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
My criticism of French here has been directed at his inability to first set the table with an acknowledgement of what is going on and what is at stake–before venturing into his take on statutory restrictions. It’s possible that his participation in that editorial precluded him from doing so because of the views of the co-authors. It’s also possible that he doesn’t see that “legitimate interest” as being at stake.
I suggest that you listen to David French himself explain his point of view as to how to best combat Critical Race Theory, or CRT. He was interviewed on the Daily Bulwark today, Friday, July 16th. Go to the 21:30 point in the podcast.
I’m not interested at this point in how he wants to combat it; I’m interested in what he thinks about it, and whether he unequivocally condemns it. Does he do that?
Gary,
I’ve read the Op Ed he endorsed, and am responding to that.
H.
A fair take, I think, but I don’t think that the omission of “should” weakens their point much, especially since they focus as much on the promote “division” section. They are still right that the statute is too vague. Aside from some obvious things he can’t do, a teacher may have no idea when he might be violating the statute. Are you not troubled by that at all?
I don’t think it assumes that. As Hoya suggests, I think that discussion is deliberately omitted because the coauthors likely disagree and it doesn’t affect their broader point. By the same token, a hard core wokeist would criticize the article because it doesn’t advocate teaching CRT directly. But the whole point is to avoid that and focus on an area they agree on.
Your second point is a very fair criticism.
Well the left doesn’t seem to care, when it comes to pronouns etc. Maybe a taste of their own medicine?
You’re right that they make other arguments as well. This omission simply makes me question the integrity of the authors, and their forthrightness about their motives.
I’m not very troubled by it, no. I’m more concerned about a host of other workplace regulations that create actionable ambiguity. That doesn’t justify defending more bad legislation, of course: I’m not offering it as a defense of poorly written law. I’m just saying that I’m willing to risk that in order to prevent something I consider far worse.
I guess this touches on a concern of mine, my fear that “the whole point” of the Op Ed might actually be to head off a measure that could effectively prevent CRT indoctrination. I think the reality is that CRT proponents are winning at the local level, where they represent a special interest that can effectively compete against the more diffuse general interests of local citizens caught up in their own lives and relatively oblivious to what goes on in the classroom. Faced with the possibility of concerned citizens making a legislative end-run around that, they suddenly discover a concern for free expression and federalized/local control.
I think Mr. French has gotten into the habit, of late, of outsmarting himself.
The Babylon Bee mentioned Mr. French in a recent piece about the collusion between the White House and FB.
https://babylonbee.com/news/to-avoid-1st-amendment-concerns-biden-administration-announces-they-will-let-facebook-run-the-gulags
I’m sorry that I didn’t get it right ght the first time. Posting from my phone early in the AM and the NYTs less than intuitive interface are my excuses.
The risk is unnecessary, though, because a better statute could easily be drafted. And opposition to vague laws is an important conservative principle, too, as progressives often have a field day with them, not to mention just, again, the basic due process and fundamental fairness concerns. And in this editorial, at least, a few prominent progressives are on record agreeing about the problems with vague statutes. So that’s nice.
I don’t know why we must refrain from criticizing our side (not that you’re saying that here, Henry) when it goes blundering into these things, unnecessarily tossing conservative principles aside and dividing the conservative coalition. It’s a gift to the left.
It’s a problem when you are criticizing your side for failing to be perfect when the opposing side is way far off the reservation.
The NRO piece Hoyacon linked hits that one on the head.
I agree. However, the authors of the Op Ed were not suggesting that this law should be better written. Rather, they’re arguing that we should not have such laws. They are using imperfections — possibly serious imperfections — in proposed laws to justify something else: that there be no such laws restricting what can be taught in the classroom. (The fact that they’re mischaracterizing the Tennessee law in order to do that is telling, I think.)
In their Op Ed they say this:
I’ll be frank: I don’t believe that most of the signatories actually oppose speech codes in the classroom. (I don’t know about Mr. French.) I believe most of them will gladly accept speech codes that prohibit speech they don’t like. I don’t believe they are strong advocates of free speech in general. I think they are trying to do what I described earlier: prevent effective legislation limiting their preferred ideological instruction and leaving the matter to less effective local boards and groups that they can dominate and control. I think Mr. French has either been duped (likely) or has lost his bearing just a little and been caught up in the fine print and is missing today’s blaring headlines.
(Incidentally, I still think David French is on our side in the broader scheme of things. I just think he’s making some pretty serious mistakes that diminish his value. We all make mistakes: that doesn’t make him a bad man.)
If they’re fine with the Biden administration urging Facebook to censor health-care information, they’re probably not against speech codes in the classroom, either.
David French is a dishonest, hypocritcal, narcissistical grifter in the extreme. The examples that follow are limited to the subject of CRT and its components and his views on race relations before and after terminal TDS and his new, big-paying gig at The Dispatch (partially funded by Facebook and who knows who). Do we really believe his views have completely changed based on conscience? Only if we define conscience as $$$. And remember, these are examples on only one subject. Pick any subject and the results are exactly the same. Drag queens, anyone?
Pre-TDS, Writing for National Review
The Racial Poison of ‘White Privilege’
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/racial-poison-white-privilege/
Black Lives Matter & Progressives: Radical, Dangerous Movement
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/12/black-lives-matter-progressives-radical-dangerous-movement/
Black Lives Matter Keeps Getting More Radical — Will the Media Care?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/black-lives-matter-media-left-radical/
Is Diversity Really Our Strength?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/american-diversity-requires-common-creed/
The ‘Educated Elite’ Isn’t Educated, and It Isn’t Elite
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/american-educated-elite-not-educated-not-elite/
Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Eloquent Hate Is Still Hate
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ta-nehisi-coates-kanye-west-hate-eloquent/
Black Lives Matter: Radicals Using Moderates to Help Tear America Apart
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-radical-divisive/
Post-TDS, Writing for The Dispatch (There are too many to list especially in relation to his view of GOPers, Evangelicals, etc. as racists and our many failings but these specifically address CRT and how far we have to go as racist Americans. Also so many are behind a paywall and why pay when you can read The Daily Beast?).
On the Use and Abuse of Critical Race Theory in American Christianity
(CRT) ” can help identify the reality and effects of oppression. ” “In that construct, critical race theory can be an analytical tool (one of many) that can help us understand persistent inequality and injustice in the United States.”
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/on-the-use-and-abuse-of-critical
American Racism: We’ve Got So Very Far to Go
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/american-racism-weve-got-so-very
Oh man, that’s beautiful!
He’s fairly critical of CRT in the “use and abuse” article above, clearly opposed to it as a way of seeing the world, and it’s a better summary of what it actually is than you usually see.
[Deleted: technical difficulties]
If you were planning to add/reply something to D.A.Venters’ comment, I’m not seeing it.
Thanks for pointing me to that piece since I’ve essentially been saying throughout that one can’t truly assess French’s views on legislation affecting CRT without knowing how French feels about CRT itself. As he notes, the problem is one of definition. Looking at how he defines it, I would characterize his criticism as lukewarm.
While he does attempt a concrete explanation/definition that may be accurate in an academic sense, my concern is that his characterizations adopt the rationalizations of CRT’s academic proponents and bear little relation to teaching materials in K-12 that I’ve seen. It’s very possible that critics have adopted CRT as shorthand for teachings that go beyond the “CRT” that French speaks about. This can happen and is a recipe for talking past one another.
Thanks. See above.
The best discussion of CRT, legislation, and parental response, Glenn Loury and john McWhorter:
From the 28 min to 42 min they focus on CRT.
Thank you for the link. I just now finally read the piece.
There’s so much circular reasoning in it that I’m impressed by the patient analysis in this thread. I think the members of Ricochet are smarter people than the editors at the New York Times.
Now I see why everyone here was upset by the editorial. And I am too.
He does seem to be among those always in favor of deferring to “experts.”