US executive order - Schools

[FlowchartRequired]

Here we go, a new EO regarding schools.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/

"Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 29, 2025"

"Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Parents trust America’s schools to provide their children with a rigorous education and to instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation and the values for which we stand.
In recent years, however, parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight. Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination. In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics. In other instances, young men and women are made to question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed. These practices not only erode critical thinking but also sow division, confusion, and distrust, which undermine the very foundations of personal identity and family unity."

Whether it's wrong or right, I think it's hard to see a party being elected if they're too closely associated with narratives of national shame.
I'm never 100% sure what "populist" means but sometimes it feels like the working definition is, "fails to make himself completely unelectable".
Also meant to say: I agree with you @DeanElderberry , this looks like Hillbilly Elegy in motion to me.

Maybe I should study this EO more carefully before posting - and I'm open to arguments - but I am uneasy about it yoking together two concepts that, in my mind, are very different.

Whatever your views on CRT (and I don't pretend to be knowledgeable) race and racism are real.
Children being born in the wrong body is not real.

@TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged , I'd been wondering was I the only person who read it. I think I'll have to re-read now, in the light of events. I remember thinking it a little naive and solipsistic, but also not wholly detached from reality.

I wonder have genealogists in Northern Ireland managed to find any Vance ancestors yet?

The issues do relate more than I had initially realised. I can remember reading a piece by an American detransitioner, and she clearly pointed out that in the world of oppression politics, a straight white girl can only move from being 'an oppressor' into the category of 'oppressed' by identifying as TQ+.

I also note that those who blindly promote Gender Identity Ideology also promote CRT as they are both part of the 'Omnicause' that has to be supported if you are OTRSOH. So, the same teachers who socially transition their pupils also push CRT.

There is definitely an important conversation needed about this and the way the two ideologies function together (I Willoughby has made some horrific comments that appear to be rooted in this combination of ideologies).

@DeanElderberry I have to be honest, my husband read it, and I absorbed bits and pieces by osmosis. BUT it is definitely on my reading list now.
@Floisme does it make sense to say, critical race theory is to racism as gender identity theory is to sexist stereotypes?
I'm not sure that works. And I don't think your wrong to worry.

The problem with CRT is that it teaches young children that 'white people' are the oppressor and that anyone non-white is oppressed. So DC, who are basically colour-blind, are then made aware of race and racial differences at a very young age, made to feel that they are either an oppressor or a victim, and they start to see skin colour at an age that they'd otherwise be largely oblivious to it. Criticising CRT does not make you a racist or a denier of racism, but many parents don't believe it's helpful or fair to be teaching it to children at school.

Edited to say: also 'white people' are seen as a homogenous blob, when they are not. Who is a 'white person'? Are Hispanic people white? Are Poles different from Brits and, if so, how? What about people of Irish ancestry? People of Jewish ancestry? What about people of Roma ancestry? Are they white? And what about people of mixed ancestry, as many Americans are? That is what is wrong with CRT.

Oh - lots of people replied to me which I wasn't expecting and now I have lots of people to reply to which is doing things to my ND brain 😅

I asked for the political leanings of people in here who thought it was a good thing, because it honestly sounds like a very right wing policy - policies/position/whatever. and I wondered if you were, too. I know we have a mixture in FWR.

I'm one of the many who would have previously comfortably called myself left and voted labour, but my position on gender identity makes me politically homeless, which is the position that I get the impression that lots of us on this board - perhaps the majority(?) are in. I'm a fairly regular name changer, so wouldn't expect people to recognise me. My employer is so very captured that I'm afraid I like to name change regularly in case I'm ever recognised or ousted, because I quite like having a job and being able to pay bills.

Perhaps I don't know enough about what is going on in America RE CRT education to have made an accurate conclusion about that. I am, rightly or wrongly, putting stress on who it is coming from and wider knowledge of their values and actions previously in office (particularly regarding "illegals" and "aliens" and migrants children being separated from their families, in cages, with no tracking or plans for reunification) ... I Just. Don't. Trust them when it comes to reducing the rights of anybody who isn't white American.

I know we Brits have a weird apologetic relationship with patriotism and America is very different in it's culture particularly regarding this. I'm not surprised that they would reference patriotic values under anybody's administration - but in the context of Trump's it does ring sinister alarm bells for me. I also must admit that "American Values" don't particularly impress me and that may be colouring my judgement too. "Not as extreme as China or Russia" isn't a very high bar, is it.

I'm willing to be wholly wrong, but none of this sits well or as any kind of relief to me, despite desperately wanting kids and women's rights to be protected against everything that trans threatens both with.

Thanks for the responses so far. I will read and digest.
Like I've said, it's yoking the two issues together that troubles me the most. I think I'd have felt less uneasy if they'd been covered separately.

If Vance has got roots here in Norn Iron then I’m predicting either North Antrim or the Lisburn/Castlereagh area, purely on the basis of knowing people with that surname who live in those areas.

Anyway, to do with the topic of the thread - I think the language of the EO is very American at times but I don’t see much wrong with the sentiments as expressed in that writing. I reserve judgement for the actions taken by the administration to achieve these goals.

Kids are going to notice skin colour and differences at some point though - surely it's more a case of is it being taught in an age-appropriate and proportionate way, than if it should be taught at all...?

I suspect children from black and other minority ethnicities are aware of systemic and both implicit and explicit racial discrimination long before white children are, because it is in theirs and their family's lived experience.

(And also thanks for saying a bit more about it, I'm learning from you)

Agreed and seconded, on both points

That's interesting. I wonder is that part of the root cause of the very a-historic 'Irish slaves' narrative that's developed in the last 15 years or so, or the growing view that Spanish people are not white (growing view in the USA btw, NOT in Spain). But both of them giving while people a chance to move themselves out of the 'oppressor' class and into 'oppressed'.

OTRSOH - please can I have a translation of what this means?

@SporadicMincePieMuncher you worded that so well, I completely agree. As pleased as I am that the Trump administration is addressing institutional capture, I simply don’t believe that they are doing this for women.

I’d add to your statement that I don’t trust them when it comes to reducing the rights of anyone who isn’t a white American MAN.

Yep, good point, I missed the obvious part of that, given the forum we are on!

(And thanks for saying it's worded well sometimes I'm not sure my words come out as I meant them so that means a lot!)

On The Right Side Of History.

Which basically means losing no opportunity to punch down on women and being smug about ones virtuousness in doing so. Both men and women do this.

@UtopiaPlanitia If Vance has got roots here in Norn Iron then I’m predicting either North Antrim or the Lisburn/Castlereagh area, purely on the basis of knowing people with that surname who live in those areas.

The other side of his family is Bowman who seem to be Antrim and Down with a few in Derry. Fascinating to imagine what his Scots Irish hillbilly forbears would make of him becoming Catholic.

I agree with you.
I am very hesitant to support anything Trump says or does, because it comes from a perspective of a mysogynist rapist.
I really can't believe that anything he is doing will benefit anyone other than Trump, or more broadly white men.

So I look at things like this and I am concerned, what is really going on, what is the motivation and what is the result on the ground going to be.
I am 100% certain that the result is not going to be better for kids and women.

I suspect it will drive the divide deeper between groups.

As you asked I am left leaning but GC, and with a child who is trans.

Dean is correct, OTRSOH is 'on the right side of history'. I think I used OTWSOH earlier which is 'on the wrong side of history'.

Yes, of course kids will become aware of skin colour at some point and it's right that racism be taught at school, in an age-appropriate way. But grouping people together simply according to the colour of their skin is ridiculous and harmful and plain wrong. If you ask Americans about their heritage they will usually tell you that they're a mix of different nationalities and/or ethnicities. You literally cannot assume anything from the colour of someone's skin alone.

'Who the fuck I think I am' is a woman with an opinion. But thanks for policing me Alison.

I am an extremely long signed up Mumsnetter. I have been on FWR many times. In this very thread I see the increasing right wing undermining and minimisation of dog whistle supremacist language being embraced by feminist posters all ignorant to the possible repercussions. It has been a trend of FWR for quote a while now.

Let me quote a poster or two and manipulate the wording slightly (apologies in advance) as well as a part of the EO and see how it sounds to you afterwards:

"Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination. In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics (including sex) .

"Feminist theory just sows division. It’s hard for a male kid from a really disadvantaged background to see how their life is so much easier than Obama’s (female) kids."

"Love it! Completely agree that attributing someone the label of oppressor based on their sex and NOTHING that [they] have done is damaging both to the person and to relations between sexes. I am only responsible for my actions, not those of the generations of men that have come before me."

So we have a dismissal of power dynamics based on race from the Trump Admin. Wholly expected, but apparently it's the view of some that's it's something to celebrate and that pointing out such power dynamics is victimisation of oneself, and a complete overlook of the rather sinister and ambiguous other immutable characteristics and the fact that could very well relate as easily to sex and/or sexuality. Feminism is also a theory and as likely to be seen as disruptive to the white right leaning, chauvinistic world view and American cultural harmony, (i.e hegemony) as any other 'theory' NOT just gender identity.

This is what I mean when I say many (not all, which I did not say) posters on FWR are willing to overlook the danger hidden in the viewpoint and language of these EOs. I made this same point yesterday but no one could see it there either.

I feel like Vance's fingerprints are all over all of these EOs.

I think you've misunderstood the context of my words.

My experiences in school were the same as yours, with more besides.

I think American patriotism is actually relatively race-blind, because their founding myth is a nation of immigrants who built the country with their bare hands, anyone was welcome if they could swing an axe, etc. You can argue it on the edges but I'm trying to contrast it with, say, Hungarian patriotism which is a lot more based on being ethnically Hungarian.

It's quite easy to imagine a black American waving a flag on the 4th of July and being really proud to be American, compared to the equivalent in any European country.

I think if you're going to have a successful multiracial state, you have to put in more effort into having shared cultural touchpoints that are independent of race, and enforcing those with tools of the state (e.g. K-12 education).

I think of myself as conservative, although I've "been on a journey" as they say...

I also agree with PP re: JD Vance. I think there's been a step change in the intellectual depth and organising power of Trump 2.0 vs 1.0 and I think it's coming from, if not solely Vance himself, the intellectual tradition that he represents. I think Vance & co are the future of MAGA as it becomes mainstream.

It's why I don't think it's entirely right to say "well Trump 1.0 didn't do much so neither will Trump 2.0" - for good or evil, depending on your politics obviously!