In a subscribers only article today on the Argus Leader website, the South Dakota University system whistleblower Woki-Leaks takes center stage as the article discusses the after-effects of when university faculty engage in name-calling:
“The professors yapping about us being racists wasn’t the place to go,” said May, who lives on the Pine Ridge Reservation and whose husband and children are enrolled members of the tribe.
and..
Maher, a Republican who lives in Isabel on the Cheyenne River Reservation, said he employs Native Americans. He criticized academics who hurl insults from the ivory tower of academia who don’t have an understanding of what life is like on the reservation.
“If you’re going to talk smack, at least get your ass out here and see what life is like,” he said.
and..
For his part, Brian Maher said he doesn’t think the differences between the campus and Capitol ideologies are irreconcilable, but he said the name-calling makes his job harder.
And there’s much more. Go check it out.
“If you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist” isn’t exactly the intellectual rigor you’d hope for from a university professor.
SD Woki-Leaks is a drain on the regent system and the legislature.
You mean like lancing an abscess?
Is there really that many people in South Dakota that haven’t seen or been through a reservation? One doesn’t have to live on a reservation to see there are problems.
#WokoHaram is the term used to describe what’s happening in university systems. This is pure cult with wealthy and powerful zealots who manage to infiltrate and intimidate.
Professors need to teach the subject matter for which they were hired instead of promoting some political or bizarre agendas. The campuses are becoming hostile places.for some staff and students. It is disturbing to know that some conservative students who try to defend their views even receive death threats. More are opting to go to tech schools where they are not mandated to take classes that are just off topic garbage.
For students: Is your primary objective in going to college:
1) To be well “educated” in liberal progressive ideology or
2) To be well educated to be optimally prepared to enter the job market in your desired vocation?
For Taxpayers: Are you interested in subsidizing fullfilling a student desire to be “well educated in liberal progressive ideology?
For University leadership: You are doing a great job of meeting the objective of “educating” in liberal progressive ideology and failing horribly in preparing students to have meaningful employment.
Timothy Schorn a political science professor at USD and director of international studies says “the country is at a place where it needs to confront historical inequities. That requires new critiques of past authors, intellectuals, theorists, and political leaders.”
Critical race theory (CRT) would like to teach our children that White Supremecy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law. Those who initially promoted CRT were Marxists who also believe that the Founders wrote the Constitution for power, control, and personal gain. With that in mind, CRT basically would like to rid of the Constitution as it is not progressive enough. For instance, CRT teaches we are all born into a class that we should have to account for so that we all have equal outcomes. No longer is it good enough to have equality under the law like our Constitution promotes, but equal outcomes is the goal and arguably Mr. Schorns goal as well.
So to the good Professors at our Universities, if you would like to teach and promote CRT, please just state that as your intention. Because SD would like to interview you for the job and my guess is they would like to move on to the next applicant. I for one believe that we live in the Greatest Nation that has existed in history. I believe in our Constitution and the Founders who wrote it. I, and many other SD families, are concerned about biased information being taught behind closed doors.
If CRT wants to be brought forward and debated, I think there are many who would be happy to take on this debate. It does need to be out in the open, so SD is aware of what is being considered. I don’t think SD would agree that this is the path that we want our youth to follow.
Thank you,
Erin Tobin
Most critical race theorists do not want to “rid of the constitution” as you claim and they regularly cite the 14th Amendment as grounds for many of their proposed measures to overcome systemic racism. Now, I’m not a fan of CRT, do not want most of its proposed measures imposed, and think it has a lot of problems both from a philosophical and enforcement perspective, however, that doesn’t mean I am going to lie about what its adherents believe. Your post had a bit of a McCarthyist feel to it, which is a weird tact to take given how bad the philosophy is without tying it to communism as a sort of albatross.
If I am wrong on my take on CRT then feel free to show examples of how. That’s why I recommended the debate.
Saying that my statement gives you a McCarthyist feel is also an an albatross. It’s hypocritical to cite me for this and then turn around and do the exact same thing.
PS: I would rather call CRT – State Sanctioned Racism.
Erin
Took me literally 5 seconds: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1254/critical-race-theory
This isn’t people attempting to do away with the constitution. It’s scholars debating what amendments should/should not protect. As to your claims of hypocrisy: that doesn’t really make sense. Telling someone that their accusations have a McCarthyist feel isn’t McCarthyist itself, it is the exact opposite. Are you one of those folks who claims people who don’t put up with intolerance and THE REAL INTOLERANT ones as some sort of gotcha?
Googling to look for an article is not in anyway participating in debate.
CRT claims that systemic racism started with the Constitution and its founders. In order to battle systemic racism, the whole system needs to be brought down. Children need to understand their inherent place in society from the start. Children need to recognize their difference in the world based on the color of their skin and not on the content of their character. CRT is state sanctioned racism.
That is my belief and the belief of many others in the State. I do not have a google article to shoot at you (although I could), just my biased side of the argument based on months of reading about the topic. Again, before the State subsidizes a way of thought or a “theory”, it really should be debated and agreed upon by the BOR/State. If Professors want to teach about this, they should come forward and let the consumer be aware of what they are purchasing.
No gotcha here. Just talking. No need to yell.
Peace,
Erin
CRT attempts to bend the Constitution to bring it in line with its political dogma, as the very article cited above makes clear. It’s all about reconfiguring the law and legal principles based on quasi-Marxist assumptions about identity, oppression, marginalization, and so on. Often, if not usually, the political agenda is given priority over the law as such. Again, the article cited above illustrates this.
You don’t have to formally reject something (i.e., the Constitution) to do away with it. You can simply twist its meaning until it is no longer recognizable. This is what the CRT and Critical Social Justice people are expert in.
This is how this conversation has progressed:
You: CRT people want to overturn the constitution!
Me: That’s not really true. Here is some evidence to support my claim.
You: Evidentiary support is not how debates are done.
Uh, yes. Yes it is. When you make claims, you should try to support them with evidence. And, sorry, “I’m biased and I believe it and there are other people like me” is not evidence.
Also you: No the sky isn’t blue – http://www.theskyisn’tblue.com. See I proved it and debate over.
?????
When someone tells you what an entire group of people wants and you provide a counter example, that kinda undermines their point, no? If you have an actual retort, I’d love to hear it.
See below Payne Hiraldo. Just because you or other Scholars don’t believe State Sanctioned Racism does not attack the Constitution, that does not mean your beliefs are true. Other Scholars believe that it is an attack on the Constitution (equality under the law) and is anti-American. That is why I am standing against it and I have that right. If you believe that it is simply a “way to look at how amendments are applied in law” you also have that right. Thank you for the debate.
Erin
May & Maher walk the walk, talk the talk and know more about business from an outside of Tribal perspective on the Rez than anyone I’ve ever known in State Government. For anyone to suggest they have racist attributes in their business acumen or personality is uninformed, nutty and somewhat moronic.
Critical Race Theory and Neo-Marxism are twin sisters. Prove me wrong.
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You aren’t Steven Crowder and this isn’t a college campus, so you are gonna have to try harder.
“The role of CRT lies in the propositions that racism is ordinary and permanent; that whiteness and property coincide; that history is told only by dominant groups, and requires a counter narrative; and that color-blindness is a myth, and that the notion of equality of rights is itself a reflection of color hierarchy.” Payne Hiraldo “The Role of of Critical Race Theory in Higher Education”.
A theory in itself is not evidence. The evidence goes both ways, is extremely biased and anti-American. CRT hurts people of all colors; all people suffer from this theory being brought to fruition in mainstream higher ed. This is much too controversial and anti-American of a topic to allow to seep into higher education.
Maher and May do not have a racist bone in their body, but by CRT theory, they are already guilty of racism before they even receive due process, literally they were born guilty of racism.