American Teachers Resign Over Oddly Similar Circumstances...

[Pommer]

How many people actually know that Pythagoras was a Marxist? Maybe the sum of the squares on the hypotenuse isn't equal to the sum of the squares on adjacent sides. But no, the left is determined that our children treat all sides equally!

Pythagoras was probably the reason the Greeks never came up with the arch!

 

[rjs330]

CRT is actually a collegiate idea.

The idea that it is being purposefully taught to children as CRT is generally wrong. Some parts have made their way into influencing what we teach to children.

The current craze that we are teaching a college level analysis of racial/power sociological systems comes mostly from right wing propaganda.

I think you are correct. Cause it's certainly not a college level course that's being taught.

 

[Bradskii]

Pythagoras was probably the reason the Greeks never came up with the arch!

That's weird. They knew how to build them but seemed to prefer columns and lintels. And how far off topic can this possibly be...

 

[rjs330]

That's an interesting discussion, but we can certainly agree that we won't be able to correct a bias if it remains unconscious.

I simply disagree that children are not ready to discuss the biases that they are absolutely forming out loud. This IS about teaching a value, treating people fairly and thinking about WHY we make the judgements we do.

This seems to me to be a good thing to bring up as part of teaching children critical thinking in general which I am always for.

Well we are all for critical thinking. But CRT is not critical thinking. It's Race Theory. And relies a LOT on opinions. And as we have seen inevitably ends up blaming white people for everything and calling them inherently racist. This includes the college level courses.

 

[rjs330]

How many people actually know that Pythagoras was a Marxist? Maybe the sum of the squares on the hypotenuse isn't equal to the sum of the squares on adjacent sides. But no, the left is determined that our children treat all sides equally!

So are we all! And that's why we have difficulties with the current aspects.of CRT. Cause it's a divisive theory. Which puts one group against the other. Now, if it were more along the lines of working towards unity and recognizing that the racist policies of the past are gone and we now can and should find common ground to access our opportunities then I would totally be on board. What can I do to help you gain access if you feel you are behind the right ball right now.

If you believe your schools suck, what can we do to address that? What are the problems in the school? It's probably more than just money. What else is there?

Why aren't we reaching more people with the importance of a family structure? How can we get better at that?

What is holding people back from pursuing a college education and how can we help you with that?

What is holding people back from pursuing trades, like plummer's, electricians etc? How can we help show value in that? How can we help you get a leg up on the competition in theae areas?

I'd be all over that. These are the things we should be addressing rather than beating a dead horse of the past and how you are a victim and oppressed. How about "you are no longer oppressed and if you feel stuck you don't need to and I will show you the way forward."

Right now the opportunities are tremendous as there is so much work and opportunities out there.

 

[variant]

Well we are all for critical thinking. But CRT is not critical thinking. It's Race Theory. And relies a LOT on opinions. And as we have seen inevitably ends up blaming white people for everything and calling them inherently racist. This includes the college level courses.

We can demonstrate peoples inherent biases, so, telling people about them isn't an opinion.

That WOULD simply be teaching critical thinking, which, at it's basis is done better when recognizing bias in ones thinking.

In terms of teaching CRT, given how the discussion of the term is now the product of sensational media representation, I really only feel like responding to specifics in what we should or should not teach rather than reaching generalizations about what it is and whether it should be taught.

In terms of talking about opinions vs facts, college level course work is generally about how we demonstrate certain things are true with evidence.

That's why it's called a theory in the first place.

 

[rambot]

So are we all! And that's why we have difficulties with the current aspects.of CRT. Cause it's a divisive theory. Which puts one group against the other. Now, if it were more along the lines of working towards unity and recognizing that the racist policies of the past are gone and we now can and should find common ground to access our opportunities then I would totally be on board. What can I do to help you gain access if you feel you are behind the right ball right now.

If you believe your schools suck, what can we do to address that? What are the problems in the school? It's probably more than just money. What else is there?

Why aren't we reaching more people with the importance of a family structure? How can we get better at that?

What is holding people back from pursuing a college education and how can we help you with that?

What is holding people back from pursuing trades, like plummer's, electricians etc? How can we help show value in that? How can we help you get a leg up on the competition in theae areas?

I'd be all over that. These are the things we should be addressing rather than beating a dead horse of the past and how you are a victim and oppressed. How about "you are no longer oppressed and if you feel stuck you don't need to and I will show you the way forward."

Right now the opportunities are tremendous as there is so much work and opportunities out there.

But I don't think it involves a lot of opinions.

Certainly no more opinions thwn current curricula do.

Here's the simple answer to schools sucking and it may blow your mind but

Money at the school level. I'm not talking about how much the Dept. Of education gets.

 

[tall73]

That's an interesting discussion, but we can certainly agree that we won't be able to correct a bias if it remains unconscious.

I simply disagree that children are not ready to discuss the biases that they are absolutely forming out loud. This IS about teaching a value, treating people fairly and thinking about WHY we make the judgements we do.

I am not sure we are disagreeing then. Once something is expressed through statement, or behavior it should be addressed.

But a prouductive contemplation of unconscious bias that is not expressed seems rather beyond small children.

This seems to me to be a good thing to bring up as part of teaching children critical thinking in general which I am always for.

An example I saw when reading some of the studies indicates that one way children can definitely benefit from being taught critical thinking is to see multiple factors at one time.

In other words, some people might be fit into groups by outstanding characteristics, but people within those groups may differ in various other ways.

So I don't disagree with that either.

 

[rjs330]

We can demonstrate peoples inherent biases, so, telling people about them isn't an opinion.

That WOULD simply be teaching critical thinking, which, at it's basis is done better when recognizing bias in ones thinking.

In terms of teaching CRT, given how the discussion of the term is now the product of sensational media representation, I really only feel like responding to specifics in what we should or should not teach rather than reaching generalizations about what it is and whether it should be taught.

In terms of talking about opinions vs facts, college level course work is generally about how we demonstrate certain things are true with evidence.

That's why it's called a theory in the first place.

We are not talking about bias. We are talking about CRT. Which is the examination of racism. And not just racism in general but white racism.

Richard Delgado- The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power…Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
- “racism is ordinary, not aberrational…our system of white-over color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

Kimberle Crenshaw- It is a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country, ranging from health to wealth to segregation to policing.”
- "The problem…is not simply the takeover of the judiciary by right-wing judges, but also the broader political and institutional limits of ‘reason’ itself.”
- “Critical race theory just says, let's pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. So we can become that country that we say we are.”.

Ibram Kendi-




Scholar

Explanation/Definition

Implications

Richard Delgado

- “The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power…Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
- “racism is ordinary, not aberrational…our system of white-over color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

- “erase barriers to upward mobility for minority populations.”
- “rectify racism in policing and the criminal justice system, so that young minority men have a better chance of going to college than to jail.”
- “assure that minority viewpoints and interests are taken into account…in every major policy decision the nation makes.”
- “develop new immigration policies that allow a freer flow of workers and capital, while assuring that new arrivals do not enter on terms that weaken the ability of current workers to unionize and seek workplace reforms.”

Kimberle Crenshaw

- “It is a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country, ranging from health to wealth to segregation to policing.”
- "The problem…is not simply the takeover of the judiciary by right-wing judges, but also the broader political and institutional limits of ‘reason’ itself.”
- “Critical race theory just says, let's pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. So we can become that country that we say we are.”.


- Speaking to the importance of intersectionality—a term she coined to describe the overlapping systems of discrimination in America—in advancing antiracist policies, “If any real efforts are to be made to free Black people of the constraints and conditions that characterize racial subordination, then theories and strategies purporting to reflect the Black community's needs must include an analysis of sexism and patriarchy. Similarly, feminism must include an analysis of race if it hopes to express the aspirations of non-white women.”

Ibram X. Kendi

- “Critical race theorists were the first to recognize that—despite conservative Americans framing certain laws…as ‘race neutral’ because they did not have any racial language in them—these laws had a racial impact, an impact that led to the reinforcement of racist structures in this country. Critical race theorists are keying on examining the way the law reinforces structures of racism and white supremacy.”



Ibram Kendi- “Critical race theorists were the first to recognize that—despite conservative Americans framing certain laws…as ‘race neutral’ because they did not have any racial language in them—these laws had a racial impact, an impact that led to the reinforcement of racist structures in this country. Critical race theorists are keying on examining the way the law reinforces structures of racism and white supremacy.”

Derek Bell- We must accept
the reality that we live in a society in which racism has been internalized and institutionalized,”
- American culture is “a culture from whose inception racial discrimination has been a regulating force for maintaining stability and growth.”

Now to the liberal mind thats okay. But at it's core is white people are the problem and at fault. Not just in the past but at present. And we are because we are inherently racist whether we act on it or not. Not only that but it's still out fault on why so many black people are still not moving ahead.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We can demonstrate peoples inherent biases, so, telling people about them isn't an opinion.

How would you demonstrate someone's inherent biases?

That WOULD simply be teaching critical thinking, which, at it's basis is done better when recognizing bias in ones thinking.

In terms of teaching CRT, given how the discussion of the term is now the product of sensational media representation, I really only feel like responding to specifics in what we should or should not teach rather than reaching generalizations about what it is and whether it should be taught.

In terms of talking about opinions vs facts, college level course work is generally about how we demonstrate certain things are true with evidence.

Fair enough, here's a San Francisco school board member tweeting her opinion on "merit" (which is the same as found in CRT)...

Is this a problem for not? Because in my mind...this idea would make her a hindrance to education at any level. She shouldn't have any impact on school board decisions, ideally. I wouldn't even trust her with sorting out school lunches.

That's why it's called a theory in the first place.

It's not a scientific theory. There's been a lot of conflating this with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't require broad assumptions like the US is a white supremacist nation and civil rights laws are just a way for white people to keep power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We are not talking about bias. We are talking about CRT. Which is the examination of racism. And not just racism in general but white racism.

Richard Delgado- The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power…Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
- “racism is ordinary, not aberrational…our system of white-over color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

Kimberle Crenshaw- It is a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country, ranging from health to wealth to segregation to policing.”
- "The problem…is not simply the takeover of the judiciary by right-wing judges, but also the broader political and institutional limits of ‘reason’ itself.”
- “Critical race theory just says, let's pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. So we can become that country that we say we are.”.

Ibram Kendi-




Scholar

Explanation/Definition

Implications

Richard Delgado

- “The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power…Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
- “racism is ordinary, not aberrational…our system of white-over color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

- “erase barriers to upward mobility for minority populations.”
- “rectify racism in policing and the criminal justice system, so that young minority men have a better chance of going to college than to jail.”
- “assure that minority viewpoints and interests are taken into account…in every major policy decision the nation makes.”
- “develop new immigration policies that allow a freer flow of workers and capital, while assuring that new arrivals do not enter on terms that weaken the ability of current workers to unionize and seek workplace reforms.”

Kimberle Crenshaw

- “It is a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country, ranging from health to wealth to segregation to policing.”
- "The problem…is not simply the takeover of the judiciary by right-wing judges, but also the broader political and institutional limits of ‘reason’ itself.”
- “Critical race theory just says, let's pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. So we can become that country that we say we are.”.


- Speaking to the importance of intersectionality—a term she coined to describe the overlapping systems of discrimination in America—in advancing antiracist policies, “If any real efforts are to be made to free Black people of the constraints and conditions that characterize racial subordination, then theories and strategies purporting to reflect the Black community's needs must include an analysis of sexism and patriarchy. Similarly, feminism must include an analysis of race if it hopes to express the aspirations of non-white women.”

Ibram X. Kendi

- “Critical race theorists were the first to recognize that—despite conservative Americans framing certain laws…as ‘race neutral’ because they did not have any racial language in them—these laws had a racial impact, an impact that led to the reinforcement of racist structures in this country. Critical race theorists are keying on examining the way the law reinforces structures of racism and white supremacy.”



Ibram Kendi- “Critical race theorists were the first to recognize that—despite conservative Americans framing certain laws…as ‘race neutral’ because they did not have any racial language in them—these laws had a racial impact, an impact that led to the reinforcement of racist structures in this country. Critical race theorists are keying on examining the way the law reinforces structures of racism and white supremacy.”

Derek Bell- We must accept
the reality that we live in a society in which racism has been internalized and institutionalized,”
- American culture is “a culture from whose inception racial discrimination has been a regulating force for maintaining stability and growth.”

Now to the liberal mind thats okay. But at it's core is white people are the problem and at fault. Not just in the past but at present. And we are because we are inherently racist whether we act on it or not. Not only that but it's still out fault on why so many black people are still not moving ahead.

My favorite part....

The problem…is not simply the takeover of the judiciary by right-wing judges, but also the broader political and institutional limits of ‘reason’ itself.”

The "limits of reason itself". The attack on reason and the promotion of "stories" of "lived experiences" are connected together by CRT for one reason....

Anecdotal evidence.

All the assumptions CRT makes are founded on carefully selected anecdotal evidence. Any rational framework would reject CRT for that reason alone.

Why is anecdotal evidence so bad? Simple. It's loaded with bias.

 

[variant]

How would you demonstrate someone's inherent biases?

I linked one such study earlier. You ask people questions and see how they answer.

Fair enough, here's a San Francisco school board member tweeting her opinion on "merit" (which is the same as found in CRT)..

Is this a problem for not? Because in my mind...this idea would make her a hindrance to education at any level. She shouldn't have any impact on school board decisions, ideally. I wouldn't even trust her with sorting out school lunches.

Is that part of the curriculum or is she tweeting an opinion? It shouldn't be hard to show exactly how CRT is taught in schools if that is actually what we are talking about.

I'm not really interested in defending any tweet by any teacher you don't like. Especially if it has little to do with the discussion at hand.

It's not a scientific theory. There's been a lot of conflating this with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't require broad assumptions like the US is a white supremacist nation and civil rights laws are just a way for white people to keep power.

It would be a theory in social science that things like racism are structurally part of important parts of society like being baked into the law. It would be demonstrated in a colligate setting the same way as any such theory, by writing papers based on evidence.

 

[variant]

Why is anecdotal evidence so bad? Simple. It's loaded with bias.

You're against selective anecdotal evidence now?

Seems weird for someone who just quoted a tweet at me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I linked one such study earlier. You ask people questions and see how they answer.

I must have missed it, a lot of people to reply to. What post number?

Is that part of the curriculum or is she tweeting an opinion? It shouldn't be hard to show exactly how CRT is taught in schools if that is actually what we are talking about.

I'm not really interested in defending any tweet by any teacher you don't like. Especially if it has little to do with the discussion at hand.

She's tweeting her opinion in the context of a conversation about admissions and grades in her school district.

I don't know why you think this is solely about "lesson plans"...the teachers in the OP are also talking about CRT in the "training" they're given and how they are supposed to teach students in general.

And when I actually gave you samples of the lesson plans/curriculum....you made things up.

You said "I think they're talking about history" even though history wasn't mentioned anywhere on the page.

It isn't hard to find examples....the hard part is having a good faith conversation with people who want to pretend what the facts are.

Now do you understand why her views mean she's literally too stupid to be making decisions about education....or not?

It would be demonstrated in a colligate setting the same way as any such theory, by writing papers based on evidence.

How would you possibly "demonstrate" that "race nuetral civil rights laws" were passed because they were in the best interests of white people?

 

[variant]

I must have missed it, a lot of people to reply to. What post number?

American Teachers Resign Over Oddly Similar Circumstances...

She's tweeting her opinion in the context of a conversation about admissions and grades in her school district.

So, we're talking about school boards making decisions on what to teach and people quitting because of it and now we're talking about teachers tweeting their opinions on merit and admissions standards?

I don't know why you think this is solely about "lesson plans"...the teachers in the OP are also talking about CRT in the "training" they're given and how they are supposed to teach students in general.

And when I actually gave you samples of the lesson plans/curriculum....you made things up.

you said "I think they're talking about history" even though history wasn't mentioned anywhere on the page.

I think they were talking about the hundreds of historical examples and that is what that lesson referenced in the plan would go over.

I recall that you objected to the lesson plan because it taught how things actually tend to work out rather than how they don't work out.

It isn't hard to find examples....the hard part is having a good faith conversation with people who want to pretend what the facts are.

Now do you understand why her views mean she's literally too stupid to be making decisions about education....or not?

Not really. I'm not inclined to dismiss people as capable because of what looks like a poorly argued or worded tweet.

I've seen the idea of merit more eloquently criticized than that if that is what you mean.

How would you possibly "demonstrate" that "race neutral civil rights laws" were passed because they were in the best interests of white people?

If that is your example of a colligate work. Link the paper you're talking about and we can discuss how it was defended, and how well.

But yeah, people having different ideas than you think are correct doesn't mean they can't demonstrate them.

Quite a lot of what gets taught in school has come to us from the social sciences though, and they are usually demonstrated and argued for in the same manner.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're against selective anecdotal evidence now?

I have been for some time.

Seems weird for someone who just quoted a tweet at me.

If it was a story....you'd have a point. Since it isn't, here's the definition of anecdote.

Definition of ANECDOTE

 

[variant]

I have been for some time.



If it was a story....you'd have a point. Since it isn't, here's the definition of anecdote.

Definition of ANECDOTE

Anecdotal evidence:

Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.

I'd say your entire characterization of CRT is based upon anecdotal evidence.

A tweet here, an aspersion there, some interpretation of a few lines that actually appear in a syllabus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

American Teachers Resign Over Oddly Similar Circumstances...

Did you mean that in a laboratory setting where people are being tested we can tell what their biases are?

So, we're talking about school boards making decisions on what to teach and people quitting because of it and now we're talking about teachers tweeting their opinions on merit and admissions standards?

From the CRT definition on page 2....

CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege. These stories paint a false picture of meritocracy; everyone who works hard can attain wealth, power, and privilege while ignoring the systemic inequalities that institutional racism provides.

If you want to pretend that she isn't pushing CRT that's fine....but she is pushing the exact same ideas found in CRT.

I think they were talking about the hundreds of historical examples and that is what that lesson referenced in the plan would go over.

Nothing about the lesson plans mentioned history and you're basing your opinion on nothing.

I recall that you objected to the lesson plan because it taught how things actually tend to work out rather than how they don't work out.

You'll have to quote me on that. I don't recall saying that but it has been 30 pages.

Not really. I'm not inclined to dismiss people as capable because of what looks like a poorly argued or worded tweet.

I've seen the idea of merit more eloquently criticized than that if that is what you mean.

No, I mean it's arguably the dumbest take on merit I've ever seen and one that directly hurts education and society.

Surely you wouldn't want surgery from a surgeon who never demonstrated any merit in medical school? I wouldn't even want my car fixed by a mechanic who isn't tested.

Tests aren't used for racial oppression...they're a good indicator of how much material a student has learned. Practical tests, admissions tests, standardized tests all have their place.

Otherwise there's no meaning behind the diploma. If the student who would have gotten straight As and the student who never showed up for class are considered equals when they graduate, then graduation and school itself is ultimately meaningless.

If that is your example of a colligate work. Link the paper you're talking about and we can discuss how it was defended, and how well.

But yeah, people having different ideas than you think are correct doesn't mean they can't demonstrate them.

Quite a lot of what gets taught in school has come to us from the social sciences though, and they are usually demonstrated and argued for in the same manner.

A collegiate work? That's Derrick Bell.

 

[variant]

Did you mean that in a laboratory setting where people are being tested we can tell what their biases are?

Yes. I mean we can rigorously test to see what peoples biases are and when they tend to appear.

From the CRT definition on page 2....

CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege. These stories paint a false picture of meritocracy; everyone who works hard can attain wealth, power, and privilege while ignoring the systemic inequalities that institutional racism provides.

If you want to pretend that she isn't pushing CRT that's fine....but she is pushing the exact same ideas found in CRT.

I don't think all criticisms of meritocracy in college admissions are CRT, nor do I have to pretend to do so.

Nothing about the lesson plans mentioned history and you're basing your opinion on nothing.

I suppose you think teaching about power dynamics wouldn't include the plethora of examples from history then?

I think I could personally put together an entire class on the subject of JUST historical examples of exactly what the lesson plan was talking about.

You'll have to quote me on that. I don't recall saying that but it has been 30 pages.

I'll look back through the thread when I have some time. It's about time for some sleep.

No, I mean it's arguably the dumbest take on merit I've ever seen and one that directly hurts education and society.

Sure, if you take "merit" at face value I would suppose it would seem very dumb.

Surely you wouldn't want surgery from a surgeon who never demonstrated any merit in medical school? I wouldn't even want my car fixed by a mechanic who isn't tested.

I would call that demonstrated skill (a kind of merit). However there is a history of using the idea of merit to simply discriminate against those who haven't actually been given an opportunity to show that they can acquire such skills.

The idea we're missing of course is that people use resources to demonstrate their "merit" and some people have a lot more resources to devote to the task.

Tests are used for racial oppression...they're a good indicator of how much material a student has learned. Practical tests, admissions tests, standardized tests all have their place.

Otherwise there's no meaning behind the diploma. If the student who would have gotten straight As and the student who never showed up for class are considered equals when they graduate, then graduation and school itself is ultimately meaningless.

Not on purpose usually no. And no one (usually) is suggesting we completely do away with standard ways of testing in schooling.

However if you'd like to actually hear the other side of the argument it can be argued more persuasively:

Here for instance:
Why meritocracy is a myth in college admissions

A collegiate work? That's Derrick Bell.

Ok what work are you citing? If you want to criticize an idea actually do so.

And, what is the relevance? Is this what you think is making it into children's classrooms?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. I mean we can rigorously test to see what peoples biases are and when they tend to appear.

I don't know what you mean by "tend to appear".

The tests haven't been substantially linked to behavior. In fact, all evidence shows little to no link to behavior.

It would be more accurate to say we can test for bias, but we have no way of knowing if ir when it affects behavior.

I don't think all criticisms of meritocracy in college admissions are CRT, nor do I have to pretend to do so.

I can show you what she's talking about...she is talking about grade school...and she wants to remove the grades, and according to her tweets, they have in some San Francisco schools.

I suppose you think teaching about power dynamics wouldn't include the plethora of examples from history then?

You couldn't defend the material on its own terms...so you want to make it about something it isn't, history.

Sure, if you take "merit" at face value I would suppose it would seem very dumb.

I would call that demonstrated skill (a kind of merit).

Demonstrated skill? You mean like a test?

However there is a history of using the idea of merit to simply discriminate against those who haven't actually been given an opportunity to show that they can acquire such skills.

I don't know what you're suggesting. Medical schools should first give applicants a chance to demonstrate medical skills before they are taught medical skills?

I can't think of a practical application for what you're suggesting and I can easily think of a thousand ways it can be disastrous.

Hey guy, I know you haven't demonstrated the ability to make vaccines but some people think the problem is that you just haven't been given a chance to make vaccines yet...

The idea we're missing of course is that people use resources to demonstrate their "merit" and some people have a lot more resources to devote to the task.

Example?

I can have 10 million dollars to create a business and if I don't have the skills/merit to run it....that business will inevitably fail regardless of how much money I throw at it.

I can agree that I have the ability to prolong my failure with 10 million more than I would with 200k....but I can't think of any undertaking where I can just ignore merit and resourse my way to success.

Not on purpose usually no. And no one (usually) is suggesting we completely do away with standard ways of testing in schooling.

Funny you should say that...that's exactly what they're suggesting.

If I can show you where California, under it's new curriculum guidelines, wants to do away with math grading completely (because it not only rejects the idea of merit, it also rejects natural talent, and genius) would you at least be willing to admit that perhaps you don't really understand what is being proposed in some schools these days by the left?

I'd point out that this is the natural conclusion once you start to go along with the idea that a disparity exists only because of racism and oppression. It's not only bad logic and obviously wrong...it's dangerous.

However if you'd like to actually hear the other side of the argument it can be argued more persuasively:

Here for instance:
Why meritocracy is a myth in college admissions

Somehow I don't think this is going to be about how Affirmative Action already tips the scales away from merit.

Ok what work are you citing? If you want to criticize an idea actually do so.

And, what is the relevance? Is this what you think is making it into children's classrooms?

It's one of the fundamental assumptions of CRT. I can quote Derrick Bell if you like...and provide the source...

Frankly though, you're going to have to stop pretending that these ideas are all unrelated. I showed you where CRT rejects the idea of race nuetrality....and I shouldn't have to explain why that also means it rejects meritocracy (especially when it says so).

You're asking me what the relevance is and I've literally drawn you a straight line between the concepts of CRT, the ideas of teachers and school administrators, the teachers who are quitting over the exact same ideas, and even the impact these ideas have had on curriculum.

Yet you're still asking me "what is the relevance"?

Would you prefer if I line these things up in one post for you?