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

[ricechickie]

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?

So you would be prepared to defend yourself if someone called you a racist for that decision.

Wouldn't you want high school students to learn to do the same?

 

[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.

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.

And yet you can't just have a discussion or even be a grown-up and walk away. Did Stanford teach you to use the ad hom fallacy?

 

[beagle9]

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.

. When it becomes an agenda to brainwash is when it becomes dangerous, and it needs to be expelled.

 

[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.

And yet you can't just have a discussion or even be a grown-up and walk away. Did Stanford teach you to use the ad hom fallacy?

Pointing out that you support this racist twaddle because you harbor the same feelings is not an ad hom.

It is simply the truth.

A person would have to be an utter idiot not to notice the agenda at work here. Since you are attempting to posit yourself as something other than an utter idiot through your claims of being a teacher, then your support must stem from your agreement with the agenda.

Like I said a while back -- if this was about Ghetto thugs and lazy Mexicans, you would be all over it. You are patently racist against whites, so you aren't.

 

[ricechickie]

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?

I answered that way back. Construction worker in, doctor in, both have skill sets that will be useful as hell. Lawyer out, because he would be a burden on resources, and no discernible skills relevant. The mom, I was ambivalent about. A pregnant woman can be a burden, and if she brings her 2 year old, it's like a 3 for 1, which would a strain on food. Gymnast, I would take, because she's strong and healthy and able to breed. In the end, I decided on the pregnant Mom over the priest, because we'd have to repopulate.

 

[RodISHI]

It's a fact of our lives.

It is propaganda. If you are in that corner too bad for you for teaching such nonsense and hatred.

I sat on a bench near a bus stop several years ago waiting for a library to open. A young black man and his mother were waiting for a bus in that same area. The young man sat on the same bench in front of the lil' book shop and asked his mom 'why don't you come sit down'. Evidently mom was not willing to share a bench seat with 'no white looking woman'. The young man and I started talking. After awhile I got into my back pack and pulled out some french toast I had made for my day in the city. The young man asked what it was so I told him. I shared an extra piece I had put in with him. He was thrilled, claimed he hadn't tasted anything like that before and asked how to make it. He told his mom, "Ma come here and have a bite of this". His mom looked disgusted. Anyhow I shared with him how to make it and he went away happy but his mom looked pretty bitter still.

You can promote lies and bullshit all day long but in the end it will be on your head not everyone else's.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

That is about the easy exercise I have ever seen. It has nothing to do with racism- correct answer is "what the hell are we going to do with a lawyer in a wheelchair. He will only breath, eat and argue." Every other person could bring something useful to the group.

 

[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.

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.

And yet you can't just have a discussion or even be a grown-up and walk away. Did Stanford teach you to use the ad hom fallacy?

Pointing out that you support this racist twaddle because you harbor the same feelings is not an ad hom.

It is simply the truth.

A person would have to be an utter idiot not to notice the agenda at work here. Since you are attempting to posit yourself as something other than an utter idiot through your claims of being a teacher, then your support must stem from your agreement with the agenda.

Like I said a while back -- if this was about Ghetto thugs and lazy Mexicans, you would be all over it. You are patently racist against whites, so you aren't.

Trying to demean my profession is ad hom.

That's all. You've apparently given your all.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

So you would be prepared to defend yourself if someone called you a racist for that decision.

Wouldn't you want high school students to learn to do the same?

I could care less what I am labeled. But, I'm from a different generation. I grew up in the South, in a time when blacks really were segregated in many ways. Blacks and whites may have socialized in some limited ways, but we NEVER dated, or crossed other understood social lines. So, yeah, I can definitely defend my decisions.
Unfortunately, these days, defense of one's beliefs, opinions, choices, are not permitted. People who would choose a white over a "brown" person are all-too-often bullied, shouted down, and even violently attacked for those answers. There appears to be little considered debate the way I knew it.

 

[ricechickie]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

That is about the easy exercise I have ever seen. It has nothing to do with racism- correct answer is "what the hell are we going to do with a lawyer in a wheelchair. He will only breath, eat and argue." Every other person could bring something useful to the group.

Even the priest?

 

[ricechickie]

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?

So you would be prepared to defend yourself if someone called you a racist for that decision.

Wouldn't you want high school students to learn to do the same?

I could care less what I am labeled. But, I'm from a different generation. I grew up in the South, in a time when blacks really were segregated in many ways. Blacks and whites may have socialized in some limited ways, but we NEVER dated, or crossed other understood social lines. So, yeah, I can definitely defend my decisions.
Unfortunately, these days, defense of one's beliefs, opinions, choices, are not permitted. People who would choose a white over a "brown" person are all-too-often bullied, shouted down, and even violently attacked for those answers. There appears to be little considered debate the way I knew it.

Gee, how does that feel?

 

[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

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?

No obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and intellectual honestly

Hell, I even said as much in the OP

 

[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?

No obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and intellectual honestly

Hell, I even said as much in the OP

So you say/said, but the evidence does not support your assertion.

And look at some of the foolishness you mentioned in your OP.

Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

Do think the bomb shelter can be reasonably assumed to be like Norad's facility, or the former Presidential nuclear war sae site, in the heart of a mountain and that has acres and acres of free space? Though it's possible the priest may be a child molester, it's almost certain he's not an exhibitionistic child molester. Just how much private space do you think there is in this bomb shelter? Did you, in your own mind, inject into the scenario that the group of you would never leave the shelter, or that you'd be the only humans to have a bomb shelter?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'd choose a new school system. This garbage has replaced math and science, and is turning our children into left wing zombies, who will never find work and are to stupid to build a shelter.

If we get nuked, please make Berkeley ground zero.......

I love people who criticize education, but make mistakes like this!

 

[RodISHI]

I'd choose a new school system. This garbage has replaced math and science, and is turning our children into left wing zombies, who will never find work and are to stupid to build a shelter.

If we get nuked, please make Berkeley ground zero.......

I love people who criticize education, but make mistakes like this!

Criticizing the propagandist agenda over basics is needed. It is not up to schools to instill into children the moral basics or the beliefs. That is a parents job. The schools should only get involved if there is some sort of bullying going on. At six, nine and twelve children shouldn't be learning blowjobs aren't sex and being queer is fine and dandy.

 

[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

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?

No obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and intellectual honestly

Hell, I even said as much in the OP

So you say/said, but the evidence does not support your assertion.

And look at some of the foolishness you mentioned in your OP.

Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

Do think the bomb shelter can be reasonably assumed to be like Norad's facility, or the former Presidential nuclear war sae site, in the heart of a mountain and that has acres and acres of free space? Though it's possible the priest may be a child molester, it's almost certain he's not an exhibitionistic child molester. Just how much private space do you think there is in this bomb shelter? Did you, in your own mind, inject into the scenario that the group of you would never leave the shelter, or that you'd be the only humans to have a bomb shelter?

Evidence does not support?

Weird that you say that because it is obvious you can read

Furthermore, this thread was more of a troll than an attempt at a serious discussion, and much of my op was written in attempt at humor

And it is pretty obvious, something that most people would pick up on

Lastly, I flat out said that the labeling of whites as less than desirable, coupled with the classification of minorities in more respected roles demonstrated an agenda

So, you either are not very bright (which I don't believe) or you are being purposefully obtuse and argumentative...

 

[yiostheoy]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

I would definitely take the Korean babe.

Korean babes are the meanest babes in the world.

But they are kind of cute.

As long as you don't mind S&M (mostly M) they this would be fun as a pig in slop !!!

 

[yiostheoy]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

Obviously a wheel chair dude or a pregnant b!tch is going to do you no good.

 

[yiostheoy]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

The Lezzy doc would be my 2nd choice.

She will get horny eventually.

Everybody does.

 

[yiostheoy]

Unless you are black, don't count on the lesbian doctor giving medical care to anyone.

Sorry I don't get it.