Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 10, 2021

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law on Friday barring grade schools from teaching lessons about race or sex that may make students uncomfortable.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"It's a law that protects white students from white fragility by banning any subject that forces them to think critically about American racism past, present or future," wrote Zack Linly for The Root. "This isn't about education, it's about racism ... . Banning [critical race theory] does just as much to further the divide as teaching it apparently does. Black feelings are being disregarded while white feelings are being catered to."

These idiots implementing education policy STILL have no ------- clue what critical race theory is.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-05-10 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While idiot republicans attempt to ban teaching about racism in schools, dems in congress are attempting to do this:

Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar Introduce Bill to Make School Meals Free
www.democracynow.org

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-05-10 03:51 PM | Reply

-Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar Introduce Bill to Make School Meals Free

Do you want to pay for my kid's free lunch?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-10 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lying POS. The bill, which is linked to in the article, clearly does ban teaching about racism, or any other topic simply because it causes 'discomfort'. Lies like this which are so easy to debunk make you look as ridiculous as Trumpers.

Here is the relevant section of the bill:


1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school
district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or
make part of a course the following concepts:
a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race
or sex,
b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is
inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether
consciously or unconsciously,
c. an individual should be discriminated against or
receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of
his or her race or sex,
d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not
attempt to treat others without respect to race or
sex,
e. an individual's moral character is necessarily
determined by his or her race or sex,
f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
bears responsibility for actions committed in the past
by other members of the same race or sex,ENR. H. B. NO. 1775 Page 3
g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish
or any other form of psychological distress on account
of his or her race or sex, or
h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are
racist or sexist or were created by members of a
particular race to oppress members of another race.

Are you opposed to this? If so then --.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-10 09:11 PM | Reply

Lying POS. The bill, which is linked to in the article, clearly does *not ban teaching about racism, or any other topic simply because it causes 'discomfort'. Lies like this which are so easy to debunk make you look as ridiculous as Trumpers.

Here is the relevant section of the bill:

1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school
district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or
make part of a course the following concepts:
a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race
or sex,
b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is
inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether
consciously or unconsciously,
c. an individual should be discriminated against or
receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of
his or her race or sex,
d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not
attempt to treat others without respect to race or
sex,
e. an individual's moral character is necessarily
determined by his or her race or sex,
f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
bears responsibility for actions committed in the past
by other members of the same race or sex,ENR. H. B. NO. 1775 Page 3
g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish
or any other form of psychological distress on account
of his or her race or sex, or
h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are
racist or sexist or were created by members of a
particular race to oppress members of another race.

Are you opposed to this? If so then --.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-10 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you want to pay for my kid's free lunch?
#3 | POSTED BY EBERLYM

Why do you ask?

Do you need help feeding your kids?

If your kids are well fed at home then they won't need to eat the free lunch.

Unless they are greedy little pigs. Are you raising greedy little pigs?

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-05-10 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Are you opposed to this? If so then --.
#5 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You didn't explain anything or do yourself any favors by repeating it.

It's still just a bunch of racist word salad.

Of course, I am opposed to it.

Do you support this racist word salad? If so -- and all your deplorable buddies, too!

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-05-10 10:48 PM | Reply

'A solution looking for a problem'

The bill's author, Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, said HB 1775 will not prevent teachers from teaching history or anything currently in the state's education standards.

"This bill simply says that teachers can't force a student to answer that they are inherently racist or sexist or that they must feel personally responsible for things perpetrated in the past by people of a similar race or gender," West said in a statement.

Legislative Democrats questioned whether teachers are actually making students feel ashamed for past sins, including slavery, segregation and the mistreatment of American Indians.


www.oklahoman.com

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-10 10:56 PM | Reply

Racism makes my --- sore.

#9 | Posted by Jaspar at 2021-05-10 11:36 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If it means the other kids who rely on those meals for a majority of their daily caloric intake get fed along with your kid, you god damn well better believe I do!

What a silly question.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-05-11 12:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Does this mean they can't teach and the Holocaust?

#11 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-05-11 01:16 AM | Reply

Food should not be political. Feed the kids, and the poor.

#12 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-05-11 01:17 AM | Reply

This is just a bunch of folks in the majority in America, who are really, really, really afraid of becoming the minority...

...because they've seen how minorities are treated in America.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-05-11 03:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

For the maganutz, a copy of Archibald Willard's "Yankee Doodle" cartoonish painting will suffice. All guys. All white. "Pure." And very, very simple.

New GOP education pitch: History for simpletons.

#14 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-05-11 06:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Of course, I am opposed to it. "

Wow, so you support the teaching of those things listed in a' through h'. You must be racist.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-11 10:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Being forced to learn lies makes BIPOC uncomfortable.

#16 | Posted by fresno500 at 2021-05-11 12:34 PM | Reply

huh.

Sounds super woke.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-11 01:34 PM | Reply

1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school
district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or
make part of a course the following concepts:
...
f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
bears responsibility for actions committed in the past
by other members of the same race or sex.

So much for the party of personal responsibility.

Ohhhhh! Not that kind of responsibility. My bad.

#18 | Posted by purplesage at 2021-05-11 03:03 PM | Reply

Seriously though, I teach this material every term to classes of first yr University students from First Nations, settler and newcomer backgrounds. Its a good exercise to talk about the consequences of colonization in the present day and our individual responsibilities for the unpaid debts of history.

In short feeling guilt is cheap - its nothing. Who cares if you feel guilt? Only by working for justice, equity and dignity for all is balance restored.

#19 | Posted by purplesage at 2021-05-11 03:11 PM | Reply

"individual responsibilities for the unpaid debts of history"

What exactly does this mean? Is it akin to the national debt?

#20 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-11 07:25 PM | Reply

Shameless fake news headline is there even after it's been debunked.

#21 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-11 10:08 PM | Reply

Thanks, First Amendment!

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-11 10:13 PM | Reply

#20 unpaid debts of history. What I was thinking of is that we all need to make peace w the past - The legacy of our ancestors. Generations from now our descendants will look back at us and either thank us or wonder why things didn't get fixed when there was more slack (clean water, spare oil, genetic resources) to do it.

#23 | Posted by purplesage at 2021-05-11 10:51 PM | Reply

I'll take that as a legitimate question Eberly.

Yes of course I do.

It's nuts to be forcing kids to pay for their own lunch anyway at a place they are forced to go to.

#24 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-05-12 12:59 AM | Reply

"Do you want to pay for my kid's free lunch?"

Do you want to pay for my kid's free education?
Or do you want to pay for my kid's three hots and a cot in prison?
Which one does your little Republican's heart desire, helping people succeed or punishing people who fail?

(Spoiler alert: We all know the answer to that.)

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-12 02:04 AM | Reply

Safe Spaces are really catching on. Probably should have nipped that isolationism in the bud.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-05-12 08:29 AM | Reply

The concept that some people think that 'one race is inherently superior to another race' and that is wrong, is a subset of the concept that 'one race is inherently superior to another race'. So this bill prohibits taking about the wrongness of racism.

#27 | Posted by Snowfake at 2021-05-12 09:26 AM | Reply

"The concept that some people think that 'one race is inherently superior to another race' and that is wrong, is a subset of the concept that 'one race is inherently superior to another race'. So this bill prohibits taking about the wrongness of racism."

Nonsense, on both counts.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-12 01:46 PM | Reply

. Its a good exercise to talk about the consequences of colonization in the present day and our individual responsibilities for the unpaid debts of history.

Without knowing who you are or where you're from, I'd bet that you're just as much a victim of colonialism as anyone. Off the top of my nugget, I can't think of a single culture that wasn't a victim of colonialization or subjugation. Possibly the ancient Romans or Greeks, although I suspect they dealt with their own troubles..it was just before such things were written down or recorded.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-12 02:08 PM | Reply

"It's nuts to be forcing kids to pay for their own lunch anyway at a place they are forced to go to."

Are kids forced to pay for their own lunch ever?

If they do buy a lunch, I'm the one paying for it. But they're under no obligation to buy anything. Mine bring their own.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-12 02:10 PM | Reply

Wow...okay the responses from some of you really make me realize how you don't have kids or have no ------- business raising kids.

If it means the other kids who rely on those meals for a majority of their daily caloric intake get fed along with your kid, you god damn well better believe I do!
What a silly question.

#10 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2021-05-11 12:17 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)
| NEWSWORTHY 8

The question was that difficult, was it? It was so ------- tricky you had to qualify it into something I DIDN'T ask at all so you could ---- that nugget out?

And along come 8 dolts to flag it NW.......I ------- love this place. I really do.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 02:21 PM | Reply

You guys are unaware there are already programs in place to fund free school lunches for those who qualify.

Apparently you are unaware this has been in existence for some time. Why would anyone need to make all lunches for free for everyone?

Ponder on that for a moment....and then actually answer MY question...do you want to pay for MY kid's free lunch?

MY kid's free lunch?

I assuming you understand that I can pay for my kid's lunch along with the entire ------- lunchroom and not miss a beat.

The poor already get their free lunches...now you want to make mine free as well?

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 02:24 PM | Reply

We already have enough people who believe life is about a free lunch.

We don't need more.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 02:31 PM | Reply

The poor already get their free lunches...now you want to make mine free as well?

What would that end up adding? $5? $10?

Yea. I'd rather all kids be able to get a free lunch than have any kid not get lunch and be hungry.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-05-12 02:44 PM | Reply

Actually. Here are the details:

School lunch costs for students vary by state and district, but on average, a single meal costs students $2.48 at the elementary-school level and $2.74 at the high-school level. One school in California reportedly charges its students up to $6.80 for a single meal.

thecounter.org

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-05-12 02:45 PM | Reply

-Yea. I'd rather all kids be able to get a free lunch than have any kid not get lunch and be hungry.

So, again, you're unware there is a long standing program that already ensures that kid gets his lunch?

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 02:49 PM | Reply

you're unware there is a long standing program that already ensures that kid gets his lunch?

Probably as I don't have kids and had parents making me lunches to take to school. (Until I was in high school and became too cool for home lunches. Especially when I could leave campus and go eat fast food like the cool kids did.)

Regardless. The answer to whether I'm okay with covering kids who can afford lunches along with kids who can't.

The answer is yes. I'm okay with paying the insignificant amount of taxes necessary to feed kids at public schools.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-05-12 03:03 PM | Reply

"I assuming you understand that I can pay for my kid's lunch along with the entire ------- lunchroom and not miss a beat."

Turns out Uncle Sam can pay that too.

"We already have enough people who believe life is about a free lunch."

The Republicans picked one to lead your party. And you picked faux outrage.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-12 03:04 PM | Reply

So, again, you're unware there is a long standing program that already ensures that kid gets his lunch?

And there has been historical stigma attached to "those kids" who qualify for free or reduced-cost meals in school. Volumes have been written about it.

So yes, I've always thought that in modern schools with industrial kitchens, lunch should be provided to every student and the cost should be paid for by the state and federal governments or simply incorporated into school budgets covered by taxes.

When something is mandatory, there should be little if any ancillary costs transferred to those who don't have any real choice to opt out (excepting the home schooling option which most working parents aren't able to pull off). With our already high rate of childhood food insecurity and poverty this really should be a no-brainer.

So Ebs, I have no problem with wealthier kids benefiting too since each child is supposed to receive the same educational experience anyway. I also don't believe that parents should be responsible for book rentals either. Child education shouldn't be any burden upon parents when the educations given will benefit future employers and all of our governments when these kids grow up to become taxpayers themselves. Money spent on kids should be viewed as an investment in our future, not a reason to nickel and dime while adding unnecessary stress upon already stressed out parents scraping to get by.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:07 PM | Reply

-The answer is yes. I'm okay with paying the insignificant amount of taxes necessary to feed kids at public schools.

Oh, it doesn't end there.....you'll be paying for MY kid's lunch...at a private school.

-And there has been historical stigma attached to "those kids" who qualify for free or reduced-cost meals in school. Volumes have been written about it.

My kids have never known who gets free lunches and who doesn't.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:17 PM | Reply

#39

Actually, giving this further thought, the Dept. of Agriculture should stop paying farmers subsidies NOT to grow crops and have them shift to providing food specifically for distribution to schools, prisons, and any other federally funded entities required to provide food to those they serve. Let the government contract for domestically grown fruits and vegetables as well.

There should be ZERO tax dollars spent on NOT using productive farm land when millions are food insecure or do not have enough money to purchase what their families need.

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:17 PM | Reply

"Child education shouldn't be any burden upon parents..."

The most important educator of kids will always be the parents. There is real removal of the "burden". Can we make it easier? sure...free lunches for everyone, I guess.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:22 PM | Reply

My kids have never known who gets free lunches and who doesn't.

No Such Thing as a Stigma-Free Lunch

Fighting the stigma of free lunch: Why universal free school lunch is good for students, schools, and families

There are literally hundreds of studies and articles on this topic, anecdotes excluded.

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:22 PM | Reply

I tracked down what school lunches have to do with teaching about racism in schools - I realize they're not mutually exclusive, but it's not the topic.

Post #2 isn't as much about feeding kids, or providing kids with free lunches, as much as it's about :

75% of school districts have school meal debt, and the new bill would "eliminate school meal debt, and strengthen local economies by incentivizing local food procurement."

Seems to be more about plugging up holes, paying bills and corse correcting.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-05-12 03:24 PM | Reply

"historically, schools have made students wait in different lines to receive NSLP meals, drawing attention to recipients. Schools also provide noticeably different meals to students with outstanding balances. One school district reportedly served "sandwiches of shame," made of just bread and cheese, to students with meal debt."

I agree that's a problem but again, going back 15 years...none of my kids ever saw that.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:28 PM | Reply

Oh, it doesn't end there.....you'll be paying for MY kid's lunch...at a private school.

Should have already been incorporated into their tuition or covered by whatever voucher the state already provides.

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:30 PM | Reply

44

Yeah, from the link in #2 that was the reason. That's a better reason I suppose.

I just think it's funny......some of you guys would be paying for a free lunch for my kid at a private school.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:30 PM | Reply

"My kids have never known who gets free lunches and who doesn't."

They don't teach that poor people exist at private school?

I believe you.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-12 03:33 PM | Reply

"Should have already been incorporated into their tuition "

You can't just bundle the pricing. There has to be some itemization.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:36 PM | Reply

I agree that's a problem but again, going back 15 years...none of my kids ever saw that.

From what I can gather, you're a good parent who raised your children to be wholesome, decent citizens. That isn't the case for everyone. Kids know which kids come from impoverished backgrounds outside of simply the lunchroom. The shoes and clothes that kids wear is the first clue, along with where they live. There have always been kids looking to stigmatize other kids in order to cover for their own insecurities. It can be just another reason to bully or ostracize for those so inclined.

Ask your kids again if they knew who was poor and who wasn't. I'm pretty sure they did though they were raised not to hold it against others by the values you raised them with.

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:36 PM | Reply

You can't just bundle the pricing. There has to be some itemization.

Yes you can, Look at the bill you pay for food service in college. There's a bulk charge and then students pick and choose what they actually eat, or if they actually eat the school's food.

This is not rocket science. Lunches would add approximately $10-$20 more each week of school, calculated however they charge for school itself.

#51 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 03:41 PM | Reply

50

Thank you...sincerely.

What helps level the field are uniforms, IMO. We have the richest kids and the poorest kids pretty much all wearing the same thing.

If you want to remove stigmatisms in school.......support uniforms.

And it's not lost on the kids who comes from pretty difficult circumstances although my 2 oldest were shocked later in high school or even after high school when they learned some kids had rougher situations than they thought. For the reasons you cited....kids experiencing that keep that as quiet as possible to avoid the embarrassment or the bullies.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:44 PM | Reply

-Lunches would add approximately $10-$20 more each week of school

and the drama from those who always bring their lunches?

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 03:46 PM | Reply

Clown, Tony...you guys are making good points.

I'm not in disagreement overall....but the school lunch program is already a Federal program and along comes Bernie Sanders to say "well, it's not Federal enough" I just shake my head a little on that.

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2021-05-12 04:03 PM | Reply

When I was in school, there were at least two lines. One for the standard meal, where everyone got practically the same things put on their trays (unless they declined a specific item), and the la carte line, where there was more to choose from and students paid cash for each item. For standard meals, students got tickets every other week that they tore off and handed over at the "checkout", so nobody knew whether they paid full price, half price or got them for free.

If kids owe lunch debt (which is another issue), it seems the more sensible thing to do would be to bill their parents and even turn them over to a collection agency if they won't pay (or provide whatever is needed to show their child is eligible for NSLP), rather than raising taxes on everyone including those who are eligible for it to pay for lunches for everyone.

#55 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-12 04:03 PM | Reply

"If kids owe lunch debt (which is another issue), it seems the more sensible thing to do would be to bill their parents and even turn them over to a collection agency if they won't pay"

Yeah, that will help them get fed.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-12 04:21 PM | Reply

Better yet, give the kids jobs after school for one hour each day to pay for the costs of lunch. They could mow campus lawns and playing fields. They could be responsible for sharpening pencils and erasing blackboards. They could wash and fold the laundry for all the athletic teams. They could help wax the gymnasium floor and clean up the school cafeteria. So many possibilities.

#57 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-05-12 04:27 PM | Reply

#57

So the kids get to be stigmatized again for their parents' lack of money? And who's going to foot the bill to transport these kids to their homes after their chores are completed for the day?

I do understand the concept - to build responsibility. But children 5-6 years old and up don't need to be subjected to forced labor imo. Why does every situation have to be judged based upon immediate metrics instead of a longer term view?

Better educated and fed students will likely be healthier and need less care, saving taxpayers money not spent on mandatory CHIP programs. And these children can grow up to find more lucrative employment and pay more in taxes than the undereducated or drop outs.

Again, I see education as society's investment in it's own future, not just an expense to be minimized in the here and now. We reap what we sow.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 04:43 PM | Reply

Come on, TR. I would hope you know me better than that by now than to believe #57 was anything other than sarcasm. Other suggestions might include paying the poor kids to shine the shoes of the other students, and clean their room. No stigma there.

#59 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-05-12 05:51 PM | Reply

Come on, TR. I would hope you know me better than that by now than to believe #57 was anything other than sarcasm.

Nope, until this moment I had no idea. I guess my humor meter is on the fritz.

#60 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-05-12 05:58 PM | Reply

If a school is already breaking rules and guidelines and goes out of its way to stigmatize poorer students, they're not going to magically stop just because you reward them for it by throwing more money at them to forcefeed everyone GMO slop. Find a better solution.

#61 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-12 06:25 PM | Reply

Republican Snowflakes...(drops mic, walks away)

#62 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-05-12 07:30 PM | Reply

Once again, debunking the outright lie in the headline...

news.yahoo.com


In a video statement released after signing Bill 1775, Stitt argued that the legislation "clearly endorses teaching to the Oklahoma academic standards, which were written by Oklahoma educators and include events like the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Tulsa Race Massacre, the emergence of Black Wall Street, Oklahoma City lunch counter sit-ins led by Clara Luper and the Trail of Tears."

"We must keep teaching history and all of its complexities and encourage honest and tough conversations about our past. Nothing in this bill prevents or discourages those conversations," Stitt said. "We can and should teach this history without labeling a young child as an oppressor or requiring that he or she feel guilt or shame based on their race or sex. I refuse to tolerate otherwise."


#63 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-12 07:47 PM | Reply

The OK City Council has gone on a rant against this Anti-racism bill, calling it "disgusting", "appalling", and "white fragility". I kid you not. I guess they really do support teaching those concepts.

www.theroot.com

#64 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-05-12 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lazy. Worthless. "At least I know who my daddy is!"

CRT says that showing up for work on time, working hard to get ahead, and believing in the nuclear family are all White Supremacist.

It says the exact opposite of what MLK preached, too. Which is really odd. It's like they went out of their way to do that, like the "White Privilege" vs. "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thing. I swear to God they deliberately throw it right in your face, just to laugh at the people who don't see it.

#65 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-05-12 08:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"CRT says that showing up for work on time, working hard to get ahead, and believing in the nuclear family are all White Supremacist."

Link?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-12 09:28 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort