Category Archives: Political Correctness

opinion

Howard Simon| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to sign House Bill 233, abill that requires the State Board of Education and each of Floridas colleges and universities to conduct an annual assessment related to intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity.

According to the bill, the Board of Education must select or create an objective, nonpartisan and statistically valid survey to measure the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and whether students, faculty and staff feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom. Under the bill, the first survey mustbe published on Sept.1, 2022.

This all sounds benign; it even sounds protective of the free exchange of ideas on campus.Butis it a predicate to an assault on higher education?Does the legislation address a genuine problem?Or does it merely vent a judgment by some far-right conservatives that college liberal arts courses are all driven by woke" political correctness?

The claim that a liberal arts education is valueless and unconnected to postgraduate education or to a meaningful postgraduate career is obviously absurd. And the claim that a liberal arts education is just woke" political correctnessis insulting to the nations professors. (Full disclosure: for nearlynine yearsI taught philosophy to undergraduates at two universities in the Midwest.)

More: EDITORIAL: Sen. Baxleys Bright Futures bill deserves a dim future

Apparentlysome conservatives have concluded that Americas universities are dominated by professors whose political leanings are liberaland thereforeprovide an intellectually biased education. But are colleges and universities really able to block competing ideas and perspectives on campus?

There is, after all, the First Amendment. Recall that just a few years ago University of Florida lawyers fearing a lawsuit accusing UFof violating the First Amendments constitutional protections convinced the school's presidentto reverse an initial decision denying alt-right firebrand Richard Spencer, the leader of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, the right to speak on campus.

Unfortunately, House Bill 233 will not be the first piece of legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature that is based on unexamined anecdotes that someone heard about. It's funny how unexamined anecdotes are regarded as impermissible hearsay in courts that operate by rules of evidence for determining violations of law yet it isstandard fare for theFloridaLegislature to rely on them when creating and adopting laws.

The Legislature now wants to dump this into the laps of the Board of Education and Floridas colleges and universitiesand force them spend time figuring out how to implement what seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

But lets presume, for the sake of argument, that theres something to the stereotype that college students and university faculty members are more liberal than conservative in their values and political viewpoints. If the mandatory survey assessing viewpoint diversity confirms this, how willthe information that the state government collects be used going forward? And lets not be nave: information collected by government is information that will be used by government.

Will the assessment of viewpoint diversity involve an assessment of each member of the faculty? Will they be asked to characterize or divulge their personal political orientation? What if they refuse? Will students or the administration provide the characterization of the faculty members political leanings?Does anything seem more un-American? To paraphrase the legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel's question regardinghis pitiful 1962 New York Mets team, Dont anyone around here remember the McCarthy years of the 1950s?

Could the survey be the basis for future hiring decisions? For example, let's say that a university's chemistry department has seven professors who are conservative and four who are liberal. Will that mean that the university must hire more liberal professorsin order to achieve properviewpoint diversity on its campus? Who knows? House Bill 233contains no prohibitions on how the information willbe used.

Given that there is so much potential mischief in House Bill 233 and so little protection for academic freedom it certainly wouldn't take long for Florida's lawmakers and university communities to regret yet another legislative mistake.

A resident of Sanibel Island, Howard Simon served as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1997 to2018.

The rest is here:

'Viewpoint' bill is an assault on Florida higher ed - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Howard L. Simon| Florida Times-Union

Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to sign HB 233. The bill requires the State Board of Education and each of Floridas colleges and universities to conduct an annual assessment related to intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity.

The Board of Education must select or create an objective, non-partisan and statistically valid survey to measure the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and whether students, faculty and staff feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.

The first survey shall be published on Sept.1, 2022.

This all sounds benign, even protective of the free exchange of ideas on campus or is it a predicate to an assault on higher education?

Does the legislation address a genuine problem? Or does it vent a judgment by some far-right conservatives that college liberal arts courses are all woke political correctness?

The claim that a liberal arts education is valueless and unconnected to post-graduate education and a career is obviously absurd; that it is just woke political correctness is insulting to the nations professors. (Full disclosure: for almost nine years, I taught philosophy to undergraduates at two mid-western universities.)

Apparently, some conservatives have concluded that Americas universities are dominated by professors whose political leanings are liberal and, therefore, provide an intellectually biased education.

Are colleges and universities really able to block competing ideas and perspectives on campus? There is, after all, the First Amendment. Recall that just a few years ago, fearing a lawsuit accusing the University of Florida of violating the First Amendments constitutional protections, University lawyers convinced the President that he had to reverse an initial decision denying alt-right firebrand Richard Spencer, leader of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, the right to speak on campus.

This will not be the first piece of legislation adopted by the Legislature that is based on an unexamined anecdote that someone heard about. Funny how an unexamined anecdote is regarded as impermissible hearsay in courts that operate by rules of evidence for determining violations of law, but is standard fare in Floridas Legislature for adopting those laws.

The Legislature has dumped this in the lap of the Board of Education and Floridas colleges and universities. They will have to spend time figuring out how to implement what seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

But lets presume, for the sake of argument, that theres something to the stereotype that college students and university faculty are more liberal than conservative in their values and political viewpoint. If the mandatory survey assessing viewpoint diversity confirms this, how will the information state government collects be used going forward? And lets not be nave: information collected by government is information that will be used by government.

Will the assessment of viewpoint diversity involve an assessment of each member of the faculty. Will they be asked to characterize or divulge their personal political orientation? What if they refuse? Will students or the administration provide the characterization of the faculty members political leanings? Does anything seem more un-American? To paraphrase Casey Stengel about his pitiful 1962 New York Mets, Dont anyone around here remember the McCarthy years of the 1950s?

Could the survey be the basis for future hiring decisions? The Chemistry Department has seven conservatives and four liberals, so in order to achieve more viewpoint diversity on campus the next few hires should be liberals? Is that where this is going? Who knowsthe legislation contains no prohibitions on how the information will be used.

There is so much potential mischief and so little protection for academic freedom in this legislation, it certainly will not be long before state government and university communities regret yet another legislative mistake.

Howard Simon served as Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida from 1997 2018.

Go here to read the rest:

Guest column: Targeting Floridas colleges and universities - The Florida Times-Union

Its a strange time for the relationship between Republicans and big business.

Important figures in a party that usually toes the pro-business line are instead throwing jabs at the corporate world. The critics include several potential 2024 presidential contenders.

Their barbs will not be well-received in boardrooms or the Chamber of Commerce. Democrats will roll their eyes and allege opportunism. But an anti-elite GOP base that grew even more populist during former President TrumpDonald TrumpHow the United States can pass Civics 101 Elon Musk asks Twitter for skit ideas ahead of 'Saturday Night Live' appearance States now flush with cash after depths of pandemic MOREs time in the White House could reward the pugnacious tone.

Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzGOP wrestles with role of culture wars in party's future Maher on Biden's trillion plans: 'Thank God we got Mexico to pay for that wall' Overnight Defense: Gillibrand makes new push for military sexual assault reform | US troops begin leaving Afghanistan | Biden budget delay pushes back annual defense policy bill MORE (R-Texas), in a phone interview for this column, ramped up his rhetoric, lambasting major corporations for what he sees as a leftward drift in executive suites.

If you look at the CEOs of the Fortune 100, there are very, very few who you could even plausibly characterize as right of center, Cruz told The Hill. They are almost uniformly Democrat. And they have made the decision to enlist their companies in the political agenda of todays Democratic Party, which is controlled right now by the radical left.

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioWill DeSantis, Rubio and Scott torch each other to vault from Florida to the White House? Senate Intel vows to 'get to the bottom' of 'Havana syndrome' attacks Bipartisan Senate group calls for Biden to impose more sanctions on Myanmar junta MORE (R-Fla.) who, like Cruz, ran for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination said in an email: For the past several years, I have been making the case that far too many American companies were prioritizing short-term financial windfalls at the expense of Americas families, communities and national security. More and more people are coming around to that viewpoint, both in the Republican Party and around the country.

Rubio had previously argued, in an April 25 New York Post op-ed, that it was time for a rebuilding and rebalancing of the relationship between corporations and the national interest.

The comments underline how Republicans, and conservatives generally, are grappling with unusual dynamics eddying back and forth between the white working-class element of their support and wealthy, corporate America.

For a start, the dominant figure in the GOP is still a billionaire former president who has portrayed himself as a champion of working Americans since he launched his first campaign from his golden Manhattan skyscraper.

Meanwhile, much of the electorate is deeply distrustful of elites across the board. The pandemic's financial effects, as well as longer-term problems of economic insecurity and wage stagnation, afflict GOP voters as much as their Democratic counterparts. And corporations increasingly weigh in on fractious social issues as well.

Cruzs comments to The Hill were building upon a critique he had laid out in a prior Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Condemning the corporate reaction to the voting law recently passed in Georgia, Cruz wrote that he would no longer take donations from any corporate political action committee.

Liberals argue the Georgia law is de facto voter suppression. Conservatives vehemently disagree and bridle about the fierce corporate backlash, which they see as symptomatic of a larger problem. To their eyes, corporate America is submitting to the same liberal mores that they believe dominate popular culture, Hollywood and much of the media.

I will commend the left. They play this game deadly seriously, Cruz said. About a decade ago they realized there is enormous power in big business and that if they could weaponize corporate America, it would be a powerful tool for enforcing their agenda. And we are seeing that more and more and more.

The Texas senator told The Hill that there were no caveats to his declining corporate PAC donations.

I dont intend to take even a single penny from them, he said. Asked whether he hoped his party colleagues would follow suit, he replied, I did in the op-ed. I encouraged other Republicans to do the same.

Rubio, asked by reporters at the Capitol if he would follow Cruzs lead on corporate PAC money, declined. If they want to support us, that's great. I don't think anyone's contribution guarantees I'm supportive of them, he said.

Still, the chorus of criticism of business is growing.

In addition to the charges from Cruz and Rubio, Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyGOP wrestles with role of culture wars in party's future Washingtonkeeps close eyeas Apple antitrust fight goes to court TikTok names new CEO MORE (R-Mo.) is pushing legislation that he says would break up the big tech companies and impose tough new penalties on companies that violate anti-trust laws.

There are at least three tectonic plates moving beneath the surface of the GOPs internal debate.

One is the nature of the changes wrought by Trump; a second is the nations ongoing culture war; and a third is the possibility of a significant political realignment.

Trumps populism encompassed protectionism on trade, Twitter attacks on corporate figures who displeased him, and an often-expressed view that working Americans had been screwed over by rich elites.

Cruz, in the phone interview, contended that Democrats exhibit awealthy, arrogant condescension to working men and women [that] is palpable. And in many ways, Donald Trumps election was the direct outgrowth of working men and women saying, Enough is enough. Even Trumps at-times overheated rhetoric is a direct manifestation of just how fed up so many Americans are with Washington trying to destroy their livelihoods.

As for the culture war, issues like wokeness and cancel culture are becoming todays equivalents of political correctness and family values words whose very meaning is debated, but that also serve as signposts to deeper fault-lines in American society.

Seeking to explain why there is intensifying friction between conservatives and big business, Rubio said: Part of that is because these corporations, their CEOs and their boards seem eager to weigh in on behalf of every woke, left-wing social priority.

The Florida senator added, The other part is that people understand that many of these companies are more interested in gaining access to Chinas consumers than being part of thriving American communities.

Beyond all that, the GOP could reap rich electoral dividends if it were to boost its working-class support, especially if it could do so across racial and ethnic lines.

On election night last year, Hawley tweeted: We are a working-class party now. Thats the future.

Rubio soon afterward told Axios: The future of the party is based on a multiethnic, multiracial working-class coalition.

Cruz in Fridays interview contended that the future of the Republican Party is fighting for the working man and woman.

Acknowledging that the rising populist movement on the right was a more recent phenomenon, Cruz added: I think the most important political change of the last decade has been a socio-economic inversion. Historically the caricature, at least, was that Republicans were the party of the rich and Democrats were the party of the poor. I believe that is precisely opposite to where we are today. Democrats today are the party of rich coastal elites and Republicans are the party of blue-collar workers.

Democrats are scornful of such notions.

They accuse Republicans of simply putting a populist sheen on corporatist policies and opposing moves that would improve the lives of working Americans.

When President BidenJoe BidenFires, smoke, floods, droughts, storms, heat: America needs a climate resilience strategy Sen. Susan Collins pushes back 28 percent corporate tax rate, saying jobs would be lost Biden economic adviser frames infrastructure plan as necessary investment MORE and the Democrats passed their COVID-19 relief bill in March a measure that included $1,400 checks for millions of Americans they got zero Republican votes.

Even the purported GOP populists such as Cruz, Rubio and Hawley supported Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which benefittedcorporations and the wealthy though Rubio expressed misgivings about the legislation's drastic reduction of the corporate tax rate. Cruz and Rubio have opposed minimum wageincreases, though Hawley in February pushed to mandate a $15 an hour figurefor companies with annual revenues of $1 billion or more.

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who served as campaign manager for Howard Deans 2004 presidential campaign, snorted derisively when asked about the supposed populist shift in the GOP.

Wait a minute do they still support all those tax cuts? Trippi said. They opposed the $1,400 checks for relief for people. They voted for big corporate tax cuts. And they dont like Biden raising taxes on people who earn over a million dollars. Good luck with that!

Exit polls from recent elections suggest there may be some shifting around of demographic trends concerning income, education and social class. But a true sea-change may still be a distance away.

Trump, in both 2020 and 2016, did a bit better with voters earning less than $50,000 per year than his two Republican predecessors had done.

In 2020, Trump won 44 percent of that lower-income demographic, whereas Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRomney booed during speech to Utah GOP convention Trump drama divides GOP, muddling message Moderate Republicans leery of Biden's renewed call for unity MORE and the late John McCainJohn Sidney McCainSunday shows preview: Biden hits the road to promote infrastructure proposals; US begins withdrawal from Afghanistan Mark Kelly: I didn't hear plan for border in Biden speech Cindy McCain talks about Hunter Biden, sacrifices and Meghan in new interview MORE had each scored just 38 percent in 2012 and 2008 respectively.

Trump did significantly better with non-college graduates than with college graduates in both his presidential contests. In November, Trump prevailed by two points among non-college graduates but lost college graduates to Biden by 12 points.

There are clearly opportunities and dangers for Republicans in those figures.

But Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, said the kind of epochal shifts seen in the 1930s, when President Franklin Roosevelt enacted the New Deal, or in the 1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson pushed for The Great Society, were not apparent yet.

Political scientists and pundits have been looking for a fundamental realignment now for 50 years. I dont know what the Mark Twain phrase would be rumors of a realignment can be greatly exaggerated? Reeher said.

Despite the common narrative that Democrats had been abandoned by the working class, the data doesnt actually support that, Reeher asserted. Trump is able to peel off some of those people by redirecting the anger and frustration they feel. But that is different from saying he has realigned the parties. You are looking at significant but marginal changes.

The political stakes in all of this are huge. And Republicans may be trying to thread too fine a needle in their efforts to be both champions of free enterprise and critics of corporate overreach.

But the rhetoric keeps heating up, inflamed by culture-war moments like the recent decision of Major League Baseball to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta in protest at the Georgia voting law.

Those kinds of moves. according to Cruz, put a lot of Americans in a frustrating place. Look, I dont want to boycott baseball. I like watching the Astros. So I am just pissed off that giant companies that should be focused on providing goods or servicesare instead playing politics.

Woke politics trumps doing their jobs, Cruz added.

The Memo is a reported column byNiallStanage

View original post here:

Exclusive Cruz, Rubio ramp up criticisms of big business | TheHill - The Hill

The term cancel culture, like political correctness before it, is a comical expression for an ugly cultural pathology. To be canceledan older, closely related term is blacklistedis to have your public persona or influence assailed, typically by a sizable mob, for some real or perceived offense against progressive orthodoxy, whatever that orthodoxy may hold at the moment. For that to happen, you must possess some form of authority in the first place: an academic post, a political office, a role in the entertainment industry, employment with a mainstream media organization, a voice as an intellectual or imaginative writer.

But the targets of cancellation, having derived their legitimacy from consensus left-liberal culture, are typically not very good at defending themselves, or even understanding what happened to them. Often they apologize, despite having said or done nothing wrong, which only emboldens the cancelers. Or they fall back on pieties about free speech and the marketplace of ideas, as if their tormentors still believed in those principles.

One target of cancellation who is able to speak intelligently about it is Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto clinical psychologist, YouTube lecturer, and author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018) and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, published in March.

If youre an ordinary curious person, Mr. Peterson wont strike you as a likely target for moral outrage. He brings together a dizzying array of texts and traditionsJungian psychoanalysis, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, Frederick Nietzsche, Sren Kierkegaard and much elseto formulate basic lessons, or rules, about how humans might overcome their natural tendency to lassitude and savagery. His books, podcasts and lectures are impressively argued, frequently insightful and occasionally abrasive presentations of various principles of wise living.

I dont share some of Mr. Petersons philosophical premises and find in his work points of disagreement, but there is much to appreciate and nothing sinister in them. Twenty years ago very few people would have considered him the intellectual subversive and moral monster many now claim him to be. A few rules from his latest book: Do not do what you hate, Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens, Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible.

See original here:

The Man They Couldnt Cancel - The Wall Street Journal

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

We are frequently asked to go to nonsensical lengths nowadays so as not to offend others with the words we use in everyday conversation and in our writing. New words and phrases are added to our vocabulary almost everyday to reflect a more politically correct (PC) attitude. And occasionally (but not always) these changes are for the better.

For example, to acknowledge both men and women in their ranks, firemen and policemen are now more properly known as firefighters and police officers. But all too often modifications made in the name of political correctness do nothing but suck the very life out of our precious language. Many of the new PC expressions are awkward euphemisms for the more precise words and phrases they have replaced, thereby marginalizing those words.

For example, the word bum has been replaced by the term, homeless person. God forbid we refer to someone as a bum implying that person is a freeloader, a deadbeat, or too lazy to work for a living. But calling him a homeless person removes that stigma while suggesting he would be just like one of us if only social services would give him a house. Come to think of it homelessness might also be referred to as mortgage-free living.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Meanwhile, it seems the word fairy has been deemed too homophobic. Fortunately, the ever-imaginative language police hit upon the much more acceptable phrase petite airborne humanoid which possesses magical powers while further recommending the word fairy be avoided when referring to these mythical beings no matter how gay they may appear.

Accordingly, the word fat might soon be replaced with the phrase enlarged physical condition caused by a completely natural, genetically-induced hormone imbalance. This is not only difficult to say it is almost impossible to remember. So its quite likely most people will not use it at all. It seems the problem with the term fat is that it is all altogether too explicit, to wit, pinpointing the reason that an obese persons skin appears so swollen is due to a buildup of large amounts of, well, fat.

A secretary is now called an Administrative Assistant. Its interesting to note that the word secretary comes from the Latin, secretarius, meaning confidential officer which for some mysterious reason is now considered a disparaging designation. A swamp is now known as a wetland. Swamps, you see, are full of horrible things like alligators, insects and all sorts of disease. Lets face it; if various environmental groups went around urging people to Save The Swamps we would think they were bonkers. Come to think of it, this might be the very reason the designation rainforest has replaced the word jungle.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Another thing: we dont argue any more, we share feelings. The term deferred success has replaced the word failure. A sex-change is now defined as gender re-assignment. The expression food insecurity has replaced the word hunger. If something is false it is now seemingly not entirely correct and if you are dead you are metabolically different.

Needless to say, our ability to communicate clearly is eroding with many of these ambiguous politically correct phrases. Our conversations today frequently call for a meticulous selection of neutral nouns, peaceful pronouns, and accommodating adjectives. I believe this approach is all too often misguided. To which the language-police might reply, Its not misguided, Terry. Its simply differently logical.

God help us.

Terry serves up a little food-for-thought each and every week and welcomes your comments:countrysunshine@xplornet.ca

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See more here:

Twists and turns on the road to enlightenment - The Kingston Whig-Standard

How unsurprising to learn that the assistant minister to the attorney general, Amanda Stoker, raised objections to the Australian Human Rights Commissions Racism, It Stops With Me campaign because it mentions anti-racism, which the senator said is associated with critical race theory (CRT). Stokers intervention, which led to the tender for the campaign being temporarily pulled, signals the Australian rights agenda to join the war on CRT.

While this latest battle in the culture wars might appear to be about academic freedom witness for example the French states attack on academic research on race as flouting the values of the Republic the ultimate aim of the anti-CRT warriors is to destroy the anti-racist movement. It was following the unprecedented enormity of the Black Lives Matter protests around the world in 2020 that the right redoubled its attempts to discredit its demands for justice for Black people by writing them off as the musings of an out-of-touch postmodernist academic elite.

As with the moral panics of the 1990s, which conjured up the strawman of political correctness gone mad and, in Australia, the Black Armband view of history, todays folk devil critical race theory is touted as irrational and dangerous. The core of the rights misrepresentation of CRT is that it preaches hatred of white people to impressionable young people in schools. CRT, it is claimed, contributes to further dividing an already incohesive society, splintered by too many years of misguided multicultural policies which were foisted upon well-meaning publics by minorities determined to live segregated lives. As one of the founders of CRT, Professor Cheryl Harris put it, the aim to discredit and ban CRT, is a ploy intended to gin up the idea that anti-racist work is itself racist against whites.

Of course, these myths cover up the truth, that Australia continues to be dominated by white elites, that systemic racism as manifested both in the out of control incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their deaths at the hands of the state, as well as the everyday discrimination experienced by racialised people across all domains of life, is rife. The attacks on CRT are in lockstep with a white nationalism determined to hold on to power. By representing CRT not only as anti-white but also as encouraging racial separatism, the right cleverly positions itself as the real opponent of racism, determined to give everyone an equal chance in a meritocracy rather than giving racialised people what are painted as demeaning hand-outs.

We can see how this way of presenting things seems like commonsense in a liberal society where, despite all evidence to the contrary, the dominant belief is that, as Scott Morrison put it, if you have a go, you get a go. However, you dont have to look very far in Australia as elsewhere, especially during Covid, to see that the fair go while certainly a nice idea, would be nicer if true.

What is referred to as CRT has little to do with the scholarship actually done in its name. Critical race can be thought of as a toolbox of ideas rather than the rigid ideology that the right portrays it as. Originally developed by mainly African American legal scholars to draw attention to the fact that the law was not colourblind, CRT demonstrates that racism is not a matter of individual attitudes but of systemic arrangements. As Harris puts it, it is baked into the current political, economic, and social system so that racial subordination is reproduced through normal operations, often without regard to intent.

CRT negates the notion of race as a natural biological phenomenon. Rather it is produced and imposed on groups of people who are designated as races. We call this racialisation. Race is best understood as a set of processes and projects of rule. In Australia, race is a key technology of colonialism that justifies the elimination and exploitation of Indigenous people and lands for the benefit European domination.

The attacks on CRT and the argument that it returns us to an earlier era of racial division are part of the refusal to accept the ongoing reality of racist stratification and to insist that any attempt to theorise and teach the facts is to play the race card.

Far from this being the case, it is in fact the opponents of CRT who prefer to keep racial arrangements as they are and to thwart progress on racism which requires a dual approach of systemic change and increased literacy in the history and sociology of race that CRT enables.

Rightwing attacks on CRT, much like the moral panics about the teaching of gender which Stoker also provokes, hold that CRT has become the orthodoxy in the leftwing hegemony of their overactive imagination. In fact, CRT is far from being widely taught at universities in Australia, never mind schools. To start inching towards greater justice in a society founded on racial colonialism, we need more, not less critical thinking about race.

Alana Lentin is Associate Professor of cultural and social analysis at Western Sydney University. She is a Jewish woman who is a settler on Gadigal land. Her latest book is Why Race Still Matters (Polity 2020)

Debbie Bargallie is a postdoctoral senior research fellow with the Griffith Institute for Educational Research at Griffith University. Debbie is a descendent of the Kamilaroi and Wonnarua peoples of New South Wales. Her new book is titled Unmasking the Racial Contract: Indigenous voices on racism in the Australian Public Service (Aboriginal Studies Press 2020)

More here:

We need more, not less, critical thinking about race in Australia - The Guardian

To the critics, its political correctness and self-absorption gone absolutely haywire. To the advocates, its a committed effort toward a more inclusive society that respects the individuality of each person and their right to determine who they are.

There are a few layers to it, says Sonya Epstein, a member of the University of Massachusetts Class of 2022 and an advocate of gender pronouns, which have gained widespread popularity on college campuses in particular.

Gender identity has often been based on appearance or name, explains Epstein. Gender as a whole has been a social construct (shared perceptions that exist only because people in a group or society accept they do). But not all of us conform to that.

The more one delves into it, the more the issue of social pronouns becomes less about a trendy college thing, and the more it challenges some of Western societys most fundamental concepts. To the majority, there are men and there are women and yes, for the progressive among us, there are variations that not just explain but validate the LGBTQ movement.

At the 2019 Iowa State Fair, a student asked then-presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. how many genders existed. At least three, Biden responded. Provoked by the follow-up question of What are they? he snapped, Dont play games with me, kid.

Bidens first answer produced applause from some, and mockery or horror from others. To many in the progressive movement, though, it represented the elusive nature of defining gender - which is why many want the right to choose their own definition of who they are.

Enter gender pronouns. They have been around for a few years, even if they remain unknown to vast numbers of Americans who are either over 25 or unaffiliated with high school or college life.

For the unfamiliar, it goes like this: Im Janet Smith, and my pronouns are she and her (or whatever choices, possibly including they or them, the individual prefers).

I have to admit that until fairly recently, I would have considered the entire concept rather pointless. Even now, including gender pronouns in personal introductions strikes me as ... well, if nothing else, odd to the ear.

When someone says, Im Tom, and my pronouns are he and him, my instinct is to respond that I could have figured as much. But young people see society differently than my generation does. And frankly, after watching our societys corrupt descent into the intensified, unrestrained spewing of anger, resentment, bigotry and hate over the past several years - Im willing to listen.

I came out as non-binary four years ago, as a junior (at Belmont High School), says Epstein, who has been involved with UMass student government and other activism. It needs to be pushed, no matter how much pushback there is. When I first started, some awful comments were said at me.

In the past year, Epsteins sensed a greater willingness by the university administration to accept gender pronouns. That doesnt mean theyre all entirely comfortable with it, let alone be willing to use their own.

This issue relates directly to transgender individuals, but pronoun practice extends far beyond them. My own brief experience is that women find it more meaningful than men, but I have no data to support that and my daughter, who is in college, says many young men follow its practice, too.

So why, as long as acceptance is extended to those who use pronouns, should it matter to the advocates if other people - in fact, I think, most people - do not?

If everybody does it, then no one is singled out, Epstein said. Thats one of two major arguments for pronoun use, to avoid socially isolating (and often ostracizing) those who do not identify with traditional male-female characterizations.

The other reason is advocates conviction that every individual has the right to be viewed as they view and identify themselves, and not by judgments or stereotypes dictated by others.

Perhaps youve noticed that I keep referring to Epstein as Epstein. Here is current Associated Press style guidance on the use of gender pronouns in news stories:

In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her, use the persons name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun.

Epsteins choice to describe, well, Epstein, is they and them. I know what many of you are thinking: those are plural pronouns.

Thats what I always thought, too, but the dictionary says their use in certain singular references is proper. Dictionaries change, and so do other policies. Last year, for instance, the AP formally altered its racial designation from black to Black.

Colleges are taking pronouns seriously - very seriously. Springfield College is not requiring faculty members to use gender pronouns, but is encouraging they do.

Springfield College has an entire web page dedicated to the subject, with guidelines ranging from What if I mistakenly use the wrong pronouns for someone?, to Pronouns dos and donts.

At least one website, MyPronouns.org, is dedicated to the topic. It says, when we refer to personal pronouns ... we mean that they are pronouns referring to a unique and individual person.

Sometimes, of course, pronouns can answer questions before they need to be asked, as with unisex names. When youre called upon to speak with Sam, Bailey, Dana or Jamie, youre left to wonder - or to guess. Thats part of this, but its not what is driving a movement where a generational divide looks inevitable.

Why do we have to go along with this? a fellow Baby Boomer asked me.

Why not? I responded. It hurts no one. It gives identity to people who want respect and ownership of their own identity. I dont usually embrace change, either, but if the only case against it that its never been that way before, thats not good enough as a stand-alone argument to me.

That said, I dont intend to ever do it, and I hope the Sonya Epsteins of the world understand. Whether others do or dont, it doesnt offend or bother me. It doesnt cause to me to lament where America has gone wrong.

In a nation whose strength is its diversity, we havent exactly been treating each other with respect, decency and kindness through time-honored techniques lately. Maybe this will help.

Ron Chimelis is a staff writer for The Republican. He may be reached by email to rchimelis@repub.com.

View post:

Young Americans have reason to think gender pronouns matter: Viewpoint - masslive.com

Black Lives Matter's history from Trayvon Martin to George Floyd

From Trayvon Martin to George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement continues to highlight Black lives lost to police and racial injustice.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

The Oklahoma House on Thursday passed legislation to prohibit public schools and universities from teaching critical race theory, which examines the way race and racism touchaspects of American history, politics and culture.

The bill, which passed 70-19after hours of discussion and debate, now heads to Gov. Kevin Stitt's desk.

House Bill 1775would prohibitthe teaching of a laundry list of topics, including that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, and that an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive.

The debate among lawmakers stirredfar-reaching arguments about racism, history and societal inequalities.

When a Republican legislator compared the social movement Black Lives Matter to a terrorist organization, a Black lawmaker from across the aisle loudly booed. Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, also calledthe Ku Klux Klan a terrorist group.

Other legislation: Stitt signs bill to ban abortion if SCOTUS rules

The bill by Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, and Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, is similar to legislation being proposed in a handful of other GOP-led legislatures across the country.

The trendcomes as the United States is grapplingwith its complicatedracial history amid widespread calls for racial justice andgreater recognition ofdeep-seated racial inequalities.

Nationwide, there's also growing conservative criticism of political correctness and "cancel culture,"in which public officials or groups are shamed for supporting someideas.

West called HB 1775 an anti-discrimination measure to keep schools from teaching racial stereotypes.

Make no mistake about it, hesaid. Were in a fight for the future of our children and our grandchildren. The theories and tenets of critical race theory, that curriculum … that goes against everything this nation was founded on and everything that we, as a nation, have fought so hard to keep.

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has no color, has no sex.

Some critics say critical racetheory is based in Marxism.

House Democrats said HB 1775 is an attempt to whitewash history and alleged the bill is a political stunt so Republicans have something to tout on the campaign trail.

"This is one of those bills that will pop up on campaign mailers when it comes to next year's elections," said House Minority Floor Leader Emily Virgin, D-Norman.

When questioned about the bill, West said tenets of critical race theory are being taught in Oklahoma schools and universities, but gaveanecdotal examples that lacked specifics. Without giving details, West said he'd read stories about first-grade studentswho were forced to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities.

Others are reading: Feds extend REAL ID enforcement deadline again

House Democrats expressed concerns that the bill could preventstudents from learning abouttheTulsa Race Massacre, the Trail of Tears or the Osage murders parts of Oklahoma history in which race inherently playeda role.

West said the bill would not prevent the teaching of history, nor would it prevent sexual harassment and misconduct trainingthat some college students must undergo.

This bill will in no way stop the teaching of history or anything currently in our Oklahoma education standards, including curriculum that shows historical examples of racism or genocide, West said in a statement. This bill simply says that teachers cant force a student to answer that they are inherently racist or sexist or that they must feel personally responsible for things perpetrated in the past by people of a similarraceor gender.

HB 1775 also seeks to prevent Oklahomas public colleges and universities from engaging students in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.

If signed into law, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education and the State Board of Education would be tasked with creating rules for schools and colleges to follow the law.

College news: Southern Nazarene students start petition to stop potential ban on kneeling during anthem

Virgin, who represents Norman,said she thinks the University of Oklahoma has major objections to the bill.

"They have taken huge strides in making sure that everyone feels welcome on their campus," she said. "That's what freshmen orientation programs are about, is making it clear that this is an inclusive space and an inclusive environment and no one should be made to feel that they don't belong."

HB 1775 included an emergency clause, which means the law could take effect immediately if signed by the governor.

Excerpt from:

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt to decide on bill to ban teaching of critical race theory - Oklahoman.com

Elections will take place across the Black Country and parts of Staffordshire on Thursday

Across the Black Country and parts of Staffordshire more than a dozen parties will be represented when voters head to the ballot box on Thursday.

There will also be plenty of independents hoping they can get elected without the backing of a party machine.

Among the parties standing this year are Reform UK - the new name for the Brexit Party, the Black Country Party, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, Workers' Party of Britain and Chase Community Independents.

Ukip, a major electoral force in the region up until a couple of years ago, has just a handful of candidates entered this year.

Bill Etheridge, economic spokesman for Ukip, said his party were at the start of a rebuilding process after some "difficult years" following the departure of former leader Nigel Farage.

He said the party was committed to ensuring Brexit resulted in more than just a "superficial change", and would continue to promote British values and oppose "the old enemy political correctness".

The former MEP and Dudley councillor said: "We're on the road back and I would expect the candidates we have this year to do very well as there is clearly still an appetite for Ukip in the Black Country.

"We have been restricted in what we can do campaigning wise because of Covid and these elections are really a springboard for us to move on.

"I think we will start to see more people joining the party in the months ahead."

The Black Country Party, which was founded in 2019, has a new leader in Nick Gregory after Stuart Henley stepped down and joined the Tories.

Black Country Day founder Steve Edwards is one of five candidates standing for the party in Dudley this year and is bidding for the Brockmoor and Pensnett seat.

He says he wants to offer an alternative to mainstream party politics, which had done nothing positive for local areas across the borough.

Mr Edwards said he would offer "a voice on the council which is being shouted by someone who loves the area and has seen the best and worst of Brockmoor and Pensnett".

"I am not just showing up for an election, this is where I was born and raised, my kids home," he added. "It is where all my friends and family are from.

"If I didnt think we could change things I wouldnt put myself forward, but I do think we can change everything. Just like we did with Black Country Day."

In Walsall former Labour councillor Pete Smith is the sole candidate not representing a political party.

Standing in Blakenall, he is campaigning on local issues including bringing back the much-missed Walsall Illuminations, and says politicians in the borough have become detached from the people they represent.

"The present system isn't working to the best advantage of residents," said Mr Smith, who served on the council for 20 years.

He is calling for "local neighbourhood grass roots democracy" where residents can have more of a say in how public money is spent in their areas.

Having run Labour close in previous elections Mr Smith is convinced he has a chance of victory. "Sometimes David can beat Goliath," he said.

Over in Cannock Chase Paul Woodhead is leader of the Chase Community Independents, a breakaway group that currently has five councillors and features former members of Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems.

Councillor Woodhead, who is standing in Hednesford South, said his party wants to see greater collaboration between politicians and communities around the district.

"If you get that right then some of the more difficult decisions that councils have to make are easier for people to understand, because they have been involved in the process," he said.

"National politics gets in the way of all of that, because fundamentally people want to disagree with an idea just because someone from another party has come up with it.

"By working together you get the best ideas and come up with a solution that works for everyone."

Graham Eardley is standing in Walsall Council's Pelsall ward for anti-lockdown party Reform UK, the new name for the Brexit Party.

The party has five candidates in Walsall, and Mr Eardley said that if elected, they will be able to vote how they see fit on council issues to enable them to "truly represent their local community".

"We're standing to win, and with the state of the main parties at the moment we think we have a good chance of doing that," he said.

"We don't believe in putting asylum seekers in four-star hotels, and we believe the time for lockdowns has long since passed.

"People want to see the economy moving again and we're all for that."

Polling stations open in Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Staffordshire on Thursday morning.

See more here:

Local issues on the agenda for minor party candidates across Black Country and Staffordshire - expressandstar.com

The Repositorys publishing Jonathan Vanboskercks opinion pieceon Disney World (April 27) was both disappointing and tone-deaf in the same time period of Derek Chauvins conviction for murder.

To quote Mr. Vanboskerck, Full disclosure: I am a Christian and a conservative Republican … He made abundantly clear in the article that he disapproves of people with tattoos, creative hairstyles and other expressions of individuality in their personal appearance. He attributes the changes at Disney businesses to political correctness, not to the fact that the world has moved on from his world view of what he wants to see everywhere. He proclaims his need to take offense at his fellow humans and any suggestions of his racism.

The truly sad statements that he makes about Splash Mountain and Song of the South in that venue indicate that he has no intention of ever considering what otherpeople might see, hearor feel when specific references are made to slavery having been a pleasant existence. On the Jungle Cruise and Pirates of the Caribbean similarly demeaning depictions of once-accepted movie characters have been eliminated. He states that this makes the parks less fun.

Instead of his plea to the Disney company to "return to the values and vision"of the past, may I suggest that he examine his position of white privilege and open his eyes to the daily insults that others experience. Contrary to his view that Disney World will make less money, I am hopeful that these small steps in the direction of eliminating racism in all its forms can make the parks be fun for everyone, which they certainly have not been.

I call on the editorial staff of the Repository to refuse to publish further articles that promote racist apologists like Jonathan Vanboskerck.

Wendy Lichtenwalter,Jackson Township

See the rest here:

Letter to the Editor: Columnist's view on Disney World was disappointing - Canton Repository