In case you thought it was all about morally deficient journalists acting like Critical Race Theory (CRT) was nonexistent, think again. A high school English teacher whose school was criticized by Fox News host Tucker Carlson joined the bashing parade – and nowhere more appropriate than NBC News.
In about 800 words, educator Anne Lutz Fernandez, a former marketer and author who teaches at a prestigious Connecticut public school, blames Americans concerned about curricula that have become influenced by the neo-Marxist CRT (which , oddly, is not mentioned verbatim in the entire article).
The title of Fernandez’s editorial is âAmerican School Teachers Aren’t the Marxist Cabal Fox News Continues to Describe,â with the skeptical caption: âEvidence abounds that educators tend to avoid rather than avoid. delve into politically hot topics. And such hesitation has consequences.
Fernandez works in the Darien Public School District in Darien, Connecticut, a city that in 2018 was billed as the richest place in the country. She laments Carlson’s earlier reports of how the district called for an increase in “the race-conscious education of our students” after the death of George Floyd and sent a letter designating “white staff and members. of the white community, âa factoid Fernandez conveniently overlooks. to mention.
âAmerican K-12 schools, like the high school I teach, are not centers of radical indoctrination, although right-wing news broadcasts may convince you otherwise,â the teacher writes. “… Now, a wave of legislation in mostly Red states seeks to restrict education and curriculum around” concepts of division “through laws intended largely to restrict education about systemic racism. If that doesn’t read as scary, it should. In other words, politicians dictate how the public learns history – and the history these politicians make. “
If this description of why the Conservatives are upset with what they see as indoctrination of children sounds familiar, it is because it is. Much like the left-wing writers in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, etc., Fernandez misinterprets or understands the situation in American public schools. One can only hope that this is unintentional.
Not only do schools often function as government-owned cells monopolized by well-paid consultant groups and teacher unions, but the dogma Fernandez refers to does not end only with training in systemic racism. In study programs, the CRT communicates to students that they are nothing more than their identity and are responsible for all actions performed by people with the same physical appearance.
Some children learn not only that they are inherently oppressed by the color of their skin, but also that some are inherently biased and racist. Buzzwords like “diversity”, “fairness”, “inclusion” and “anti-racism” are all grounded in the intersectional hierarchy of presumed privilege.
The left denies all of this even though it’s right there in the books and educational materials they offer. As Fernandez does, they respond that critics are oddly opposed to “diversity” and “sensitivity training.” Charles Blow put it this way in The New York Times, stating that the CRT is supposed to be based solely on “[i]identify and challenge racism â, nothing more. It’s wrong. As Christopher Rufo explained to The Federalist earlier this week, “It’s a language war.”
What people are opposed to, outright, is racism. People object to people being treated differently because of the color of their skin. That’s it. It is not about “sensitivity” or “diversity” but about using those labels to squeeze into government-sanctioned racism.
While claiming that teachers âavoidâ topics like these, Fernandez also tacitly admits that teachers actually bring their worldview and values ââinto their teaching – and of course they do. Teaching is not just about imparting facts, but shaping and shaping a child’s morals. Like a corrupt media that claims to be objective while being horribly biased to the point of fabricating lies, the teaching profession also claims a false veneer of impartiality while deliberately shaping children’s attitudes and beliefs.
Fernandez describes this dynamic in his article:
The teachers I interviewed for my book âSchooledâ see their mission as developing skills and providing content, but also helping to train future adults; some see their mature students as self-reliant citizens or global innovators, others as family-oriented traditionalists. Because education is values-driven, the profession is inevitably political. Some teachers are definitely embracing this by updating the curriculum to reflect the concerns of their students and the nation. Today, as always, these often involve issues of race and gender. But the profession is hardly a left cabal.
After claiming that teachers keep politics out of the classroom while providing proof to the exact opposite, Fernandez also cites a 2017 Atlantic editorial titled “The Case for Contentious Curricula” which states: “[t]everyone should not hesitate to bring up controversial issues in class âandâ[t]The question is whether teachers will be empowered to address them.
So, after paragraphs of delirium on the conspiracy theorist right, unnecessarily worried about “divisive concepts,” she alludes to evidence that the left seeks to undermine the system through political motives. This is evidence either of a total lack of self-awareness or of an intention to deceive.
“Healthy debate and essential education will be held back by ‘divisive concepts’ legislation,” the teacher writes. “While political pressure has long silenced teachers, these laws and the additional silence they are likely to produce are particularly dangerous at a time when the very fact of a violent invasion of the United States Capitol is contested and deemed political. . “
For someone who endlessly pokes fun at the law as being out of touch and living in an alternate reality, Fernandez certainly seems to be doing the same. She employs an all-too-familiar tactic: Protect your radical tribe by whatever means necessary.
If that means willful deception, so be it. If that means turning the truth around to protect those in power, so be it. That is, after all, what teaching children means, isn’t it?