The distinguished jurist John Wilson (ret.) wrote this article for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.
What could possess presumably sane California educators to seek to teach children to, in essence, pray to such horrific ancient figures? National Review has the answer; “the real reason that the authors of California’s Ethnic Studies Curriculum take a positive view of Aztec religion and a negative view of Christianity is because the Aztec gods lost the battle of religious orthodoxies and the New World and the Christian God won…(t)hey were a Native American, non-Christian people who were conquered by European Christian imperialists. Their defeat at the hands of Western civilization, which has had the temerity and the wickedness to last as long as it has by oppressing the downtrodden of the Earth, is enough to endow their religious practices with a nobility and a virtue that is entirely separate from its content.”
But for a more detailed explanation of the overall phenomenon of critical race theory, we turn again to Christopher Rufo. In a detailed report for the Heritage Foundation, he writes that “critical race theory has emerged as one of the most influential—and controversial—academic theories in contemporary political discourse. The discipline’s key terms, such as ‘systemic racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ and ‘racial equity,’ have become part of the common vocabulary and the basis for much of progressive policymaking.”
As Rufo points out, “(i)n simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and black. However, the political foundations of critical race theory maintain a clear Marxist economic orientation…(f)or critical race theory scholars, the entire foundation of American society is fundamentally illegitimate; consequently, they reject the traditions of constitutionalism and individual rights.”
In a series of articles published here at usagovpolicy.com, we have discussed the Marxist underpinnings of progressive education initiatives, from “woke math” to the increasingly socialist positions taken by various teacher’s unions nationwide. “Critical race theory” is but another method to teach communism to the young; “by defining every disparity between racial groups as an expression of ‘systemic racism,’ the critical race theorists lay the foundation for a political program of revolution…(a)lthough critical race theory has sought in some cases to distinguish itself from Marxism, the leading policy proposals from critical race theorists are focused on the race-based redistribution of wealth and power—a kind of identity-based rather than class-based Marxism.
“In one of the founding texts of critical race theory (Whiteness as Property), Cheryl Harris argues that property rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are in actuality a form of white racial domination. She claims that ‘whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property, historically and presently acknowledged and protected in American law,’ and that ‘the existing state of inequitable distribution is the product of institutionalized white supremacy and economic exploitation, [which] is seen by whites as part of the natural order of things that cannot legitimately be disturbed’…The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection…with a system of positive discrimination tasked with ‘redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.’ To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution…Harris envisions a suspension of existing property rights followed by a governmental campaign to ‘address directly the distribution of property and power’ through wealth confiscation and race-based redistribution…In Harris’s formulation, if rights are a mechanism of white supremacy, they must be curtailed; the imperative of addressing race-based disparities must be given priority over the constitutional guarantees of equality, property, and neutrality.”
As a result, men fail to respond to the sexual demands of the viagra uk online marriage, he cannot succeed if the woman just cannot respond properly. Horny Goat: As per research, this herb is commonly used for its memory cheap cialis in canada boosting properties also increases blood flow with a relatively low propensity for side effects. Some of ED medicines’ examples are Kamagra, Silagra, Lovegra, Super p Force tablets etc. 20mg tadalafil sale find out here are known as anti-impotent pills. In my previous post I discussed ‘how technology is ruining sex life sildenafil professional with your partner’.Clearly, then, Critical Race Theory is not just an education initiative. Recently, Oakland, California, “launched a pilot guaranteed income program geared towards helping the city’s lowest income residents. But unlike other pilot programs, Oakland’s pilot is also attempting to reduce the racial wealth gap, and will be the first to make race a qualification of the program.” According to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, “We have…documented three times a difference in median incomes between our white families and our Black families…we believe that we can contribute to the question of how to close the racial wealth gap, as well as designing a program that’s going to work for the families that are facing the most barriers.”
As reported by Fox Business, “(e)ligible individuals must be low-income and identify as Black, indigenous or people of color. In order to qualify for the checks, applicants must be earning at or below 50% of the area median income, which is about $59,000 per year for a family of three…” Thus, a black family earning $55,000 in total income is eligible for the program, but a white family making $45,000 would not be eligible. Cheryl Harris would be proud.
But while Oakland’s program might make an ideologue like Harris happy, it is certain to be overturned when challenged as discriminatory. “Limiting eligibility of these programs by race could well prove legally problematic, says Walter Olson, a legal expert at the Cato Institute. The U.S. and California constitutions, he notes, generally prohibit race-selective programs and public services…’(t)he structure of the program is racially discriminatory. It will probably not make it over the threshold for when government is allowed to discriminate,’ Olson says…”
Both the City of Oakland’s effort to implement a guaranteed basic income and the State of California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum are clearly unconstitutional. One discriminates on the basis of race; the other institutes religious practice in a public school classroom. But despite the clearly illegal nature of these initiatives, the California Board of Education and the City of Oakland voted to implement these deeply unconstitutional measures. All in the name of racial equity, not equality. I can’t pretend to speak for Martin Luther King, Jr. But I am reasonably certain this was not what Dr. King meant by “developing students’ critical thinking and moral compass.” Nor was it what he meant when he asked for a future where the content of his childrens’ character is more important than the color of their skin.
Illustration: Pixabay