So it's illegal to teach the idea of white privilege as fact now. I guess that's the same for male privilege, class privilege etc

[chomalungma]

It's got to be hard to discuss racism, sexism, class advantage to pupils and to discuss how that can be overcome without directly teaching about white privilege, male privilege, class privilege as fact.

Maybe they could offer alternative views?

This is the debate on Black History Month - which is a fascinating read

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-20/debates/5B0E393E-8778-4973-B318-C17797DFBB22/BlackHistoryMonth

And the Government view

"Lots of pernicious stuff is being pushed, and we stand against that. We do not want teachers to teach their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. Let me be clear that any school that teaches those elements of critical race theory as fact, or that promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law"

So parents can discuss it with their children, but teachers can't discuss it

[GroundAlmonds]

@SarahAndQuack

That's not what I said. You've misquoted and therefore misunderstood.

I hardly think you can call critical race theory newly-minted?

And no, I'm not suggesting it should be taught as fact (as is obvious if you read what I'm actually saying, rather than deciding we must be at loggerheads just because I engaged with your post).

What have I misunderstood?

CRT is less than twenty years old. Maybe less than ten. I can’t remember exactly. It was originated by a single theorist in Scandinavian comparatively recently. I call that newly minted.

You read a whole load of bilge into my use of the word “correct”, misinterpreted my words and posted at me in aggressive tones, ascribing things to me I hadn’t said, so I’m surprised you expect a fluffy response TBH.

[Alexandernevermind]

Posts like this always get nasty. My children had a black history week at school last week, so it is good this is being taught. Whilst I don't think it is schools place to lecture boys about male privilege or white children about white privilege I think it's an important topic for discussion in school. Equality is important in schools and I won't have my children thinking they are above children of colour in any way.

[inchyra]

It's symptomatic of what's wrong with our society, that we can't seem to have a discussion without people assuming it has to be polarised and anyone who responds to you must be categories as enemy or ally, nothing in between.

So much this. Thank you @SarahAndQuack. When I was young a million years ago, we used to have Debating Societies at school. When did they evolve into fucking Fight Club?

[GroundAlmonds]

@Nickname01

While I agree white/male/class privilege exists, and is helpful to understand that your whiteness etc doesn’t make your life any harder.
I think the word Privilege completely turns people off in the real world.
If you are telling a class of white working class students about their privilege, it’s easy for them to think about their life and where they live and think what fucking privilege, and disengage them from the whole process.

Especially when it’s so easy to teach the history of oppression and the journey towards equality.

[SarahAndQuack]

@HBGKC

"You can't have racism without white privilege."

Why not, OP? Is all racism perpetrated by privileged white people?

I agree with the PP who said that privilege is one (of many) lens of analysis.

Maybe a better way to express is that white supremacy relies on a real, material, measurable discrepancy of advantages between groups of people, which correspond to what society sees as 'racial groups'?

So for example, it's not that there's anything measurable or identifiable that means black women are more likely than white women to die in childbirth. It's that, over centuries, a system has grown up where black women are disadvantaged (they're more likely to be poor; they're more likely to be told their pain isn't real, etc.)

The factors that cause disadvantage aren't always unique to one race or another (anyone can be poor), but in combination, they mean that people from one race have worse outcomes when we take them as a group.

I think seeing it in terms of disadvantage rather than privilege maybe makes it clearer?

[pastandpresent]

Nickname01, I get your argument. But your comment,

"If you are telling a class of white working class students about their privilege, it’s easy for them to think about their life and where they live and think what fucking privilege, and disengage them" maybe correct,

but have you ever experienced seeing anything like a mixed race child like mine who gets horrible comments because of the colour of his skin, just because he isn't white? In one case I witnessed myself, my dc was told repeatedly your are not British, you are X(not even his heritage) even though he was British born and has every right as being British, and their parents said/done nothing to stop or correct them.

[GroundAlmonds]

@SarahAndQuack

Cross post, *@GroundAlmonds*, and based on your last of 10.33, I really think you've jumped the gun in deciding I must be disagreeing with you and so you need to misquote me in order to prove it.

I really don't think there's a need to fly off the handle when someone responds to you in this way. It's symptomatic of what's wrong with our society, that we can't seem to have a discussion without people assuming it has to be polarised and anyone who responds to you must be categories as enemy or ally, nothing in between.

Are we reading the same thread? You told me I was making “a polemical statement”. I wasn’t. You went on a long hectoring waffle about my use of the word “correct” because you’d ascribed an intent and meaning that wasn’t there.

It’s very tiresome the way people like you are always ready to go on the attack over perceived hidden meanings @SarahAndQuack . Try reading what is posted and ONLY what is posted.

[SarahAndQuack]

CRT is less than twenty years old. Maybe less than ten. I can’t remember exactly. It was originated by a single theorist in Scandinavian comparatively recently. I call that newly minted.

Um ... I think you have this confused. It dates back to the 1980s in its academic form, and has roots going back much further to the writings of theorists such as Fredrick Douglass and Sojourner Truth and Audre Lorde.

[lazylinguist]

So parents can discuss it with their children, but teachers can't discuss it

It doesn't say they can't discuss it, does it? It says they can't teach it as fact. I would have thought it was the kind of topic that would be much better approached through examples and allowing students to reach conclusions, rather than lecturing it as fact anyway. It is perfectly normal and standard for teachers not to be allowed to present political views as fact.

[SarahAndQuack]

I apologise for coming across as hectoring. I was just trying to be precise and clear about where I was coming from with my point of view.

But if I've misunderstood you, I hold my hand up. Very happy to discuss whatever it is you think I wasn't getting about that post.

[BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache]

Scientific "theory" and layman's "theory" aren't the same btw. A scientific theory (such as evolution by natural selection or gravity for eg) has been empirically tested and verified. It doesn't mean "a reason why this thing might happen", as it does in CRT.

[pastandpresent]

It all comes down to mutual respect and understanding for one another, whatever the theme/topic is, imo.

[ConfusedcomMum]

Most of my managers in my work life have been white working class males. The real scandal is that there seems to be a glass ceiling for ethnic minorities in many workplaces no matter how hard they work, how much time their parents invested in their upbringing or how well they do in education. So yes actually, I would say white and male privilege is real.

[SarahAndQuack]

I wouldn't say CRT is layman's theory either, though. It's an academic theory too - it's not just another word for 'my speculations,' it's an attempt at a methodology for explaining the world.

I agree there's a big difference between that kind of theory and one that can be tested in the way that (say) the theory of gravity can be tested.

[GroundAlmonds]

Um ... I think you have this confused. It dates back to the 1980s in its academic form, and has roots going back much further to the writings of theorists such as Fredrick Douglass and Sojourner Truth and Audre Lorde.

“Academic form” I know you’re trying to lend it credibility but it is still just theory.

You’re missing the point anyway. It’s perfectly possible to teach DC everything they need to know about inequality and fairness (empire, Learie Constantine, decolonisation, colour bar, discrimination, Bristol bus boycott, Race Relations Acts etc) without using the disputed terms such as “white privilege” and “white supremacy”. Thats the point of the exercise.

You’re so busy jumping on people, you’re not hearing the distinction.

[GroundAlmonds]

I agree there's a big difference between that kind of theory and one that can be tested in the way that (say) the theory of gravity can be tested.

It’s polemic. Nothing wring with polemic but it’s not impartial and it’s not fact.

You’re obviously a bit confused on the meaning of polemic, given your weird remark upthread.

[Tootletum]

Because its not a fact. It's an overtly political theory that is quite divisive, is poorly understood and has been completely misused by various neo Marxist institutions who also constantly tell Conservative Black people that their thoughts about the relevance of race are the wrong ones.

[SarahAndQuack]

@diggadoo

You can't teach children that they should feel guilty for the race they were born, the sex they were born, or for their unchangeable sexual preferences. You can teach them about an evolving society and the impact of historical attitudes and what their generation and they as individuals can do for equity and equality.

This is what bothers me about the government's position, though.

Both you and someone else earlier in the thread made the comparison to sexuality/homophobia.

But it's only a theory (at best) that sexual preferences are unchangeable. We don't know that. It's a theory that's only relatively recently gained tenure - up until section 28 was repealed, teachers were actively discouraged from teaching this theory.

I do not see how that's different from critical race theory.

I don't think teachers are teaching CRT as 'fact' because it's a process not a product. I expect some are teaching white privilege as a 'fact,' because it's possible to make factual statements about it.

But I don't see why one kind of opinion (relating to sexuality) has become so well-accepted we treat it as immutable fact, while another (relating to race) must be treated as speculation.

[GroundAlmonds]

@SarahAndQuack

I apologise for coming across as hectoring. I was just trying to be precise and clear about where I was coming from with my point of view.

But if I've misunderstood you, I hold my hand up. Very happy to discuss whatever it is you think I wasn't getting about that post.

Just try reading it properly, without jumping to conclusions.

[SarahAndQuack]

@groundalmonds, I'm really sorry, I'm just not following what your issue is with me. I expect it doesn't matter too much.

[GroundAlmonds]

My only issue @SarahAndQuack is that you jumped on me and attacked for a really quite anodyne post. Which just makes you another barrier in the way of reasonable conversation. It gets really boring, this endless misplaced aggression towards any moderation.

[movingonup20]

White privilege is not always a useful expression because it's very hard to say to a class of very poor white working class kids living on a rough estate that they are privileged, they are not. What is meant is that there's ingrained advantages to being white due to past circumstances at a society level, on an individual level that isn't the case universally and it also isn't the case across all ethnic groups - I've experienced bias because several jobs insisted on Gujarati despite being in the U.K. and not having anything to do with speaking that language, it was a legal (ish) way of discriminating.

[GroundAlmonds]

(Moderation meaning “moderateness”, not in the international admin sense.)

[BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache]

I don't agree "born this way" should be taught as fact in school either, fwiw. It's a (layman's sense) theory (as I don't believe it has actually been scientifically proven, being as that would be a smidge unethical) that is heavily influenced by appealing to religious people in the US.