 For the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote an intriguing profile on FAIR Advisor Daryl Davis. Daryl's work, converting numerous members out of the K.K.K. and other hate groups, exemplifies what it means to be pro-human. “‘If I can sit down and talk to K.K.K. members and neo-Nazis and get them to give me their robes and hoods and swastika flags and all that kind of crazy stuff,’ Davis said, ‘there’s no reason why somebody can’t sit down at a dinner table and talk to their family member.’” Read the full article here.  After tweeting his support for journalist Andy Ngo's book covering ANTIFA, Winston Marshall of the band Mumford & Sons became the latest high-profile victim of cancel culture. Since then, Marshall published an eloquent essay detailing his decision to leave the band while standing up for free speech. “I have spent much time reflecting, reading and listening. The truth is that my commenting on a book that documents the extreme Far-Left and their activities is in no way an endorsement of the equally repugnant Far-Right.” Read the full article here.  Greg Lukianoff, the founder and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, lawyer, and author wrote an in-depth analysis of the “bans” on Critical Race Theory (CRT) in K-12 education and their constitutionality alongside what nuances have been lost from reporting on both sides of the debate. “Some have pointed to the fact that many of the laws affecting K-12 are extremely broad and vague and held that up as evidence that they are unconstitutional. However, the legal doctrine that laws affecting speech must be narrowly tailored so as not to sweep a lot of constitutionally protected speech under their purview, does not apply much to the context of K-12 teaching.” Read the full article here.  For the Washington Post, columnist George Will published an op-ed chronicling the Dwight-Englewood School whistleblower, Dana Strangel-Plowe. “What can be done about the child abuse of which Dwight-Englewood is just one among thousands of rapidly multiplying symptoms? Prudent people are uneasy about state legislatures forbidding the teaching of critical race theory (CRT): Although legislatures have a responsibility to oversee the uses of taxation, and education policy, they also have a sorry history of interventions in schooling, often for the purpose of stoking cultural conflicts.” Read the full article here.  For the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker wrote a balanced perspective on CRT in the classroom and gave her reasoning for why the current frenzy surrounding it likely won't last long. “Preoccupation with identity, one’s own or anyone else’s, is the stuff of tedium. I can imagine students, not just White, wondering whether it’s really necessary to view everything through the lens of race, which over time risks becoming predictable, formulaic and enervating — the antithesis of what learning should inspire.” Read the full article here.  For NY Daily News, Jonathan Zimmerman wrote an op-ed arguing that liberals should consider allowing for various perspectives on race in the classroom, which CRT inherently does not allow for. “News flash: Americans disagree about race and racism in America. We should share those differences with our students, freely and openly, so they can come to their own conclusions.” Read the full article here.  For Newsweek, Charles Fain Lehman wrote an op-ed discussing how the terminological debate surrounding CRT is a distraction from the neo-racism unfolding in classrooms across the country, whatever the pedagogy’s origin may be. “The phrase has elicited, unfortunately, a terminological debate, as commentators spar over what it means, rather than the phenomenon it's meant to identify. That is at best a distraction, and at worst a diversion: By fighting about what ‘critical race theory’ means, we're avoiding a conversation about what has afflicted our schools over the course of the past year.” Read the full article here. |
