If you needed more proof that conservatives need to start taking over school boards in their cities, this story should suffice. A public school district close to Rochester, New York will be rolling out a brand spanking new “anti-racist” curriculum that will involve a local Black Lives Matter leader who garnered national attention last year after she appeared to support the actions of rioters burning buildings.
The Daily Wire reported:
West Irondequoit Central School District emailed the parents of fourth and eighth grade students about a “new learning opportunity in which your child will be engaging this spring” centering around the “contemporary realities of structural racism.”
The lesson plans caused consternation among some who claimed that parents were not given a chance to voice their opinion against the ideas in the curriculum or even simply opt out.
According to the report, the curriculum “explores the history of racism and civil rights in Rochester, such as redlining in Monroe County, but it also appears to focus heavily on present-day structural racism and aims to give students ‘an opportunity to build a more just and equitable community.’”
In the email, the district told parents that the lesson plan would contain “age-appropriate materials and experiences” from which students can “draw their own conclusions.”
The district also indicated that it had prime beachfront property in Idaho available for sale at a killer price.
The district put together an advisory board to oversee the development of the supposed anti-racist curriculum. Ashley Gantt, a high-profile Black Lives Matter leader in Rochester is part of the panel.
Gantt became the subject of controversy after she lambasted members of the press for daring to ask if there were indications that fires were set during riots last summer.
“If there was looting, if there was things on fire, that is not what is important. What is important is why these things happen,” she said. She continued, telling them that their job is “to make sure that’s the story that’s heard.”
The activist continued, noting the riots that occurred in the area the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. She pointed out that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed only months later.
“I am just tired of you guys not putting the correct narrative out there,” she complained. “I don’t care if the whole city burned down. We need justice.”
The activist later walked back her remarks. She explained that while she does not want people to set fires, she wishes that people would understand that when it comes to “sustainable change, sometimes we have to do whatever it takes to get it.”
The Daily Wire noted that “Gantt also cofounded Free the People Roc, an activist group born from the Rochester Black Lives Matter movement that describes itself as ‘building on the legacy of Black liberation movements’ and works to defund the police.”
And this, dear reader, is how we know what this “anti-racist” curriculum will look like. There is nothing wrong with teaching students about racist and the harm it does to American society. But there is a difference between this type of teaching and the supposed “anti-racist” trope that the hard left has been pushing lately.
Even a cursory examination of anti-racism reveals that it is far more than just being against bigotry. The idea of anti-racism has been around since the civil rights movement, but leftist scholars like Ibram X Kendi and other activists assert that it is not enough to simply be non-racist, but that people should be actively anti-racist.
In his book “How to Be an Antiracist,” Kendi writes: “One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequalities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.”
Sounds pretty harmless on the surface, doesn’t it? After all, doesn’t everyone want to stop racism? However, the reality underlying this passage is an element that could be abused. Exactly what type of effort does one need to put forth to be considered an anti-racist? What happens when the woke Sanhedrin decides one’s efforts are not enough, which would mean that person is a racist?
This brings up another problem with Kendi’s argument: The notion that one is either racist or anti-racist – there is no room for nuance or critical thought. Master Obi-Wan Kenobi teaches us that “only a Sith deals in absolutes.” The notion that we must live up to the so-called progressive movement’s standards of anti-racism or we are somehow as egregious as those wearing white hoods is not only absurd, it is chilling.
But this is by design, isn’t it?
After all, Kendi also writes: “There is no in-between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.”
So, if you claim you’re not racist, you are actually a racist because you don’t engage in activity that these people deem to be sufficiently anti-racist.
By boiling everything down to their own definition of anti-racism, the hard left can label anyone they want as a racist, which is one of their favorite methods of shaming people into doing what they want. It is rather brilliant in its malevolence, a covert means of forcing their will on the culture.
Make no mistake, these efforts are not limited to blue states like New York. The so-called progressive movement wishes to infuse as many school districts with its ideology as possible.
It is yet another reason why more conservative-leaning individuals might want to consider becoming involved in their local politics, especially when it comes to school boards. If the hard left knows that the way to spread their societal poison is to do so at the local level because most people do not pay attention to their local politics. If we don’t remain vigilant in knowing what is going on in their city government, they might just get what they want.