Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Continued Betrayal of David French
It’s always sad to see someone you once respected be clown themselves, alas Mr. French seems to want to take it to the next level. In a recent op-ed for the NYT, he joined with three other authors to decry the efforts by various States to slow down Critical Race Theory (CRT). You can read it (shouldn’t be a paywall even) here. (EDITED to correct link)
It’s not clear what parts of this Mr. French actually wrote, but since he signed his name to it, one has to assume that he agrees with it in toto.
The oped is fraught with problems, mostly with assigning pure and noble intention to the proponents of CRT and ascribing only the most vile intentions to its opponents. That has been Mr. French’s opinion of conservatives (that do not agree with him) since 2015. He is, of course, entitled to his views, but that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be criticized for that betrayal. I take it further that he, and many others like him, have betrayed the very essence of the conservative political movement by failing to express conservatives views in ways that win adherents to the cause.
As an example:
Indeed, the very act of learning history in a free and multiethnic society is inescapably fraught. Any accurate teaching of any country’s history could make some of its citizens feel uncomfortable (or even guilty) about the past. To deny this necessary consequence of education is, to quote W.E.B. Du Bois, to transform “history into propaganda.”
Why is it that teaching that the essential founding of the U.S. is flawed and thus that the US is a flawed country not propaganda? Why is, as Kendi proclaims, that the govt must favor certain races to ensure equity of outcomes not propaganda and indoctrination? The authors, and especially Mr. French are desirous of destroying the value of our founding on Natural Law to replace it with what exactly?
There was a dust up on Twitter about how CRT should be replaced with Natural Law in our schools. I’d say that prior to CRT, we, mostly, taught Natural Law. That we are all equal, endowed with unalienable rights, and that the role of govt is to secure those rights and protect them from infringement (especially by the government). This shared mythos of our founding and arc towards improvement and the fulfillment of those ideals is the story of the U.S. A decent study of history emphasizes that as opposed to undermining it.
Over on The Federalist, there was a summation of the Twitter fight that is worth reading as well. The idea that Natural Law is now White Supremacy shows a remarkable lack of…well intelligence, or perhaps wisdom is the right term. When one defines that the US was founded to promulgate slavery as the 1619 Project attempts, then one might easily make the jump that the Natural Law that the Founders based their opinions on would be White Supremacy. That Mr. French appears to agree with this continues his slide into, I’d say it relevancy, but as he moves more to the left, or at least becomes a tool of the left by being a “critical conservative” he will become more popular in the mainstream.
Published in Education
The assumption that French agrees with the co-authors of the editorial on all things CRT is grossly unfair to him. The article itself, right at the beginning, says,
Later in the article, it says this:
I have heard French in other venues talking about this subject. It is clear that his concerns with respect to these kinds of laws is that some of them are far too broad, particularly as they might be applied to colleges, and amount to speech codes which the right traditionally opposes. As described in the editorial, the vague language of these statutes could leave teachers in a position where they will inevitably violate the law by even attempting to teach the basics. He has no issue with public schools making sure they don’t indoctrinate kids with leftist ideology. He’s obviously not a proponent of CRT. His concern is academic freedom and free speech.
These states need to just revise their statutes, be more explicit and targeted, and make another run at it.
I have the suspicion that Mr. French has a strong component of the martyr in his character and thinking. He has a deep suspicion of his own side since Trump. Is unfailingly generous with the other side to a point of ignoring when they are obviously dealing in bad faith. He seemed to believe that it would have been better in 2015 to elect Hillary and trust the almighty to preserve the country rather than elect an obviously flawed man like Trump. Now once again he is advocating a form of surrender to the left and a trust in either their inherent mercy or the almighty’s divine plan to deliver us. I can not fathom why he believes this will work; however, I have neither his faith in the almighty nor my fellow man. I can only assume that he believes if the right surrenders in the cultural wars completely we can return to the normal politics he is comfortable with.
Just FYI….Megan Kelly’s podcast yesterday had Rich Lowry and one of the authors on….it is a very strong podcast and discussion….I highly recommend it. Both guests made very good points.
As an educator I do worry about vague all encompassing laws that while having good intentions do more harm than good (War on Poverty anyone??) However also as an educator (history teacher) I see daily how CRT or some version like it is underneath everything being put forward in all subjects….it is real and must be fought against. The way I fight is bringing authors like Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele into my classroom as well as teaching the geo-politics of the Americas pre-Columbus and discussing the prominent of role of Africa in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade…..while also teaching the horrors of slavery in America and Jim Crow etc etc……sorry for the rambling post….this is an issue very close to me and my way of teaching has put me literally on the firing line…I have maybe 2 years left before I retire or asked to leave.
In the end may main problem with David French, Jonah et al is that they may play lip service to this but they really don’t see what is happening on the front lines. They are so disgusted with DT and those who support him that they can’t really put much more energy beyond that. I am convinced David helped pen this article only because these laws are formed by Republican Legislators who seem “Trumpy” to him…..to me it is the radical left that is the real issue as it always has been….but to Mr French it is the radical right…..the radical left has the media and academia and most institutions….the radical right has American Thinker and some times Tucker Carlson…who has more real power??
I probably should not push submit as this is so rambling but as Caesar said…let the dice fly high…..
When I went to the link for the NYT article what I got was a youtube video. Here is a link to the NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/opinion/we-disagree-on-a-lot-of-things-except-the-danger-of-anti-critical-race-theory-laws.html
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-misguided-argument-against-bans-on-teaching-critical-race-theory/?fbclid=IwAR0ahCdz-RpjQnGucxUl7xc8aBo3Op8y2wsvFE0L0gEa8lVm4qBJAQUQK2k
Opening paragraph of the above link: A good rule of thumb for evaluating political debates: If the strongest argument from the sharpest writers in the most prestigious newspaper op-ed page is predicated on a claim that takes 30 seconds to fact-check as false, then that side probably has the weaker case.
The linked OP was published in Newsweek, and authored by a an AEI Research Fellow, Max Eden. It points out that the NYT opinion piece to which David French signed his name grossly mis-stated the facts of the Tennessee state law the authors used as an example. The AEI rebuttal piece focuses more on French’s role as opinion writer, but I think it bears emphasizing that David French was trained as an attorney – accordingly he has no excuse for getting this wrong. In that added respect this NYT piece at a minimum does him no credit.
I used to read writings by David French. I have not done that for awhile.
Sounds more like French just enjoys shooting Right. Maybe he should write about how conservatives should protect themselves instead of concern trolling every imperfect solution we come up with.
Brian,
Thank for that link. If the situation is as described in the AEI piece — that the Tennessee bill was misrepresented in such a specific and inexcusable way — then I think that speaks volumes about the signatories to the NYT Op Ed.
(I haven’t read the NYT Op Ed, as it’s paywalled and, not owning a bird cage or in need of fish-wrap, I don’t subscribe.)
Hank
What exactly was wrong with 90s history education? I did just fine drawing distinctions and figuring out what was right and what was wrong without CRT hand holding me through anti-American propaganda. Maybe history in high school wasn’t pro-American propaganda after all? I mean certainly, if it was, I’d think Colonel Mustard (Custer) to be the greatest military man ever, right? Or that the Trail of Tears was perfectly justified? I’m sure, if 90s education was so propagandized with Pro-American bias, I would not have thought the exercising of the Monroe doctrine fraught with poor ethics or that the anti-imperial USA became an empire with the expansion West?
I’m sorry, but high school and middle school history was not pro-America propaganda. It was presented well enough for intelligent students to think critically about the events.
So These guys are out to lunch on the necessity of CRT education.
Wake me up when CRT starts teaching that the first chattel slavery case in America was for an African man to have life-time possession of his white indentured servant who had served his time.
The only side that wants anyone in chains is the left. And who they want in chains are white people. It’s a revenge fantasy.
The AEI clarification is a good point as far as it goes, but I don’t think it goes very far. Even conceding the bill uses the phrase “should feel,” and the editorial would have been more accurate to have included that phrase in describing it, the point of the editorial still stands. It’s still a terribly vague statute. A teacher still has to worry that they could easily, unintentionally, “include or promote a concept that an individual should feel discomfort…” (among the other things on the list they need to watch for.) What does it mean to “include” a concept that promotes something else? If you mention it at all, is that inclusion? Where is the line between “informing” and “promoting?” Does the concept (whatever that is) have to intentionally “promote” something, or is also banned if it incidentally promotes something? Does it have to “promote” something only in a reasonable mind to be a violation, or does it violate the statute if it promotes something in anyone’s mind, no matter how unreasonable? What is a “concept that promotes division,” which is also banned? How does a teacher avoid “promoting division?” As you may have noticed, people tend to take things wrong when it comes to these kinds of hot-button issues. There doesn’t appear to be a section in the bill which defines the terms.
I agree completely that some effort should be made to prevent CRT indoctrination. But you have to be wise about these things. You can’t just go blustering into these issues with a full frontal assault across open ground with no cover. And to point that out is not defeatism or surrendering. Just add some clarification, some limitation. That’s all you gotta do.
It might tick God off by calling him a White Supremacist . . .
While the point of the editorial perhaps may “still stand” – it stands in this particular instance upon a strawman – which goes far enough in damaging the credibility and thus the arguments of the authors. I take your points – precision and foresight in drafting statutes is critical. We agree on that. But, we are commenting on a Ricochet OP that takes Mr. French to task on his participation in this NYT OP. I commented because the Ricochet OP did not include what appears to be a fact undermining the example cited in the NYT OP. Of all the NYT OP writers, Mr. French was uniquely situated (being a former attorney and Tennessee resident) to have prevented this.
DA, I agree with that. However, I also find the apparent allegation made by AEI to be troubling, if true. As I said, I haven’t read the French et al Op Ed, though I plan to take the time to hunt it down.
I am more concerned about the widespread adoption of radical identitarian curricula in our elementary and secondary schools than I am about state efforts to counter that — even if the states are sometimes clumsy about it. I hope that Mr. French is investing at least as much effort in countering CRT, etc., as he is in criticizing efforts to slow its insidious infiltration.
As someone else noted recently, he (and his partner in crime, Jonah Goldberg) gleefully “punch right” these days. They treat the left with kid gloves.
I would say it’s because they know on which side their bread is buttered.
If you sign your name to something, you are accepting it. That’s the point of the signature.
I’ve never followed French, but I do know that he is a lawyer. He knows what a signature means. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Respectfully, DA’s point, I think, is that part of the editorial — part of what the signatories endorsed — is an explicit acknowledgement that the signatories don’t agree on the specific matter of CRT (to pick one example), but are in agreement about some greater principle of legislated curricula. So French can agree about the greater point while agreeing to disagree about the specifics.
PS And I can still consider him misguided for doing so.
French’s other problem (aside from gleefully attacking conservatives while cowering before leftists) is that he has always lectured that if citizens are unhappy, they should seek redress in court rather than getting their representatives to pass legislation.
Of course, this assumes that citizens have plenty of time and money to spend hiring lawyers and bringing court cases which are sure to drag out for years. And of course, that’s how French makes his money.
But few of us regular citizens could ever afford such a thing. Surely he knows that. And if not, he’s just some latter day Marie Antoinette telling the citizens “Let them hire lawyers!” (I think it’s the latter.)
It’s also possible that he literally has no clue what CRT is, but when he sees that Trump supporters are against it, he instinctively declares himself for it, like so many fake conservatives over the last five years.
If he doesn’t know what CRT is all about, then he has no business writing in defense of it.
I would be very surprised if he doesn’t know what CRT is about. Again, I don’t believe he wrote in defense of CRT, but rather in opposition to certain kinds of legislation that happen to be motivated, at least in part, by a desire to oppose CRT.
As an analogy: I deplore illegal gun violence, but would oppose efforts to pass new gun control laws. That doesn’t make me a supporter of gun violence. Similarly, I don’t think Mr. French is a supporter of CRT.
He is possibly just another IYI.
I hear what you’re saying, but the clumsy methods – which alienate people who should be supporting the effort – undermine the effort. It’s like a British general at the Somme in 1916 saying, “I don’t think this frontal assault across no-man’s land at a walking pace, even after a top-notch artillery bombardment, is going to work. Why don’t we do something else?” And the response is, “Well, I guess you just really don’t care about winning the war. Or maybe you secretly want the Germans to win? Or maybe you’re a coward.” It’s not a healthy response.
I don’t see a reason to care what he’s “investing in,” as long as it doesn’t affect his credibility. If he has good points to make, we should listen. Whatever topic he chooses. If he doesn’t make good points, we should just note that too and go on. It’s his prerogative what to write about. I don’t like this keeping of friends and enemies list that everyone seems to want to engage in when it comes to writers. He doesn’t have to be on a team.
Except what he signed onto expressly acknowledges that not all of them support CRT, as I quoted above. So, by signing the editorial, he is obviously not accepting it.
French’s position is that the state laws are too broad and advocates a district-by-school district approach. He wants the war fought on 16,800 battlefields instead of 50. In other words, surrender.
Exactly. And having to point this out helps make the point of the editorial – because it shows that people get so wrapped up in these issues, and assume so much about a person’s motives when talking about race and history, that a teacher cannot feel comfortable teaching the history of these things without worrying someone will attribute motives, or opinions, to them they don’t have, and initiate a lawsuit over it (or whatever the remedy is).
Could be. I’ve disagreed with him about other things — but also agreed with him about quite a lot.
Sometimes our disagreements have more to do with our sense of where the greater risks lie than with fundamental disagreements about our values. I think that’s probably the case with David French, and with a lot of other conservative people who were strongly opposed to the previous President.
I’m sympathetic to concerns that our government may overreach and impose unacceptable restrictions on free expression. I’m simply more concerned that the greatest danger of that is at the instigation of the progressive left, in the form of so-called “hate speech” laws, speech codes at public schools, etc. I think we’re seeing a lot of that latter thing right now, and I think it dwarfs the danger posed by overzealous state legislatures trying to rein in a frankly toxic ideology. I’d rather French invested his time in helping us oppose the noxious bigots of CRT who would actually restrict free speech if they could, and in helping us keep them out of our schools, instead of sniping at states for trying to do the job themselves, however ham-handedly.
And he wants concerned parents to foot the bill.
I don’t have to make assumptions about French’s motives. He’s made his motives clear for five years now.
The odds of concerned parents successfully keeping this kind of indoctrination out of their schools are much higher if it’s a local issue.
I like to display my ignorance up front. Since French has lost me as an audience, I don’t want to mischaracterize his views, but any reasonable perspective should acknowledge that CRT is not about the teaching of history. French may have concerns about the wording/reach of statutes–that is a concern almost any time any new law is put into place–but his concerns should be a corollary to calling out CRT at the start for what it is–old Marxism in new bottles. If he is unable to do that, I’m really not interested in his pontificating.
No, it’s not. What you then get is a more bifurcated nation than we have now. Because fighting in 17K battlefields will mean that you will only win in certain places such as majority white suburban school districts. Meanwhile, the hatred will continue to be ratcheted up in urban and majority-minority districts and places where parental involvement is negligible. It is 100% a losing strategy.
If your aim is a United States, allowing half or more of the school districts to teach children to hate one half of their fellow Americans is not the answer. Nor is allowing this to continue during a district-by-district court battle that could take five years or more to windup at SCOTUS.