Not that I was familiar with the organization before, and based on its board of advisers, it will no doubt be the target of the usual critics for whom people who are not progressive range from evil scum of the earth to black “centrist” race traitors, but this dissection and response to the open letter to President Biden from the National School Boards Association is pretty impressive. The organization is FAIR, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism.
Its mission statement is unabashedly liberal, not in the sense of people calling progressives liberal but in the liberal ideals of civil rights, freedom and tolerance. You know, what liberal meant when conservatives tried to turn it into a dirty word back in the good old days.
The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity.
Its position supports such archaic notions are free speech, tolerance and, hold on to your seats, the existence of objective truth.
In reaction to the NSBA letter to Biden and the subsequent, and likely consequent, response by Attorney General Merrick Garland directing federal law enforcement to take action to protect school boards against threats of violence, FAIR put together a response that parses the claims. For example, it highlights this portion of the NSBA letter:
This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of a K-12 class.
And, to the left of the highlighted section, responds to the specific claim.
It is true that “Critical Race Theory” originated as a niche sub-discipline in law schools in the 1980s. But since then, it has evolved from a narrow sub-specialty of jurisprudence into the dominant ideology in a wide variety of university departments, including departments of education. As a result, many of the education graduates who go on to be teachers and school administrators naturally ground their work in the philosophy of CRT. While most grade schools do not teach anything explicitly identified as “critical race theory,” many of them do weave CRT’s core tenets into their policies, curriculum, and lesson plans. regardless of the label used, concepts from CRT are in fact being widely taught in public K12 schools. At its annual meeting on June 30th, the National Education Association voted on and adopted a plan specifically to “support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory,” and to encourage others to “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.” Thus, it is false to claim that “critical race theory” is not taught in public schools.
Both the annotated format of its response and the substance are very effective in “debunking” the the cursory claims presented by the NSBA and apparently adopted by the President and Department of Justice, at least to the extent of creating the appearance of taking action. The FAIR response goes on to similarly challenge claims of violence, of which they argue that only one incident across the nation occurred reflecting an isolated incident rather than a ubiquitous problem that demands the clout of federal intervention.
In its opening, the purpose of this response is made clear:
FAIR unequivocally stands against all acts of violence and threats that prevent public school officials from safely doing their jobs. We also recognize the difficulties that school board members face in our polarized political climate, particularly in navigating what are potentially life-and-death decisions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, we strongly disagree with the September 29th letter’s central requests. Our disagreements stem from our concern that these requests will interfere with the right of parents to freely criticize decisions made by school boards. Tensions on all sides are high, and we believe that it is essential to work together wherever possible to ease these tensions in a way that respects the interests of all parties.
Like the NSBA, I share a serious concern that the reaction of parents to school boards, administrations and teachers borders on the edge of explosive. It’s less about their disagreement with educational policies than it is about the methods employed. It’s too angry, too threatening, too outraged, and there is reason to fear that it is mere steps away from boiling over into violence. The sense that parents have that school boards aren’t listening to them may be true, but then, the right to seek redress is not the guarantee that you will get what you want. You can protest. Sometimes, the answer is no.
But the FAIR response raises sound and important points, that the reaction is overbearing, that rights such as free speech are at stake as the response to the complaints and challenges of parents is to exaggerate the facts of what has happened, gloss over reality with artfully deceptive rhetoric and use the fear of what might happen to justify the pre-emptive chilling, if not suppression, of civil rights.
Whether or not you agree with parents on the utility of masks in schools or the propriety of indoctrinating students in progressive ideology, regardless of what name it’s called, they have a right to their views, and they have a right to express those views strongly.
If and when parents cross the line from speech to conduct, then it needs to be addressed, and school board members, admins and teachers need protection from harm. The rhetoric has grown so overheated that it would be entirely unsurprising that it comes to violence. And while the speech may be borderline protected, threats of harm, even if not entirely serious or imminent, are deeply concerning and counterproductive.
Perhaps I take them a little more seriously than FAIR, and find them a lot more improper as a socially acceptable way to vent frustration because parents aren’t getting what they want out of their schools. But I can’t fault FAIR’s principled stance in opposition to an excessive reaction to what appears to be an exaggerated claim of harm. Indeed, this is the sort of calm, rational discussion that we need to overcome the deluge of empty outrage.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Keep your head
Every wants to
You can make me fall apart but I won’t blink
You won’t speak
And we won’t blow away
Our education department is headed by a man in a dress. Any parents who still haven’t figured out that “school” is harmful to their children and must be avoided at all costs, are not paying attention. Yes, the free babysitting service is nice, but the People’s Temple also had nice daycare service, and free koolaid for everyone.
Is this your way of telling me that I need to apply the Barleycorn rule to you? FOCUS.
Back at the time, I didn’t care either way about the Garland nomination. I didn’t think what McConnell did was fair, but on the other hand the other side didn’t have clean hands as to Republican nominations. So whatever.
In light of Garland’s response to the NSBA letter, it’s a blessing that he’s not on the SC. And good for FAIR for tearing apart the bs in that letter. If they’re this consistently rational and honest on other stuff, they may be donation worthy.
Save your money. They’re already paying 30% above the Madison Ave average for office space. Safe to say FAIR has a secure source of funding.
Is it FAIR to call FAIR bullshit propaganda?
I would be disappointed if you didn’t.
Where is the bullshit in FAIR’s response? Specifically, I mean. Not in the “doesn’t agree with my team on this” sense.
They claim: “We have more than 70 chapters nationwide” in a letter to the Attorney General. This is a lie. They have 70 locations listed on their website and every one of them is ‘looking for members’ to take up their cause.
They have class A space on Madison Ave and a few videos with fancy culture war rhetoric designed to appeal to the middle.
My guess is FAIR is one rich donor, a lawyer, an advertising agency, and a small collection of dupes.
Every chapter is “looking for members” because that’s what chapters do. The majority have leadership teams in place. It’s a six month old organization, with reports of tens of thousands of members, so presumably many chapters are well-populated but still bootstrapping the local organization. Even without this reasonable allowance, your comment is the greater falsehood.
But what does any of it have to do with the arguments in their letter? If principled liberalism is “fancy culture war rhetoric,” what does that make arguments against it?
You should totally give them a donation if you think they are what they claim to be and care so much about being FAIR.
*looks over to referee*
Penalty kick.
So just a yellow card, then. Not a red(dit).
Sure, it’s usual to lead with the best argument.
I’m feeling kinda wild and crazy today, so Ima let this play out for a bit and see how crazy it gets.
…later today, “Sorry I just lost my mind, for a minute”
It is kind of like watching lions take down the weakest gazelle in the herd. Inevitable but interesting in a ghoulish fashion.
Look at it this way PP, if I’m as dumb as you think I am, it should be concerning to you that something you believe in is ostensibly trying to reach, convince, and organize the average person, but just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Or maybe that’s not the goal of FAIR at all. To be honest, their web presence is so shoddy and ham-handed I’m starting to wonder if the real mark is their donor.
It appears the next best argument is “just doesn’t pass the smell test” supported wholly by mind-reading. That first sentence doesn’t even make sense, because if you were as dumb as you think I think you are, why would that make me care even more about what passes your smell test?
Jake, I’m sorry I couldn’t get here sooner. Please set aside everything you know you know about FAIR and try to critique the “propaganda” on its own merits. I’ll try my hardest to back you on it no matter what. I just don’t care whether FAIR is real or fake, and that’s not the point anyway.
Pops, you did say you wanted to see how crazy this could get. I wouldn’t be asking for elaboration necessarily if you hadn’t invited it. Jake, please subvert my expectation and don’t go wild or crazy this time.
Whew, I’m a little worn down and need to tag a partner, PK. I’d like to hear what you think about FAIRs full response. Weeding through prevaricating weasel words and rhetorical tricks in a letter from a disreputable source really wears me out.
How about this: They did not provide a shred of evidence to back up any of their counterfactual claims.
Right off the bat they write the incidents “seem to have been managed properly by local police”. They admit they don’t know the details and that at least one incident involved violence, but they still use that observation to support their belief that additional intervention by police would be unnecessary. Whether federal intervention would indeed inflame sentiment and make matters worse isn’t answered by FAIR who presents that fear as fact. I refuse to look past their words, so it looks like they are indeed being weasels at least in part. Good job, Jake.
I don’t find the marginalia “very effective” at all in contrast to our Host’s viewpoint. Rather than annotations, they could have presented their argument better by actually making one. I agree with you though, that parsing every single line can be tiresome. Thinking is hard.
There’s no principle here even if they try to mouth one. It’s just contrarian. Give me six lines written in the hand of an honest man, and I’ll give you enough to hang him.
It’s fine that you don’t prefer the annotation format that I thought was very effective. This is America and you’re allowed to be wrong.
Jake, I don’t know what the proper term is when one ad hominem attacks a group rather then an individual. But I think you are doing that here. I’m hard pressed to find anything approaching cynical in the tenor of FAiR.
I get very upset when anyone utters “ad hominem” frivolously, Drew. Don’t do this. Jake being a jerk is not ad hominem no matter how much you want it to be. Let’s raise the level of discourse beyond drooling out logical fallacies where they don’t belong.
While I’m so proud of you for noting that harsh words do not an ad hominem make, I’m not entirely sure Drew was wrong given Jake’s focus on who was making the argument rather than the argument they made. Particularly since Jake never actually addressed what was wrong with the arguments they made despite being asked over and over.
In a relaxed sense, sure. I’d rather not have to hear about fallacies except in extremely narrow circumstances. I am embarrassed to admit there was a time that I would have been happy to discuss them all, so I’m probably projecting on Drew. Sorry Drew.
Apology entirely unnecessary but accepted.
I’ve taken my licks here because I earned them. I’m a drummer no one takes more shit than a drummer.
If only school board meeting were as civil as we are here.
Chicks dig drummers. Don’t ask me how I know.
I also play the drums, Drew. Someday I hope we all gather at SHGs for a drum circle.
You didn’t address their response. You know, substance.
Are you actually ok with the FBI treating parents who protest at school board meetings like domestic terrorists? I know you hate them because you think you disagree with them politically, but terrorists? This is consistent with the constitution somehow?
Many school boards have opposed free speech well before this and knowingly include restrictions that have been deemed illegal by federal courts. Many school boards in Oregon say “Public comment may include suggestions and objective criticism of operations or programs but the board will not hear complaints concerning individual personnel.”
First, I was not allowed to criticize the superintendent. I sent the board and the state school board association links to court cases that banned the exact words they were using but was ignored.
At another meeting, I was told to stop talking for saying that math scores dropped immediately after new principal was hired. I cited the court cases and continued speaking. They chose not to make a scene in front of other parents.
Local boards tend not to be particularly aware of or concerned with people’s constitutional rights. That’s a serious problem.
“..Chicks dig drummers. Don’t ask me how I know.“..
To use a musical term you’ve tacitly revealed how you know and you did mention tympani recently.
Drums are the one instrument that can compel people to move just by playing a beat; yes it’s almost always chicks that do the moving.
Sorry for straying so far from topic
Timpani. TIMPANI.