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
This is an issue that needs to be addressed on multiple fronts. Curriculum is affected by federal mandates (largely administrative more than statutorily specific), state based curriculum rules (again, largely administrative), and then the local school districts. While I very much wish this were an issue of exclusive local control it’s gotten to the point that I welcome engagement at the state legislative level – but as you have emphasized this level brings the some of the risk of harm the NYT OP writers were attempting to highlight. Where I also agree with your comment is that the grass roots opposition spells “VOTES” and is thus the most effective level readily available to most of us.
I can only assume that woke school boards are a rarity in your area.
But you might not sign onto a letter with a bunch of folks who do support new gun control laws. No?
Frankly, the caveats attached to the letter are probably just to give people some cover when they get negative reactions. When you get down to it, signing is supporting.
I try never to sign something that I can’t whole heartedly support. (See dogs/fleas above.)
I’m assuming you mean “the continued betrayal by David French” rather than “somebody or other betrayed David French (though I think French believes that Donald Trump, and by extension, all Trump’s supporters, somehow betrayed French, which justifies his outrage.)
That raises the question of whether French is actually betraying anything or merely revealing his true loyalties; if he actually thinks that Trump in some way betrayed him, that suggests that French has a severely inflated opinion of himself and is importance.
Of this I have no doubt. The idiot was actually considering running for President.
Especially since he’s a Jewish guy.
Shouldn’t we be getting a book soon about his travails as a “principled conservative”?
I suppose if he sees the graft running out.
I would not. And that’s why I’m simultaneously defending French on the particulars of this instance while suggesting that I think he shouldn’t have done it, because he’s fighting the wrong fight and, probably unintentionally, giving aid to the enemy.
PS But I’ll add that, if the AEI article Brian cited in #5 is correct in its characterization of the misrepresentation made in the Op Ed, then even my tepid defense of French goes out the window.
Oops…teach me to do this from my phone. The NYT offered a new feature that allowed for “Gift Subscriptions” that I was trying to use and evidently it didn’t work. I will update the link.
I would also point out that Mr. French lives in TN, so one would assume that he would have a better understanding of the laws of his home state than others. No excuse for this behavior.
I hadn’t considered that but it is true and tragic. I use to like and admire both of them; however, I can’t abide them anymore. It seems to me they profoundly underestimate the threat and the risk of the woke left.
A high level solution would be ideal, for sure, for exactly the reason you state. Part of the rationale of the editorial at issue, though, is recognizing, as quoted above,
So, any high level solution is going to be a compromise. I personally think that is fine, since I think most people could come to some agreement on balancing a truthful, mostly positive account of our history with pointing out the flaws, and pointing out that race had a lot to do with those flaws.
But people who are very politically engaged, on both sides of the debate, have a very hard time with the details of this. There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction and assumptions made about what the other side is saying, fear of the other extreme. Any teaching that doesn’t constantly harp on race is contributing to systemic racism, probably on purpose. A defense of teaching history to include racial issues, and address those in detail, is sly attempt at CRT indoctrination.
If David French can’t write an editorial, which has no legal impact, expressing concern about an overreaching, vague statute, without being declared a grifting traitor, what reaction would a site like the Ricochet member feed have to a Republican state legislator if he dares suggest a compromise in the process of actually drafting a bill?
And of course, the hard core woke crowd will similarly react to a democrat’s recognition of the need to compromise.
There’s little reward for compromise these days, it seems. For purposes of fund raising, energizing volunteers, and so on, stroking the base seems to be the key.
So, while that’s the way things are, maybe a local- solution isn’t so bad.
The people are fighting, there, too. There have been some victories. Other places have been school boards flexing totalitarian muscles (like London).
David French is not on your side. He is a for-profit grifter that will say anything for a buck and to get invited to Swells cocktail party. Maybe he was on your side once, but it is more likely he has always been an unprincipled grifter. Move on.
Maybe. Or maybe they believe they’ll profit either way. Like so many establishment Republicans who realize that when Democrats are in charge, they can make a lot of money by shouting about how terrible Democrats are. But if they’re put in charge, well, they actually have to prove their worth. And who wants to do that?
We already HAD that. If anything, history education has become MORE anti-American in the last 30 years. Not LESS.
CRT doesn’t do what the OpEd is claiming and you are being disingenuous in your defense. The basic premise is wrong – that schools teach feel good, pro-America propaganda that should be balanced with things that make us uncomfortable.
FYI, a great many kids graduating high school hate America. I think our schools are doing just fine in the Shame America Game.
None of us object to history classes teaching about racism. We object to history classes being taught by racists.
Speaking of making people uncomfortable, how often is the slave trade origins in Africa discussed? Or the enslavement of Slavs? Or how bout the crusades being a backlash to pilgrims being attacked on their way to Jerusalem by Muslim warriors?
…
…
All things I did NOT learn in high school.
I agree with you 100% on that. I remember my own education in the 80’s and early 90’s, in rural KY, and there was plenty of discussion of slavery, jim crow, etc… I don’t remember the detail, but I know I knew all about those things when I went to college, so it must have been there. I don’t think more emphasis on the flaws and racial turmoil is necessary, especially at the grade school level. But I still agree that the legislation is too vague. And the OpEd doesn’t defend it.
Hmm…I would have to ask my wife who is the writer what is more correct, but I think you might be correct in that by is clearer than of. Perhaps I should have said…David French’s continued betrayal.
Stacy McCain agrees:
I read the NYT editorial. In the best of all possible worlds, it is making a good point. But to imagine that we live in such a world is delusional. While it’s always a mistake to default to “OMG, we’re all gonna die”
Local action is absolutely essential. Parent’s first responsibility is to their children, and if the most they can accomplish locally is a temporary holding action to allow their kids to have as unpolluted and education as possible, that’s not to be sneezed at.
But local control is only possible when the state and national governments either can’t micromanage because of communication and surveillance difficulties or, by carefully nurtured policy, choose not to micromanage. The current administration intends to seize on (and if useful, invent) multiple issues as tools to divide and conquer nationalize and politicize education, policing, and much else, and then micromanage.
For all French’s irenic self regard, when translated into English from the original Parseltongue, that’s what the piece French signed is supporting.
In your defense, Thomas Malory did write, I think regarding Arthur, that he was “made knight of the best man there,” which in Malory’s day could well mean “by the best man there.”
Except French’s recent writings, social media presence, etc. strongly indicated there is nothing “unintentional” about his giving aid to the enemy.
Actually he addresses this in the podcast he does with Sarah Isgur, called “Advisory Opinions.” He says that you just have a few cases, and the rest of the nation will follow. That’s been his experience in freedom of speech cases that he dealt with. See https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/ at 48:30.
I listened to the segment, but I am not persuaded that this issue correlates to the speech codes to which he seeks to analogize. FIRE is effective in part because it deals with federal 1st amendment claims. Aside from differing approaches between the federal circuits, the district court decision can be cited in any federal court as relevant to a federal claim. The CRT issue is likely to be more state based . . . so I think we have at least 50 battlefields, if not the school district by school district fight.
In this issue I don’t know that there is a difference between “informing” and “promoting” . America is racist at it’s core and from it’s founding, all white people are guilty and should feel bad for profiting from this “systemic racism” You are be definition racist if you are white and a victim if you are not.
In what way would it matter if your speech is deemed to be “informing”, rather than “promoting” the idea, that people fall into one of two categories based solely on their skin color, this skin color alone determines whether you are a victim or an oppressor.
Defining victim and oppressor appears to be a prime feature.
I’m wondering how many people here feel that they don’t understand the history of slavery/racism, including the reconstruction era through the segregated South to Brown v Board of Ed. to more recent issues. The likelihood is that we’re objecting to the redefinition of racism and that the ideologues on the other side are dissatisfied with the continued march towards progress since it’s an indication that things continue to improve. You can’t build a revolution on that.
The march toward progress always has a receding horizon, requiring an ever more intense marching pace.
I’m totally weary of French and his fellow (would-be) elites who dare to believe that they know one iota when it comes to education.
OK, French, it’s all well and good for you to pontificate, “Schools, particularly at the kindergarten-to-12th grade level, are responsible for helping turn students into well-informed and discerning citizens.” Oh, really? And just how is CRT supposed to aid in that?
How will it help utterly failing public school systems who are putting out students that rank anywhere from 25th to 35th (in the world) in the most important subjects? The U.S. is somewhere in the top five (worldwide) in money spent per pupil and yet the public school system is graduating students that cannot string together two cogent sentences or do a basic math problem.
Mr. French, please go back to contemplating your navel and leave our students alone. They’re failing very well on their own; they don’t need your help.