Texas cancels teaching of Civil Rights

confounder wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

You can read...

You had a nice post going until the incredibly flawed assumption at the very end.

Slavery was a failure to live up to our fundamental values of liberty and freedom. I still see nothing wrong with the bill and certainly nothing that outlaws the teachings of Civil Rights. In fact in the bill itself it says one of the fundamental documents teachers must teach their students is the Civil Rights Bill of 1964.

This is just pure “fake news” (an overused term that is actually applicable here) in which the powers that be at Bloomberg counted on their readers not actually reading the bill itself but just taking their word for it.

runnerboy70 wrote:

I don't believe left wing Bloomberg News....

yeah but you do believe it's ok to call people kneeling during the anthem N*****s, so maybe you should bow out of the conversation since you've already shown yourself to be a vile racist

Yawn^7 wrote:

Clearly my post went right over your head.

For one thing you clearly don’t understand the new bill.

And nowhere did I support them removing civil rights from the required curriculum. I just pointed out how the dems hate MLK but then try and use him as a lightning rod when it helps them.

MLK is needed more now then ever. But idiots on the left want to throw around identity politics instead. I think it is you who needs to open their eyes.

The Republicans removed "I Have a Dream" from the curriculum. Did that fact somehow escape you?

read much? wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

Clearly my post went right over your head.

For one thing you clearly don’t understand the new bill.

And nowhere did I support them removing civil rights from the required curriculum. I just pointed out how the dems hate MLK but then try and use him as a lightning rod when it helps them.

MLK is needed more now then ever. But idiots on the left want to throw around identity politics instead. I think it is you who needs to open their eyes.

The Republicans removed "I Have a Dream" from the curriculum. Did that fact somehow escape you?

False.

Not removed, it’s just not mandated by the state. “I Have A Dream” can absolutely still be taught totally legally if a teacher wishes to do so.

The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is required material however.

lower than a snake's belly wrote:

They are blocking the teaching of racist theories. That is complete opposite of the headline.

What about blocking teaching that the Klu Klux Klan was bad? What is controversial about telling the truth about law-breakers who sough to roll back the end of slavery?

SeattleSilver wrote:

lower than a snake's belly wrote:

They are blocking the teaching of racist theories. That is complete opposite of the headline.

What about blocking teaching that the Klu Klux Klan was bad? What is controversial about telling the truth about law-breakers who sough to roll back the end of slavery?

Jesus, did anyone read the actual bill?

You can still teach about the KKK and how it was bad.

read much? wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

Clearly my post went right over your head.

For one thing you clearly don’t understand the new bill.

And nowhere did I support them removing civil rights from the required curriculum. I just pointed out how the dems hate MLK but then try and use him as a lightning rod when it helps them.

MLK is needed more now then ever. But idiots on the left want to throw around identity politics instead. I think it is you who needs to open their eyes.

The Republicans removed "I Have a Dream" from the curriculum. Did that fact somehow escape you?

I posted the link to the bill. Did you read it? It did not remove "I have a Dream" from the curriculum. It defined certain things that must be in the curriculum and then left it up to individual school districts to fill out the rest of the curriculum as they see fit. This seems very reasonable. You must teach certain things in civics such as the Constitution and the Civil Rights acts but leave other things up to local governments to select what is best for themselves. Do you want a top-down forcing of what must be taught from above by elected officials who are largely morons or some opportunity for individuals to decide for themselves. I have a very hard time believing there will be lots of school districts that will not teach "I have a Dream".

There is nothing preventing a school district from teaching anything about Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, or any other historic civil rights leaders.

The Texas Republicans could have mandated teaching everything Bloomberg and the posters on this board are complaining are not included in this bill and it would not have been enough. They would have just picked some other person or event and claimed the Texas Republicans were blocking the teaching of that.

Did you read the Bill? wrote:

Because I am always skeptical of the leftist media I decided to actually read the bill. Here it is for anyone who is curious about what it actually says, not a long read.

To debunk some of the falsehoods being perpetuated. It does not take MLK or Susan B Anthony out of the curriculum.

It specifically requires certain things to be included; declaration of Independence, Constitution, Civil Rights act, etc. All very important things that should not be controversial, but also states the curriculum for civics is not limited to those things specifically listed.

Yes, it does ban the 1619 project which is an unfactual opinion piece that has no place in schools. As well as banning teaching that anyone is superior or inferior based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. If you just read the media's take on these things you get a completely false narrative of what is included, at times based on misdirection, at others total lies.

Wrong.

They specifically removed MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech" from the curriculum in that draft of the bill.

You scanned the document looking for MLK and didn't see anything and then patted yourself on the back. Well......it WAS in there, then they removed it. That's the entire point.

Curriculum WITH with MLK's I Have a Dream

They also removed women's suffrage from the curriculum among other things.

If you don't understand the clear message being sent, then I question your education.

On one hand you have people saying "they didn't 'ban' these things" but they implicitly have. They explicitly ban something as nebulous and ill-defined as CRT to serve as an open umbrella, then in turn remove MLK's speech from the curriculum. Clearly a case of 'here's an example of something we don't want taught'.

How can you justify the removal of "I Have a Dream, especially" in these circumstances? I really would like to hear your defense of this removal. This surely would have been the time to double down and explicitly express support for MLK's teachings, to reassure people that MLK wasn't their target.

But he is.

Could it be any more clear what message they are intentionally sending here?

Wrong.

They specifically removed MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech" from the curriculum in that draft of the bill.

You scanned the document looking for MLK and didn't see anything and then patted yourself on the back. Well......it WAS in there, then they removed it. That's the entire point.

Curriculum WITH with MLK's I Have a Dream

They also removed women's suffrage from the curriculum among other things.

If you don't understand the clear message being sent, then I question your education.

On one hand you have people saying "they didn't 'ban' these things" but they implicitly have. They explicitly ban something as nebulous and ill-defined as CRT to serve as an open umbrella, then in turn remove MLK's speech from the curriculum. Clearly a case of 'here's an example of something we don't want taught'.

How can you justify the removal of "I Have a Dream, especially" in these circumstances? I really would like to hear your defense of this removal. This surely would have been the time to double down and explicitly express support for MLK's teachings, to reassure people that MLK wasn't their target.

But he is.

Could it be any more clear what message they are intentionally sending here?

(reposting with fixed formatting...thanks 1997 for LRC's clunky uneditable board)

Lol you are just too funny. Look on page 3 of the document you posted.

Imagine being so wrong and so adamant about your stance at the same time.

Again.

“I Have A Dream” speech is not banned. A school district or even an individual teacher can teach all about MLK or Susan B. Anthony.

Anyone who claims that this bill bans the teaching of the civil rights movement is ignorant or flat out lying.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

Everything I read in the bill seeks very reasonable. You can read the entire piece of legislation below.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB3/id/2425091

and you can read the version w/o MLK and Susan B Anthony stripped out of it to appease the racists and sexists here:

Page 3 buddy lol

You are talking to a wall at this point. An ignorant, racist, divisive wall

As noted taking out of the curriculum and out of the bill are not the same thing. They are just not mandating it be taught. There is no message here other than what you are trying to project.

They selected a very limited group of items that must be taught, which includes the documents of our nation's founding, and the civil rights acts then leave the balance of the curriculum up to the district. The idea that MLK is not going to be taught in nearly every school in Texas is flat-out absurd. There will definitely be a significant emphasis on MLK in the portion of the curriculum that the district decides on. To pretend this is not going to be the reality is intellectually dishonest.

If you read the bill it is 100% clear the target is CRT, the 1619 project, and the whole trans/gender identity craziness from the left.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Lol you are just too funny. Look on page 3 of the document you posted.

Imagine being so wrong and so adamant about your stance at the same time.

lol...just wow......you should be embarrassed. read much?

As I clearly stated.....that was the document showing the curriculum BEFORE they removed MLK.....to illustrate the part about MLK that was removed.

lol..self-own much?

I’ll leave everyone with this. Don’t take my word on what the bill says and don’t take anyone else’s word. Read the actual bill. It’s not very long and will take five minutes of your time.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB3/id/2425091

It was removed.

Anyone who doesn't see the impact or intention of this has never taught a day in their life.

This bill says you don't have to teach "I Have a Dream", but you cannot teach CRT.

And what happens when the principal, or superintendent, or school board, decides that the "I Have a Dream" speech is part of CRT? Because "CRT" is so nebulously defined that anything can be fit into it.