Let's do a whole thread where I illustrate just how much @JeffreyASachs is lying in this article about the anti-critical race theory bill in New Hampshire.

That's the only one I'll speak to because it is simply the one I'm most familiar with. #NHPolitics

Here we go: https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1387432085711986691
1) The bill in New Hampshire allows for any concepts to be taught, but they cannot be taught as absolute truth and they cannot be taught while excluding other ideas. You also cannot force individuals to attend the trainings or fire them if they don't say they're racist.
2) A college would be able to teach that SOME PEOPLE believe America is fundamentally racist. They would not be able to teach it as absolute fact and exclude other ideas or dissent from the conversation.
3) There is nothing prohibiting the discussion of affirmative action in the bill. This is just a straight lie.

The bill DOES ban teaching people that one race is superior to another and that people should feel guilty because of their race.
4) You could absolutely teach that SOME PEOPLE believe that white privilege is a real thing. What you cannot do is to teach it as fact to the exclusion of other ideas or dissent.

See a pattern here?
5) There is no speech being suppressed. What IS being suppressed is state funding of teaching overtly racist ideas as fact.

If you want to hold a dinner party where a guest speaker will tell you you're racist, go to town. But taxpayers aren't footing the bill.
6) Well actually, in New Hampshire, the bill came about because a college professor spoke up and made the case for the bill after being afraid for their job if they spoke in dissent of this ideology.

That person is still anonymous today.
7) The bill in New Hampshire has an extremely specific set of definitions that clearly enumerate what is allowed and what is not.

And you can still discuss ALL ideas, but you cannot present them from fact or stifle all dissent while the taxpayers are footing the bill.
8) I wonder if @JeffreyASachs understands that the University of New Hampshire has done staff trainings where they taught the role of white employees was to "shut up" and accept this ideology without questioning it, and if they do question it, that's proof they're racist.
9) I feel like a broken record but I'll say it again: Nothing in the bill prevents these ideas from being discussed. They are prevented from being discussed as fact without allowing for dissent.
10) The other thing @JeffreyASachs doesn't say in the article is that when these ideas are taught in organizations and schools, they COMPELL the speech of the participants by forcing them to say things they may not agree with. That's a violation of their first amendment rights.
And I'll end with a question: @JeffreyASachs, since you say I should argue the ideas, is there any dissenting argument that I could put forth that won't result in you calling me a racist?

Because the ideology you're promoting teaches that dissent is just proof of racism.
You can follow @DrKarlynB.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: