Texas cancels teaching of Civil Rights

read much? wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

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

and here is the version w/o the stripping out of MLK and Susan B. Anthony

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0

Absolutely. Read both and think about what is actually being banned.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Page 3 buddy lol

exactly how dense are you?

Thank you. The Dems keep lying and trying to change the meaning of words to fit their sick agenda.

Absolutely. Read both and think about what is actually being banned.[/quote]

Where on earth did I say anything about MLK being banned? Anyone who says so is either ignorant or flat out lying

I said he was removed.

The clear danger with removing MLK the same time as you are explicitly banning something else that is very closely related to black civil rights and black history is that they will very clearly be linked. The effect will be a great de-emphasizing of MLK in the curriculum at the very time he should be emphasized.

So...your interpretation of the events is that it's just coincidence they removed MLK at the same time they banned the 1619 project? The timing is completely unrelated? That's really what you are trying to to get people to believe? With a straight face? good luck

Sad day in American history, state governments openly embracing regression and ignorance.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

read much? wrote:

and here is the version w/o the stripping out of MLK and Susan B. Anthony

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0

Absolutely. Read both and think about what is actually being banned.

I cannot stress what energeticlotuseater said enough. Take the two minutes and read the actual bill. Do not just take the media’s word on these kinds of things. A lot of the things being said about this bill are flat out lies.

read much? wrote:

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

If you had a brain you could formulate an argument.

gomez wrote:

Thank you. The Dems keep lying and trying to change the meaning of words to fit their sick agenda.

are you calling energeticlotuseater a Dem?

Forgive me if your initial post is unclear. Idk what you are trying to accomplish by posting the old bill. I read the new one though and it’s a big nothing burger. More fake news from racist leftists. Nothing to see here.

Do The Work wrote:

I cannot stress what energeticlotuseater said enough. Take the two minutes and read the actual bill. Do not just take the media’s word on these kinds of things. A lot of the things being said about this bill are flat out lies.

Right.....read both versions and consider why they would remove MLK? (see page 3...that was what they removed)

...ask Yawn_7 if you can't find it, he seems to really familiar with that passage lol

Yawn think that calling people on the Left "racist" magically absolves him and his party of actual racism.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Forgive me if your initial post is unclear. Idk what you are trying to accomplish by posting the old bill. I read the new one though and it’s a big nothing burger. More fake news from racist leftists. Nothing to see here.

Oh, dearie. You're just not very good at spotting forests when there are trees nearby, are you?

He will claim he doesn't see trees because he doesn't see color.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Forgive me if your initial post is unclear. Idk what you are trying to accomplish by posting the old bill. I read the new one though and it’s a big nothing burger. More fake news from racist leftists. Nothing to see here.

lol. unclear? you mean you missed the part I put in : ALL CAPS ?

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:

(link)

You were unable to wrap your brain around that??

So bamboozled, in fact that you felt compelled to post, not once, but TWICE , implying that I was some kind of idiot

lol....amazing

I think what you are tryin' to say is:

"I ain't enough brain to wrap my head around this here conversation but I do have an opinion!"

lol....bow out now before you embarrass yourself even more

you were already annihilated in the Confederate statues thread a few days ago and now you here just getting pummeled...maybe this aint for you...

We'll be a better society on the day we repeal the Civil Rights Act.

krispy kremlin._._._._. wrote:

We'll be a better society on the day we repeal the Civil Rights Act.

Ladies and Gentleman......your 2021 Republican Party!

energeticlotuseater wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

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.

But one of the points of a curriculum is to ensure that certain important aspects of a subject are taught rather than leaving it up to each individual teacher. I lived in Texas for a decade. If you pull some of this stuff out of the curriculum, it won't be taught in many places. Polls of adults in this country show an appalling level of knowledge of history and basic civics. It really does weaken us.

A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;

But it is reasonable to say non-whites suffer from discrimination. And now apparently banned from class because it says we can't articulate someone's standing or worth in society is necessarily determined by the individual's race. *We don't want to be the case* but merely teaching society routinely fails to treat black people equally is included by this.

may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;

Nobody was teaching this, existing laws cover racial and sex discrimination

that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;

Completely vague. Obviously nobody should suffer psychological distress. History isn't always a comfortable. Can I say it was white slave-owners and black slaves or is that going to make someone feel anguish?

A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;

may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality

This is just straight up bizarre. All countries that exist or have existed consider their principals to include liberty and equality.

read much? wrote:

Offended by civil rights? just ...smh

Texas radicals ruining this country. if they don't like the civil rights of this country.....why don't they just leave? ? ?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice/texas-senate-votes-to-remove-required-lessons-on-civil-rights

?

The author of the Bloomberg article is a LIAR. Anyone who quotes the headline without reading the bill is a useful idiot.

I read the bill. There is a section that says what will be included in classroom instruction are "documents that show an appreciation of commitment to free speech and civil discourse including....." and it lists about 20 authors. The individual authors are struck out of the bill (meaning that section is removed from bill). Yes, MLK is one of the authors that is struck out, BUT SO IS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON.

They were actually struck out NOT to limit but to expand the selections.

These authors are evil.

SeattleSilver wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

Jesus, did anyone read the actual bill?

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

But one of the points of a curriculum is to ensure that certain important aspects of a subject are taught rather than leaving it up to each individual teacher. I lived in Texas for a decade. If you pull some of this stuff out of the curriculum, it won't be taught in many places. Polls of adults in this country show an appalling level of knowledge of history and basic civics. It really does weaken us.

I agree to an extent. Ideally I would actually like to widen the history curriculum further to include the Vietnam War, Prohibition, 9/11, The Red Scare, Articles of Confederation ,etc but there is only so much one can teach in a school year so we must pick and choose. Luckily, many high schools have elective or honor courses where you can learn history outside the basics outlined in this bill. You also have just tons of research you can do outside of school with libraries and the internet.

The problem I have with the criticism of this bill is that the critics immediately jumped to “this is racist!” instead of “well maybe we must pick and choose what we teach because we have some very real time limitations”.