowledge comes at the expense of Shakespeare?" To me this reads as "change is unimportant". Again it's a subject issue. These pepper the article.
Ok, so back to my points above: 1. present well defined educational messaging, 2. teach compliance to provided material.
This was taken from the systematic messaging, which I think takes messaging into account and leans heavily on lived experience. Could teachers be departing from curriculum standards? Of course, but I'd guess it is closer to how other contentious subjects, like sex ed, are taught, close to the guidelines of the curriculum. With that in mind this again feels like an issue with the subject. ie critical race theory does not have a place in schools.
Again: "One of her classmates says that he tries to take “the fact classes, not the identity classes.” But it’s gotten harder to distinguish between the two. “I took U.S. history and I figured when you learn about U.S. history maybe you structure it by time period or what happened under each presidency. We traced different marginalized groups. That was how it was structured. I only heard a handful of the presidents’ names in class.”"
This conveniently leaves out the fact that history innately has a perspective, opponents to change are just having to see it from someone else's now. This is why I don't think "telling stories that try to emotionally bring home the way life is deeply different for a women as a result of sexism" will change opinion. That is what this class is doing and yet there is still an issue. This is about the subject.
Again: “They are making my son feel like a racist because of the pigmentation of his skin,” one mother says. Another poses a question to the group: “How does focusing a spotlight on race fix how kids talk to one another? Why can’t they just all be Wolverines?”
The subject is at fault.
Again: "All of this “has made me think about race more,” said one teen boy in Manhattan. The curriculum, he explained, was trying to teach him to feel obsessed with his whiteness, the opposite of what his parents had taught him to do. Making students separate out by race in affinity groups is racist, he said. “MLK would condemn my school.”"
The subject is at the heart of the issue.
I'm not sure what is being taught, but just from the small samples here they seem to be different but don't fall from what you were advocating for. Do you think the reading list (listed after this comment) is too radical for building empathy? (again curious not rhetorical) Stamped, Dear Martin, Dear Justice, and Yaqui Delgado Wants to Kick Your Ass. I haven't read any of the ones listed, but they all seem to focus on following a young person through a tough part of their life and highlight the challenges they face in an endearing way.
The critical classes are even reference as an elective, which to me would just target the students who are interested in learning more about the subject. "At Fieldston, an elective is offered to high school juniors and seniors called “historicizing whiteness.” At Grace Church School, seniors can take a course called “Allying: Why? Who? and How?” The curriculum includes a ’zine called “Accomplices Not Allies” that declares “the work of an accomplice in anti-colonial struggle is to attack colonial structures & ideas,” alongside a photograph of a burning police car. " As extreme as she is purposefully trying to make it, it isn't mandatory.
It just seems like so much thought has gone into the messaging in education and we're still running up against a wall. Ironically the "Two sides to every story" sums up my feelings about this issue. When the common response to "police violence against people of color has gotten out of hand", "gay conversation therapy should be banned", or "we should remove redlining from our zoning ordinances" is met with "well there are two sides to every story" suddenly bigoted ideas are elevated to well reasoned, expert led ideas. "I want to feel valued and seen by my peers" is equivalent to "I don't want to feel guilty".
I think the article uses anecdotes to espouse a number of perspectives spanning both the subject and individual messaging.
Without knowing exactly what educators are learning/implementing with regards to critical race theory, I'd say that if they are telling stories about different perspectives, and managing to make it land as authentic, it absolutely will contribute to changing minds. Not the people in the article of course, but a lot of the kids.
At the very least, as someone brilliantly pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it will prepare them for the sort of world they'll be adults in. Hopefully.
Though I gave a specific example, as requested, what I'm advocating for isn't so easily pinned down.
I couldn't agree more that the "two sides" trope is sometimes maddeningly inapplicable and used anyway. When it's objective reality (climate change) there can't be two sides. When it's simple decency (all humans deserve equal rights) there shouldn't be two sides.
Thanks for your insights, I appreciated the opportunity to explore this stuff.
I appreciate your insights as well! I'll definitely keep it in mind as I talk about these issues in the future.
That's just it, isn't it. If you hammer them, then the other side gets go "See, they're basically the thought police. I thought this was America."
It's unfair and it's exhausting, but at the end of the day, the right wing message of "just keep things as it is" is a LOT easier to sell than "work, change, improve". Change is scary, the best thing we can do for people on the fence is to make that change less scary.
Firstly, this is a perfect distillation of the "conservative oppressed by orange libleft/SJWs" stereotype/strawman, alongside with "actually, progressives are also segregationists/the real racists" and "actually, leftists control the world and we are the anti-establishment counter-cultural underdogs". This could make the frontpage of r/conservative in record time, if it hasn't already, a dozen times. This is the definition of "big brain (definition 4) logic".
But, taking the article as if it were a serious, genuine article and all the testimonials here are genuine, I think the big problem with the people in this article is that they interpret themselves as the ones in the frontlines of this who need to do the most work, when, as children of wealthy people, they're possibly the farthest away from any real trouble (and, unless they have substantial power over a tech company, are also far away from any more power to change this than 'the rest of us'). They're also taking corporations like the "See color" video they linked sincerely and as representative of leftists and leftism, when most of these corporations don't really believe what they're saying and often oppose people who would help. All the same points above apply to these people feeling they're being pressured to embrace anti-capitalism and leftist orthodoxy.
As for the authoritarianism, it's obviously bad and a fault of the colleges, but the thing is that, by virtue of being expensive and targeting the super-ricj, these colleges were given the cultural authority to say what's classy or trashy, is said by successful people, or politically correct by these very people.
I thought so too. Not only that, it's a comparitively lucid presentation. I expect this kind of framing will continue to improve. Perhaps even start to be taken seriously in more circles.
Which is reason for pause.
In the court of public opinion, truth and righteousness often lose to the appearance of truth and righteousness. And lose even more often to blatant appeals to emotion.
Y'all have a lot more patience than I do. After getting a third of the way through the article and only learning that there are some rich people who send their kids to expensive private schools who are uncomfortable with ... something related to race? and/or capitalism? ... I gave up because it didn't seem like the author was ever going to reveal anything or get to the point.
It was the capitalism reveal that ironically kept me reading. After I got done laughing.
I was thinking... capitalism?? These rich kids are being oppressed for being pure capitalists while late stage capitalism rapes the world? The horror!
"Social justice is making it (slightly) harder for me to funnel my kids into the top 1% without them being exposed to other viewpoints."
The irony is too thick to pass up. In the author's defense, she makes some compelling points later on, even if I disagree.
I don't blame you. It feels like the author just kept giving anecdote after anecdote because they're too afraid to draw any real conclusions.
Frankly speaking, conservative parents fundamentally not understanding what is being taught in their kid's primary schools is such a common story that it's practically a trope at this point. Remember how "New Math" was supposed to be rotting kids' brains, and how Common Core was going to turn kids into robots?
Like @post_below said, you've got to see the humor in it. It's like that one comedy sketch with the Nazi asking "are we the baddies?" The fact that it's the children with the lucidity to see this and not the parents is just icing on the comedy cake.
I'm not familiar with the author, or the publication, and didn't do any checking. But I thought this article potentially leads into a variety of interesting conversations. I know I had a range of reactions. I'll resist the urge to share my thoughts on it in advance, so as not to bias anyone's take.
Edit: Thanks for all the perspectives!
It seems like everything depends on how much you trust the reporter, since you can’t independently check anything.
I will rate it as plausible, but that hardly counts for anything since I know nothing about these people or their schools. Many plausible stories turn out to be wrong in the end.
Largely true, but the story is interspersed with actions and events that can be checked, I was already familiar with some of them, though I disagree with the author's interpretations.
We live in interesting times.
One thing I found interesting was the quality of the writing. It's not literature but it's miles above the level I normally I associate with these kinds of viewpoints. And this isn't the first piece that has surprised me that way recently.
It feels like there are a host of culture skirmishes brewing, and it won't be as simple as it has been in terms just two distinct sides.
I hope we can embrace the nuance and keep anger out of it as much as possible. Not a particularly realistic hope, but nevertheless :)