The battle for new college

I get it but a good way of persuading conservatives to your side that Republicans are unjustifiably going too far, is drawing a line where Democrats clearly have gone too far.

K-12 is the first place where it’s easiest to tell Democrats have gone too far.

 

Im not saying we should’ve stopped talking about race immediately after the Civil Rights Act. My entire family came to this country with nothing after the Civil Rights Act, we’re doing more than fine, and we’re far from the exception.

At what point is history just that: “history?” It’s been almost 60 years.

As far as these internal debates Democrats seem to be having, they sure as Hell don’t seem to show their cards to the other side. I haven’t heard Obama once say, “yes, teacher X shouldn’t have told this first grader this” in an issue that is inherently political in his favor. I haven’t heard really anybody on the mainstream left or this board say that.

 

Personally, I find it baffling that conservatives think corporations and universities have deep commitments to diversity initiatives and the like, when they are basically there to be like "dont hate us, we're the good guys" when they do mundane things to screw people over or make things worse. I'm not sure if liberals see Citibank or something do a pride themed credit card and are like "wow, these guys get it, glad they are on my side." Maybe there are people who are like that, but it seems like most people are fairly cynical when it comes to corporations and university administrations, or anyone who runs anything in general.

 

You don't have a space to talk about the long held conservative belief in small government and limited overreach?

 

I remember times on this board where conservatives would argue that the CRA was only possible because of Republican votes, etc. Nixon signed Title IX into law too. Interesting to see that conservatives (or at least one in 715) are arguing these things made universities more woke/liberal/progressive or whatever. Are they reckoning with what they now view as their own past failures? Something tells me deep reflection or reckoning with the past isn't their thing, because you still see people that are like "Democrats were the real racists in 1960" or "it was 60 years ago, get over it." Its probably just lib ownage, like most things. They do have a keen sense of when their privilege or power is threatened (to the point where they find it in M&Ms becoming less sexy or obscure academic theories), that's pretty much their animating principle.

 

Since DeS did not or could not mention which k-12 Fl public schools were teaching CRT or indoctrinating "wokism", I'm certain after poster stated this "K-12 is the first place where it’s easiest to tell Democrats have gone too far." That we will be provided several examples..... we'll wait.

 

Examples have been provided on this very forum in other threads by me as well as other posters. Now, it looks like we're back to step 1 of the inevitable cycle with all of these conversations:

 

Go find the UF College Republicans or Turning Point USA group. Problem solved.

We get real "feisty" because "conservatives removing those built-in advantages" consists of whitewashing history, suppressing free speech and open debate, and seeking to strip power and representation away from people of color and the LGBTQ community.

I could not care less if you wanted to invite conservative speakers to UF. Some students may protest. But that's also their right. I do care when you and your ilk seek to punish professors for discussing viewpoints that your group of regressives dislike.

 

I'm not sure how you could ever remove the "built in advantage" that Taliban-style morality and plutocratic economic policies aren't something somethings teens and young adults think rock without some serious heavy lifting, or you know, moderating those policy stances.

 

I don't know your specific background, but many migrants and immigrants who come to this country are people who are already the most risk-taking and ambitious. Many have advanced degrees and significant levels of generational education if not financial resources. That was true of many Cuban Americans who were educated professionals when they had to leave Cuba for places like Puerto Rico or the the U.S. mainland. Many of them had other family here to help or at least moved to cities like NYC or Miami with higher numbers of people who related to them. Also, and respectfully, I don't think White Hispanics have had to face the same degree of ingrained biases and hatred that African Americans and Black Hispanics over the years since they're European.

To be clear, none of this minimizes the very work hard of Cuban Americans of all races. It's a huge success story, and I think the fact that they have maintained so much of their language and traditions is actually a great thing. Meeting with Cuban Americans, Venezuelan Americans, etc., and practicing my Spanish is my favorite part of going to Miami and places like Westin, Florida. I would note that a lot of conservatives hate those places in part because they feel the people refuse to integrate. I suppose that's a separate discussion.

With respect to it having been 60 years, that's only two or three generations. And for families whose parents were in public schools during integration in the South, those tensions don't feel that long ago to them. There were fights and mistrust on both sides. To give a personal example, my mom was always great to my Black friends but had to deal with my grandfather asking her why half the kids at my birthday party were Black. My mom also freaked out when I told her in my 20's that I was dating a Black girl. She was terrified of how my grandparents might react. Conversely, nobody in my family gave it a second thought when I brought home a girl from Guatemala I was dating in college, even though she clearly had some native roots. It's really hard for me to explain just how unique Black people have been viewed in many parts of the South at least. I can't speak to other places.

I'd also point you to other things that have happened a lot more recently than Jim Crow. For example, NYC was in litigation for years over racial profiling, and I think those cases extended up until at least 2013. I'm sure others have tons of examples, but they're out there.

You can Google Obama's speeches on race and him speaking of the real progress we've made and warning young folks not to let wokeness lose sight of our progress. Despite his very measured and balanced tone on issues or race, I spent years listening to conservatives alternatively point out that he's also half White and also saying he is obviously racist against White people. The resentment against him was palpable, and part of that (not all) was due to him having a Black father.

With respect to women, for example, do you oppose Title IX or think it's time has passed?

 

Liberals don’t whine their way into additional authority, financing, and representation?

For God’s sakes man, people find the 1619 Project necessary because they act as though actual history is “white-washed” history.

Then, if universities deny a teaching or research platform for that sort of thing for whatever reason, it’s “it’s sad how the university isn’t interested in Black representation.”

Liberals have been whining for decades, that’s why theyve been able to implement significant change in increments over decades.

 

I think that's a complicated question.

I think as a general rule, discrimination against women in institutions that receive state or federal money should be prohibited with some exceptions (bathrooms, segregation of male and female sports as a couple examples). My understanding is that this is what Title IX was initially supposed to be. It's evolved and broadened in interpretation to create all sorts of problems.

So I have less of a problem with Title IX than I do with the legal interpretations and policy consequences that have spawned from Title IX.

 

We get upset about it because it has dramatically affected the power balance in a lot of institutions in this country, including higher education.

And when the prevailing mentality is "equity," then it's not even like race/gender/sexual orientation/ethnicity are the primary issue anymore. The real debate is a lot more fundamental and political than that. It's about interpretations of words like "justice" and "fairness." These immutable characteristics/identities are just a means to achieve that end and a weapon to silence opposition.

 

If those things are subjective and contestable and they are, there will always be a debate and opposition over them. Are you saying being black or gay is like a cheat code or trump card or something? Like a school will be like "sorry we arent going to put in a personal chef in your dorm" and some kid will be like "that's unfair and racist because I'm black" or "personal chefs are part of my gay culture, we need justice" ... and the school will be like "sorry here's your chef!"