Concerning the Washington Policy Center's Education Director's Posting on Critical Race Theory - June 23, 2021
I read your June 23rd posting with interest, as always. There are too many aspects of this issue to include them all here. Today, I will focus on what’s been done in the past, as it might relate to “Critical Race Theory”.
1] When I taught my WA State History class a unit on Japanese American Internment, was I teaching an event in history, or was I teaching Critical Race Theory?
2] When I taught my Comparative Cultures Class on Russian & the Soviet Union about the pograms, was I teaching a series of events in Imperial Russian History, or was I teaching Critical Race Theory?
3] When I taught my Comparative Cultures Class on the Middle East about the Holocaust, was I teaching about an example of events commonly directed at Jewish communities, or was I teaching Critical Race Theory?
These may seem like rhetorical questions, but I do not intend them to be. Since WPC seems unalterably opposed to teaching Critical Race Theory, I need to know what that might mean for today’s teachers.
Please reply to these questions, so that I and other readers may better understand you intent and concerns. You may either respond to this comment or post another original blog item that addresses these questions.
This message will be posted on the WPC Education Center webpage, my Facebook page, and my blog, as well as being sent to you, personally.
Schools of Constitutional Interpretation/ Justice Barrett Pt. 2
Is Justice Barrett the Latest Shot in the “Deconstruction of Government” Pt. 2 / Schools of Constitutional Interpretation : Living Constitution; Originalism, Political Process theory; Purposivism; Textualism; & Strict Constructions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism / From the perspective of an observer, these six schools seem to be two groupings of three. Living Constitution, Political Process theory, & Purposivism in one group and Originalism, Textualism, & Strict Construction in the other. / The former seems to me to exist to make deciding the Constitutionality of a law easier and avoiding the lengthy task of pursuing a Constitutional Amendment. This makes change easier, which appeals to liberals. It also helps establish a body of precedent that can make future changes easier. / The latter seems to me to exist to make deciding the Constitutionality of a law more difficult and force the proponents of change into the lengthy tas...
Comments
Post a Comment