Racist School Assignment from NC - let's play this game!

[ricechickie]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

. Sexuality should have no place in public education other than one being recognized as a biologically born male or female. Sexuality or the sex of a child other than ones biological identity, absolutely has no place in the public education conversation. Period.

Once kids are in high school, they are aware of sexual orientation.

 

[beagle9]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

. It is being kept relevant by groups for agenda purposes, and because certain groups will not trust one another in a situation where culture clash fuels this sort of stuff in a super bad way. Watching a documentory/show called "Burn M-F-er Burn on Showtime.. Interesting.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

In my opinion, none. Wouldn't it be a great discussion if others felt differently?

How? Nowadays, those who feel differently about the value of skills vs. race/gender/sexual identity are being shouted down and shut out of all "discussion".
In a survival situation described, the only relevant information would be skill sets? Why emphasize any other characteristics of the candidates at all?

 

[ricechickie]

[
I'm a teacher.

I/E daycare provider.

Teacher.

But your attempt to demean me is noted.

 

[Tilly]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

Why, then, are the individuals not identified solely on their skill sets? Who cares what race or gender a construction worker or doctor is? Why take any handicapped lawyer at all? A preacher, what additional skills does he possess? Pregnant mother with baggage, again, what skills does she bring with?
Of course the exercise is racist, sexist, and homophobic because it categorizes choices with irrelevant survival characteristics.

As I've said over and over again, learning to sift through information is a skill. When a student reads a passage, they have to pull out relevant information. If all you give them is relevant information, they can't practice that skill.

There is plenty of irrelevant info that could be included, why choose something divisive like race, sexual orientation? Why not irrelevant
hobbies, for example?

 

[MaryL]

Absurd. If those were my ONLY choices? I would lock everyone out (including myself ), the hell with the human race.

 

[ricechickie]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

In my opinion, none. Wouldn't it be a great discussion if others felt differently?

How? Nowadays, those who feel differently about the value of skills vs. race/gender/sexual identity are being shouted down and shut out of all "discussion".
In a survival situation described, the only relevant information would be skill sets? Why emphasize any other characteristics of the candidates at all?

That's what's funny! None of it was being "emphasized." All the information was presented. It's up to the student to decide how and if to use it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In a survival situation described, the only relevant information would be skill sets? Why emphasize any other characteristics of the candidates at all?

We both know the answer to that one already.

This has everything to do with racialist indoctrination and nothing to do with critical thinking.

 

[dcbl]

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society.

What constitutes your measure of "all?" The choices in the scenario offer three white folks, two of whom can reasonably be assumed to be productive, and all three of whom must be assumed to be upstanding.

I know what upstanding means, but I have no idea what you may think it means, OP-er, but regardless of what you think, I have news for you:

• "Racist and white" and "upstanding and productive member of society" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are racists who hold jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to their "whites-only" community. Indeed, I know some whites in the U.S. who have never encountered or spoken to a black person, but they have seen black people, mostly on television and in movies.
• "50 years old, white and being a Catholic priest" is also not necessarily mutually exclusive with "upstanding and productive member of society."
• If one is "20 year old, white, female, pregnant, has a two year old son and on welfare," one is less obviously a productive member of society, but one can very well be upstanding. To the extent such an individual economically contributes more to society than she takes from it, she too is a productive member of society.
  
  I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but "being on welfare" does not mean that one's sole means of support is public assistance. It means that one receives some public assistance. Indeed, the majority of people receiving public assistance have a job too. (See also: Welfare In America: Most Low-Wage, Full-Time Workers Use Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Analysis Shows)

The fact that you deem as not "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" the three white folks in the exercise says more about your own preconceived notions of what it means to be "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" than it does about whether any of them are. Accordingly, I kindly suggest you invest some of your time taking the course offered/suggest at one or more of these sites:

• Oxford's Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Will Teach You to Think Like a Philosopher | Open Culture
  
• Critical Thinking: Where to Begin
  
• Creative and Critical Thinking Training Course
  
• The 10 Bona Fide Best Sites for Sharpening Your Critical Thinking Skills - Mission to Learn - Lifelong Learning Blog
  
• Critical Thinking Courses | Coursera
  
• Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving | Learning Tree International

I'm sure at this point you doubt the merit of my suggestion. Continue reading...

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

I have no doubt that some parents did indeed make such a claim/inference. Some children are cursed with myopic mental midgets for parents. Kids are thus cursed mainly when they are stuck with parents who make no effort to see, think and examine things beyond their initial suppositions about them, or, to put it another way, their parents think as a child or adolescent would. Doing that is a manifestation of willful ignorance, and it's something parents should know better than to do.

According to the article you cited, "Parents say being forced to pick people to save based on their race and sexual identity is not a good lesson to teach." Well, that's just about the most irrelevant and sophomoric conclusion one might reach regarding the assignment. Yes, race is provided for each of the individuals.

From where I stand, it's clearly an exercise for teaching kids to refrain from jumping to specious conclusions or making/acting on hasty generalizations, specifically the kind that manifest themselves as or rely upon stereotypes about race in their decision making. The pedagogical point of the exercise is to provide a framework the teacher can use to catalyze instruction in that regard and about clear and rational/critical thinking.

What makes it clear the preceding is accurately adjudged as the points and approach of the exercise? The fact that, of all the traits provided, race is the only one that does not inherently have any relevant impact on whether the person is "worth" saving, from a practical and rational standpoint. For example, the construction worker could as well have been black or Latino, but his strength is of equal use no matter his race. The only relevance race has is its impact(s) on the thinking of one who thinks it makes a difference. In other words, race and whatever choices/leanings one makes/has pertaining to it are "all about" the person who allows race to be a factor, and not about the people of a given race.

To "succeed," the students must do one of the following:

• Point out the insufficiency of reasoning attendant with making choices about people based on arbitrary traits provided and that don't have anything to do with a person's fitness for a given task or with the likelihood of one individual's superiority (based solely on the information given/available) over others in a given situation.
• Articulate a choice (or approach to "narrowing the field") that is based on a line of sound critical reasoning, which necessarily must derive either (1) from practical exigencies that may be soundly inferred from the situational information given, or (2) from applying the tenets of a well developed system of moral philosophy/ethics (i.e., not because someone is a member of a given race) and that uses the intrinsic characteristics of the individual and situation as the basis of the decision. For example:
  • Choosing the construction worker because it can be inferred that he is likely the strongest, and his strength may be essential after the bombing is over, perhaps to open the door to get out the shelter if it's blocked.
  • Choosing the guy in wheelchair because choosing him is an act of kindness that, but for it, the man would surely perish.
  • Choosing the doctor because her skills will be essential for sustaining everyone's life during and after the conflagration.

I think it is pretty obvious what my point was, the minorities in this exercise were portrayed in a more favorable light than the whites, especially with the classification of the construction worker as racist

 

[gallantwarrior]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

. Sexuality should have no place in public education other than one being recognized as a biologically born male or female. Sexuality or the sex of a child other than ones biological identity, absolutely has no place in the public education conversation. Period.

Once kids are in high school, they are aware of sexual orientation.

Not when I was in high school. The only sexual orientation relevant to us was, "does she, or doesn't she"...and we weren't interested in her hair color, either. These days, students have to be extra-special careful about what pronouns they use to refer to other students, and probably faculty, too. To my knowledge, the English language officially has three recognized pronouns: he, she, or it. If the object being referred to is masculine, it is "he". If the object is feminine, it is "she". If the object is neutral or indeterminate, it's "it". Anything else...yeah, whatever...

 

[Tilly]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

. It is being kept relevant by groups for agenda purposes, and because certain groups will not trust one another in a situation where culture clash fuels this sort of stuff in a super bad way. Watching a documentory/show called "Burn M-F-er Burn on Showtime.. Interesting.

Agreed. They are really hoping there are some kids dumb enough to pick only the white people or only the non white people.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[
I'm a teacher.

I/E daycare provider.

Teacher.

But your attempt to demean me is noted.

Those who can't do teach three year olds at their home.

 

[ricechickie]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

Why, then, are the individuals not identified solely on their skill sets? Who cares what race or gender a construction worker or doctor is? Why take any handicapped lawyer at all? A preacher, what additional skills does he possess? Pregnant mother with baggage, again, what skills does she bring with?
Of course the exercise is racist, sexist, and homophobic because it categorizes choices with irrelevant survival characteristics.

As I've said over and over again, learning to sift through information is a skill. When a student reads a passage, they have to pull out relevant information. If all you give them is relevant information, they can't practice that skill.

There is plenty of irrelevant info that could be included, why choose something divisive like race, sexual orientation? Why not irrelevant
hobbies, for example?

That's a good point. I kept wondering if the lawyer had a hobby using short-wave radio, or
if the priest had some great hobby, like carpentry.

I'm not saying this was the best-designed assignment in the world, but I don't think it's worth the cries of racism and the gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.

 

[ricechickie]

[
I'm a teacher.

I/E daycare provider.

Teacher.

But your attempt to demean me is noted.

Those who can't do teach three year olds at their home.

Wow.

What did I do to deserve you trying to belittle my work?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Seriously who has a bomb shelter anymore?

[Ahem]

 

[Tilly]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

In my opinion, none. Wouldn't it be a great discussion if others felt differently?

How? Nowadays, those who feel differently about the value of skills vs. race/gender/sexual identity are being shouted down and shut out of all "discussion".
In a survival situation described, the only relevant information would be skill sets? Why emphasize any other characteristics of the candidates at all?

That's what's funny! None of it was being "emphasized." All the information was presented. It's up to the student to decide how and if to use it.

It's just another opportunity to bring race into everything so they can bang on about it ad nauseum.

 

[dcbl]

The teacher made their skin color and their lifestyle important, rather than focusing on their skill set.
The teacher created a derision the kids may never have dreamt of. The teacher placed it into their minds, so it suddenly must be important, when it is not.

The critical thinking comes when someone is forced to defend why they don't want the black lesbian in the shelter. People do take those things into account. Are you new here?

I've been asked no less than 5 times my race on here, never my profession. My gender is obvious, but my sexuality has also been questioned.

NEVER has anyone asked what I do for a living.

OK, I've never encountered you here and I'm interested. What do you do for a living? I am an aircraft mechanic and part-time university professor.

I'm a teacher.

So am I.
Do you consider an assignment like this to be objective or subjective? Would you assign an exercise of this type, and why? How would you grade the results?

My wife just completed her 21st year as a public school teacher

I have much respect for what y'all do, even if I disagree with you politically

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think it is pretty obvious what my point was, the minorities in this exercise were portrayed in a more favorable light than the whites, especially with the classification of the construction worker as racist

It sure is ironic how those prattling about "critical thinking" are so absolutely unable or unwilling to see what is so patently obvious as this.

Xelor (and his previous incarnation as 300yearsofhistory) tries to bluff with unnecessary verbosity, but it only masks an inability to see these obvious things. The emperor here is as naked as can be, but these dolts lack the intelligence and honesty to see it.

 

[Tilly]

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

Why, then, are the individuals not identified solely on their skill sets? Who cares what race or gender a construction worker or doctor is? Why take any handicapped lawyer at all? A preacher, what additional skills does he possess? Pregnant mother with baggage, again, what skills does she bring with?
Of course the exercise is racist, sexist, and homophobic because it categorizes choices with irrelevant survival characteristics.

As I've said over and over again, learning to sift through information is a skill. When a student reads a passage, they have to pull out relevant information. If all you give them is relevant information, they can't practice that skill.

There is plenty of irrelevant info that could be included, why choose something divisive like race, sexual orientation? Why not irrelevant
hobbies, for example?

That's a good point. I kept wondering if the lawyer had a hobby using short-wave radio, or
if the priest had some great hobby, like carpentry.

I'm not saying this was the best-designed assignment in the world, but I don't think it's worth the cries of racism and the gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.

I'm not really seeing much gnashing of teeth, I just find these little race games irritating.

 

[ricechickie]

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

In my opinion, none. Wouldn't it be a great discussion if others felt differently?

How? Nowadays, those who feel differently about the value of skills vs. race/gender/sexual identity are being shouted down and shut out of all "discussion".
In a survival situation described, the only relevant information would be skill sets? Why emphasize any other characteristics of the candidates at all?

That's what's funny! None of it was being "emphasized." All the information was presented. It's up to the student to decide how and if to use it.

It's just another opportunity to bring race into everything so they can bang on about it ad nauseum.

It's a fact of our lives.