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

[Dogmaphobe]

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

I have not been to your day care.

I only know that you support racist indoctrination of young minds.

 

[Tilly]

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.

How can it not be with the leftist agenda of banging on about it endlessly?

 

[ricechickie]

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.

Yes, plainly. You're welcome to not participate. You might get called a snowflake, or ask if you need a safe space. That's quite a trend lately.

 

[ricechickie]

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

I have not been to your day care.

I only know that you support racist indoctrination of young minds.

I don't have a daycare.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's a fact of our lives.

When you say "our lives", are you referring to other anti white racists such as yourself?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

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?

This assignment is subjective, but the writing and reasoning skills it can help a student practice are important.

I teach students too young for this exercise. If I taught an older group, and if I assigned it, I would grade it on the student's ability to write out a coherent essay, reasoning why they would choose each person. Or I wouldn't grade it, and I would use it to facilitate a class discussion.

I agree that the assignment is subjective. But there is usually some particular goal in mind. Unless the subsequent discussion includes why any student would consider any other qualification than skill sets, or possibly breeding ability, the inclusion of race, sexual orientation, or age is irrelevant. Well, unless the goal is to evaluation how many students are capable of identifying those attributes as totally useless in a survival situation. Unfortunately, such thoughts have been routinely vilified and used to punish students in this generation. Exclude a hispanic? Why? How about including a white racist? That's just ...well, racist!
Given the current obvious condition of the brainwashed youth passing through our public school system, I doubt the human race would survive a nuclear/environmental/economic holocaust.

 

[Tilly]

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?

I'm with Morgan.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't have a daycare.

I stand corrected. I see you are a nanny, instead.

Got it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

Obvious to you and other narrow minded individuals, well, that may be possible. Mother Nature has a way of providing individuals with strengths in one area to make up for shortcomings in others. For instance, she gaves dogs a much better sense of smell than cats, which have far better hearing than dogs. Pachyderms take a good deal longer to gestate and reach full maturity after birth, but once (if) they do, under normal circumstances, they live by and large unburdened with fear of predation and for a very long time and t hey get to pass on experiential knowledge gained over decades. It may be that among homo sapiens, the ability to mind read is the gift given to compensate for one's being too dimwitted.to see beyond what lies at the surface of things?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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 think that assigning something like this might require some critical thinking by the teacher assigning it...unless...

 

[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.

. 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.

. It has no place in the public square... It is a private matter that shouldn't be placed into a public class room setting period. It should be kept between the family involved outside of the public spere, and it should not be allowed to be part of the public educational curriculum. The classroom setting should absolutely not allow for any distractions to exist that takes a young student away from the basic standard teaching of those things that help a child to speak the language, figure arithmetic, work out reasoning pertaining to problems as is relating to survival skills, reading, writing, history & arithmetic. Ones sexuality should remain in the home between parents and parental teachings only. Public education should not be exposed to such things that have developed today.

 

[Unkotare]

[
I'm a teacher.

I/E daycare provider.

?????

 

[ricechickie]

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?

This assignment is subjective, but the writing and reasoning skills it can help a student practice are important.

I teach students too young for this exercise. If I taught an older group, and if I assigned it, I would grade it on the student's ability to write out a coherent essay, reasoning why they would choose each person. Or I wouldn't grade it, and I would use it to facilitate a class discussion.

I agree that the assignment is subjective. But there is usually some particular goal in mind. Unless the subsequent discussion includes why any student would consider any other qualification than skill sets, or possibly breeding ability, the inclusion of race, sexual orientation, or age is irrelevant. Well, unless the goal is to evaluation how many students are capable of identifying those attributes as totally useless in a survival situation. Unfortunately, such thoughts have been routinely vilified and used to punish students in this generation. Exclude a hispanic? Why? How about including a white racist? That's just ...well, racist!
Given the current obvious condition of the brainwashed youth passing through our public school system, I doubt the human race would survive a nuclear/environmental/economic holocaust.

That would be another good goal of discussion, if the word "racist" is brought up. What does that mean? When is it a legitimate complaint?

For example, is the wheelchair-bound Hispanic lawyer excluded because of racism? I can justify why I'd leave him out.

 

[Tilly]

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.

Yes, plainly. You're welcome to not participate. You might get called a snowflake, or ask if you need a safe space. That's quite a trend lately.

Fine. Words don't scare me

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

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

I doubt you would disagree with me politically. I told my class at the beginning of the semester that if they felt "triggered" and needed a "safe place" they would be welcome to cower under their desks and that we would be eating the therapy animal at the end-of-semester bbq. My students voted me their favorite teacher immediately. I teach at the university, BTW. My students are occupied with learning a useful profession, though.
Thanks for the respect!

 

[Tilly]

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.

Ahh, that's who Xelor is. Thought the yard and a half of tedium seemed familiar.lol.

 

[ricechickie]

I don't have a daycare.

I stand corrected. I see you are a nanny, instead.

Got it.

You just aren't capable, are you? That's why you do this.

Sad, that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

This assignment is subjective, but the writing and reasoning skills it can help a student practice are important.

I teach students too young for this exercise. If I taught an older group, and if I assigned it, I would grade it on the student's ability to write out a coherent essay, reasoning why they would choose each person. Or I wouldn't grade it, and I would use it to facilitate a class discussion.

I agree that the assignment is subjective. But there is usually some particular goal in mind. Unless the subsequent discussion includes why any student would consider any other qualification than skill sets, or possibly breeding ability, the inclusion of race, sexual orientation, or age is irrelevant. Well, unless the goal is to evaluation how many students are capable of identifying those attributes as totally useless in a survival situation. Unfortunately, such thoughts have been routinely vilified and used to punish students in this generation. Exclude a hispanic? Why? How about including a white racist? That's just ...well, racist!
Given the current obvious condition of the brainwashed youth passing through our public school system, I doubt the human race would survive a nuclear/environmental/economic holocaust.

That would be another good goal of discussion, if the word "racist" is brought up. What does that mean? When is it a legitimate complaint?

For example, is the wheelchair-bound Hispanic lawyer excluded because of racism? I can justify why I'd leave him out.

I'd leave him out because the "new" world would require those fit enough to endure the challenges of re-establishing civilization. A lawyer would also likely have little knowledge, or skill, to aid in that goal. Given the information available, that bugger would be OUT! Who cares what language his momma taught him in the cradle?
Why would you leave out the wheel-chair bound lawyer? Who would you include, and why? Exclude, and why?

 

[ricechickie]

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.

. It has no place in the public square... It is a private matter that shouldn't be placed into a public class room setting period. It should be kept between the family involved outside of the public spere, and it should not be allowed to be part of the public educational curriculum. The classroom setting should absolutely not allow for any distractions to exist that takes a young student away from the basic standard teaching of those things that help a child to speak the language, figure arithmetic, work out reasoning pertaining to problems as is relating to survival skills, reading, writing, history & arithmetic. Ones sexuality should remain in the home between parents and parental teachings only. Public education should not be exposed to such things that have developed today.

25 years ago, we were talking about sexual orientation in high school. Before that, kids were still calling each other "queer" and "fag."

You might want it to stay home and in the family, but it's not realistic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't have a daycare.

I stand corrected. I see you are a nanny, instead.

Got it.

You just aren't capable, are you? That's why you do this.

Sad, that.

I was capable enough to go to Stanford.

Of course, that was before schools became indoctrination centers for the sort of racist idiocy you support, here.