Some of the references used in this book would be laughable if it wasn’t about our children; they reference sources like newspapers instead of any study, paper or expert. This textbook contains a sprinkling of CRT throughout, but I’ll focus on the most egregious section.
Module 77 of Unit 9 makes it blatantly obvious that CRT is the goal of this textbook. The students’ attention is intentionally focused on race. It makes use of racist studies and comments against white people to indoctrinate in the idea of white privilege. Mr. Kendi would be proud at how "antiracist" this book is and CRT advocates would find it acceptable. The textbook, is in line with American Psychological Association (APA) as outlined in their 86-page roadmap, published May 11, 2021, entitled Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity.
Consistently uses partial quotes to leave the student with the idea that systemic racism "hinder[s] minority student achievement". Page 793 contains a bullet point entitled "Monitoring reflexive bodily response" which suggests that people can’t help but be prejudice.
"[p]eople with darker skin tones experience greater criticism and accusations of immoral behavior. In one study of White medical students and residents, 1 in 3 believed "black people’s skin is thicker than white people’s skin,"
which led medical students to make harmful treatment recommendations. The statement is made based on a
Hoffman study with very small
sample size. Two studies were done: the first one had 121 participants and the second only 418 participants. Leaves me to wonder, did
they cherry pick those that gave the answer they were looking for?
This section also ventures in to the political arena with a statement such as:
"In the 2008 election, U.S. presidential election, those demonstrating explicit or implicit prejudice were less likely to vote for candidate Barack Obama. His election in turn served to reduce implicit prejudice." (emphasis added)
This is just "spin" used to indoctrinate the idea of "systemic racism". How do they measure "implicit prejudice"? Could it be, as CRT advocates, because of "white privilege?" In reality, Mr. Obama received a larger percentage of the "white vote" than John Kerry did four years prior. Additionally, statistics show, as stated by Larry Elder, blacks are increasingly voting Republican:
2008: 4% voted Republican, against Barack Obama
2012: 6% voted Republican, against Barack Obama
2016: 8% voted Republican, for Donald Trump
2020: 12% voted Republican, for Donald Trump
Is this due to racism too? Was the "black vote" for Mr. Trump increased by 50% on his second run because of racism or because of his polices? The textbook just makes a disingenuous statement to mislead students.
It is stated that "it is very important that women have the same rights as men". Agreed! What rights do men have which
women don’t in today’s society?
This section puports:
"gay and lesbian people experience substantially higher rates of depression and related disorders" and "states that banned same-sex marriage … a 37 percent increase in depressive disorder rates, a 42 percent increase in alcohol use disorder and a 248 percent increase in generalized anxiety disorder"
LGBTQ+ individuals are increasing being accepted by society in many ways. Why wouldn't the number of incidents of disorders and alcoholism increase? Since LGBTQ+ people are more comfortable in "coming out", maybe, at the time of diagnosis, it is more likely to be known, when historically it wasn’t. Second, as culture is more accepting now than ever before with LGBTQ individuals, more young people are encouraged to "experiment" with the lifestyle; the more individuals in a group, the more incidents of "disorder" there will be. The book does not explore any possibility other than "prejudice" as the cause.
Nothing justifies discrimination against any group. However, when this textbook states:
"In the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks … and the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS, many Americans have developed an irrational fear and anger directed toward all Muslims" (emphasis mine)
Why is it "irrational" to look at the facts; which are:
• The 9/11 attackers were Muslim
• The large majority of terrorist, like ISIS, follow the Koran, thus making them Muslim
• Koran demands the killing of unbelievers referred to as "infidels":
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them,
and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular
charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Sura 9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
"Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." (Sura 66:9)
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves." (Sura 48:29)
"And fight them until there is no fitnah [civil strife] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah." (Sura 8:39)
All these pages refer to killing of the "infidel" which is defined as:
"a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one’s own." Synonyms are: unbeliever, agnostic, atheist, pagan, idolater, and heretic.
None of those facts are included in the textbook. Anybody who believes in the Koran would believe that; they are exclusively Muslim.
Admittedly takes "leaps" but presents them as forgone conclusions with no justification:
"good is rewarded and evil is punished. From this it is but a short and some-times automatic leap to assume that those who succeed must be good and those who suffer must be bad." (emphasis added)
The text perpetuates the Marxists idea of "classes"; which is the root of CRT:
"When some people have money, power, and prestige and others do not, the "haves" usually develop attitudes that justify things as they are"
This goes directly to the CRT teaching of white privilege, white fragility, anti-cop and fascism – because those are "woke" must take control
and tell the rest how to live. It goes onto to say "stereotypes rationalize inequalities" which is the idea between CRT equity. "Dividing the
world into ‘us’ [oppressors] and ‘them’ [oppressed] can entail conflict, racism, and war" is the kind of statements that divide us.
It falsely describes discrimination as often being "triggered not by outgroup hostility but by ingroup networking and mutual support, such as hiring a friends’ child at the expense of other candidates". That is not discrimination, it is nepotism. They continue "ingroup love often outranks universal [social] justice". So, we are not to take pride in, and stand up for, our school, team, country etc.? This, again, the Marxist idea of creating equity of outcome and goes against the American ideals of equality of opportunity; CRT just loves to preach that.
The textbook goes so far as to suggest that infants are racist, buying into the CRT idea of in-born racism:
"our greater recognition for individual own-race faces – called the other-race effect (or cross-race effect or own-race bias) – emerges during Infancy … people don’t fit easily into our racial categories. … the observer’s selective attention is drawn to the distinctive features of the less familiar minority". So we can’t teach that Biblical idea that people are born into a fallen world, but can teach that infants are born "racists"?
It also puts the idea of white fragility front and center with statements like: "people often justify their prejudices by blaming victims" and "your own gut-check reveals you sometimes have feeling you would rather not have about other people".