The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 87
Critical Education Theory Series, Part 18
Critical Pedagogy in our public schools unambiguously violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The reason is simple. As Critical Pedagogues themselves say, it has ambitions that can only be framed in religious terms, describes a fundamental concept of man and the world, and gives rise to duties of conscience. According to well-established First Amendment law in the United States, that violates the Establishment Clause. The argument is simple. The conception of man and the world it forwards is not the self-evident base of liberal society, which is by definition secular in this way; it is otherwise. It is the Hegelian-Marxist conception of a world that is transformed into its intended utopian state (literally, “the Kingdom of God on Earth”) by the morally obligated and willful activity of man undertaken with a specific belief, intention, and set of practices. It is a world that demands to be transformed into its ideal state by specific means in accordance with specific beliefs about its organization and operation with “conscientized” man as its intentional transformer. Join host James Lindsay for this episode of the New Discourses Podcast where he makes the argument, neat as neat.
Subscribe to the New Discourses Podcast on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, or by RSS.
Additional episodes of the New Discourses Podcast are available here.
1 comment
James –
More like this, please .
The problem facing people fighting CRT in schools is “Brandolini’s law” (from Wikipedia) “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
People arguing with Critical Pedagogues will be drawn into endless conflicts over convoluted nonsense, just like those trying to debunk any pseudo-science. CRT needs to be simplified for debate, not refuted in detail.
Reading “Cynical Theories” , all the systems described seemed to be openly Non-Falsifiable. If you claim to describe /understand the real world, but your “theory” is non- falsifiable, how is that not a pseudo-science? We wouldn’t let Scientology or Astrology be taught as true in schools, and no one is required to refute them, so what is different about CRT – except the “You’re Racist” argument, of course.
“Get Racist Pseudo-Science out of our schools” seems like a winning argument.