Oregon Education Department anti-bias training accuses White people of having a 'thorough racist conditioning'

The training included central topics in the critical race theory lens. For example, the literature in the training, reviewed by Fox News Digital, accused the U.S. of encompassing "white dominant culture."

"For white people living in North America learning to be anti-racist is a re-education process. We must unlearn our thorough racist conditioning to re-educate and re-condition ourselves as anti-racists," the literature from the training stated. "We are constantly tempted to detour off course by the racist propaganda of society and our own guilt and denial. In the face of society’s and our own resistance, sustaining the will to continue this journey takes bold and stubborn effort."

The literature also accused White children of being trained to hold prejudice.

"Most of us first became aware of racial prejudice and injustice as children. As white infants, we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda. That early 'training' was comprehensive and left little room for question, challenge or doubt," the literature stated. "We resisted the lies, the deceit and the injustice of racism, but we did not have the skills to counter the poisonous messages. Our conditioning filled us with fear, suspicion and stereotypes that substituted for true knowing of people of color. We internalized our beliefs about people of color, ourselves, other white people and about being white. Those internalized attitudes became actualized into racist behavior."

One of the sessions in the seminar asked participants to enact microaggression scenarios over what may come up in a workplace.

Racial microaggressions are defined by, according to ODE, "Commonplace verbal or behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults."

To deny one's "personal racism" or role in its perpetuation is a "microinvalidation," the training said.

Another "microinvalidation" included "statements which assert that race plays a minor role in life success," under an umbrella title called the "Myth of Meritocracy."

"Denial or pretense that a White person does not see color or race," another "microinvalidation" example said.

The anti-bias training, which was launched in 2020, focused on "understanding of the institutionalized racist barriers that hinder elimination of the racial achievement disparities in our schools." ODE told Fox News Digital that "Supporting every learner requires addressing racial equity… We know there are long-standing inequities in our systems that have led to gaps in outcomes for students of color. We emphasize culturally responsive professional learning for Oregon Department of Education staff that is reflective of all communities in our state. There is both an intellectual and ethical basis for centering equity in professional learning and instructional materials."

Attendees were also instructed on "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" of "White privilege."

The examples of White privilege included not being asked to "speak for all the people of my racial group."

"I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the 'person in charge' I will be [f]acing a person of my race," ODE's training said. "I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/oregon-education-department-anti-bias-training-accuses-white-people-having-thorough-racist-conditioning

***************************************************

Texas professor under fire after proposing a ‘cure for homosexuality’

A Texas professor was being scrutinized after an appeal to find a “cure for homosexuality,” along with the bizarre suggestion that doctors try to identify gay babies during prenatal testing.

Professor Timothy Farage is under investigation by The University of Texas at Dallas after a tweet that made misleading claims about an alleged link to homosexuality and monkeypox.

“Can we at least try to find a cure for homosexuality, especially among men,” the computer science professor wrote.

Farage insisted he has “nothing against homosexuals” during an interview with WFAA-TV, but suggested we try to find a “cure” to change someone’s sexual preference.

“I’m saying, do medical research on the causes for homosexuality,” he said while suggesting that the supposed testing could be administered in the womb.

Farage then admitted: “I don’t know, I’m not a doctor.”

The Rainbow Coalition, an LGBTQ+ student organization at UT Dallas, called on the university to take “immediate action” against Professor Timothy Farage, for the since-deleted post.

“Farage has a long, well-documented history of hostility on LGBTQ+ issues,” they said in a tweet. “He has been known to discuss controversial political positions and promote personal social media account during lectures, which goes against university guidelines for professor’s conduct.”

The university “received several complaints” and said the incident was under investigation.

“We take this matter seriously and that the statements by this individual do not reflect the core values of our institution,” the university said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the university offered students the opportunity to take classes with another professor.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/20/texas-professor-under-fire-after-proposing-a-cure-for-homosexuality/

******************************************************

Affirmative-action fix: Let students know how they’ll fare before choosing a college

The affirmative-action debate’s many dimensions — legal, ethical and more — will receive another airing in the months ahead. But in a new Manhattan Institute issue brief, I examine a more empirical topic that strikes at the heart of affirmative action’s purpose: To what extent do affirmative action’s beneficiaries suffer from being “mismatched” with better-qualified peers, rather than benefiting from enhanced educational opportunities?

The question is hard to answer, both because social science is always difficult and because schools have been reluctant to release the needed data. Some things are clear, others quite muddy.

First, while many colleges are basically unselective, pickier schools do use race in their admissions processes, sometimes quite heavily, admitting students from underrepresented minority groups who’d have had little chance if they were white. In a recent paper, for instance, Peter Arcidiacono, Josh Kinsler and Tyler Ransom looked at the data shaken loose from the two schools currently before the Supreme Court. At Harvard, blacks get a fourfold increase in their chances of admission. At UNC, black applicants get a 70 percent increase if they’re in-state and a more than tenfold increase if they’re applying through the far more competitive out-of-state pool.

Second, schools rely on criteria such as test scores and high-school grades to begin with because these variables predict success in college.

Third, there’s lots of debate over whether these students would be better off at lower-ranked schools in concrete ways — completing difficult majors without switching to easier ones, graduating, passing the bar (in the case of law school). The evidence is stronger for some outcomes than others, but a commonsense way of interpreting the literature is simply that affirmative action has different effects in different situations.

What is to be done? The Supreme Court’s decision won’t moot this topic, even if schools comply with the ruling in good faith. Common alternatives to race-based affirmative action, such as preferences based on class or geography, can also create mismatch. I propose a simple solution: Give kids accurate information about how they’ll likely fare in the college programs that accept them, based on how similar students have performed in those same programs.

Recent years have seen a broad push toward providing better data on colleges, such as the government’s College Scorecard, which reveals important statistics such as graduation rates and median earnings after graduation. My additional suggestion is simply to work out how these outcomes vary based on students’ entering credentials.

This is common sense, and others have made similar proposals. In a 2017 Urban Institute brief, Jordan Matsudaira suggested giving students “personalized predictions of the likelihood that they complete programs of interest and the earnings outcomes associated with these programs,” predictions that would benefit from data on students’ academic backgrounds. Arcidiacono, Kinsler and Ransom have written that “universities have a moral imperative to provide students with accurate information about their prospects of success.”

Liberals and conservatives do not see eye to eye on affirmative action, and a Supreme Court decision will not settle the matter. They should be able to agree, however, to help prospective college students make better-informed decisions when they choose a school.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/20/affirmative-action-fix-let-students-know-how-theyll-fare-beforehand/

***********************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*******************************