Being Wrong, Irony, and Corruption

So, I was catching up on an older episode of Fresh Air, because that's what all the radical leftists seeking to topple the system are doing these days, amiright?

Terry Gross was interviewing a scholar and advocate for free speech in writing named Jeffrey Sachs. 

He's been looking into conservative efforts to create legislation regulating what can and cannot be discussed in schools. 

As an educator, I was very interested. 

A little more than twenty minutes into the episode, they get to North Dakota's Critical Race Theory (CRT) law that was signed by the Governor last November. The law forbids the delivery of instruction that includes the "theory that racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but that racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality." 

While this is a horrible law, it is also a learning opportunity. 

First lesson: I am Wrong Sometimes

On principle, I have to admit when I am wrong.

And here the conservative legislators in North Dakota showed me how wrong I was.

I have often leveled the criticism that conservatives railing against CRT do not actually know what CRT is. 

But the definition of CRT in the North Dakota law is a solid definition of the theory: "Racism is not merely the product of learned individual bias or prejudice, but [...] racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality." 

That is what critical race theory describes. Good work, lawmakers! You concisely stated what liberal advocates for the theory have been overexplaining for at least a year now. 

Second lesson: Irony

North Dakota passed a law making it illegal to teach about how "racism is systemically embedded in [...] the American legal system." 

I can't imagine people not seeing the irony there.

They passed a race-related law making it illegal to teach about race-related flaws in the legal system.

I'm reminded of the Bable Fish argument by Douglas Adams:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Third lesson: Individualist Philosophy has Been Corrupted 

The idea that racism can only exist in the mind of an individual is not an opinion. It is a rejection of reality. 

• American slavery was a racist institution 
• Separate but equal was a racist legal doctrine
• The segregation of schools was a racist education policy 
• Redlining was a racist federal policy enforced by the FHA
• We could keep going...

Were racist individuals involved in these institutions? Sure.

But if people understand what those institutions are, it becomes impossible for them to argue in good faith that racism is not embedded in social and legal systems. 

Something at the core of the American identity has been corrupted and used to undermine people's ability to accept certain realities. That something is the Individualist philosophy.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that the human individual is of primary importance. That is a cornerstone of the movement away from many of history's most oppressive hierarchies. I'm a fan.

But in a wrongheaded bastardization of this philosophy, extremists have begun to argue that the individual is the only thing of importance. This view rejects the influence of institutions and social constructs. In this view, the individual is the only one who can be racist, just, free, oppressed, guilty, or innocent. This view strips us of the ability to critique or improve institutions.  

It is a dangerous corruption of Individualist philosophy, and this North Dakota law is clear evidence of that corruption.  

Legitimate Political Discourse

Today the Republican National Convention's Resolutions Committee censured two party members for their participation in the House investigation of January 6th. 

Included in the resolution was the following: 

WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse...

"Legitimate political discourse."

That's what they called the riot.

The RNC just voted on and approved a resolution stating that the people participating in the January 6th riot were engaged in "legitimate political discourse."

They are saying that violence and threats of violence are legitimate political discourse.

I'm not being alarmist here. I'm not exaggerating. A copy of the resolution can be found below with the "whereas" in question highlighted. 

The RNC views the demonstrably violent actions of the rioters on January 6th as legitimate political discourse. 

One of the two major political parties in America views violence as a political tool.