Bettina L. Love, an antiracist professor at the University of Georgia, calls on educators to abolish “Whiteness” in schools across America. Her organization, the “Abolitionist Teaching Network,” demands teachers “disrupt Whiteness and other forms of oppression,” and offers “antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff.” In July, the U.S. Department of Education removed a link to the ATN website, claiming it was a “mistake.”
As Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote in the National Review:
We Want to Do More Than Survive, the title of Love’s book, alludes to a saying of Maya Angelou: “My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive.” Who can argue with that? A more accurate title — say, We Need a Socialist Revolution — would have been a tad more contentious. Yet somehow the book manages to move from “thriving” to revolutionary socialism. The connection comes from Love’s life story. . . .
Her book’s subtitle, “Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom,” supplies the name of Love’s “Abolitionist Teaching Network.” So, what does Love hope to abolish? Plenty. The educational survival complex must go, as we’ve seen, but also the prison-industrial complex, and pretty much every other pillar of the existing social order, including capitalism. Most especially up for abolition is “Whiteness.” At base, Bettina Love wants to abolish America itself and replace it with an entirely different system.
Parents and citizens concerned with upholding MLK’s “Dream” should keep a close eye on Love and her radical ATN, as both aim to abolish the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement by rejecting “colorblindness” as well.
A handbook with guidance for reopening schools prepared by the Biden administration included a hyperlink to a radical group called the Abolitionist Teaching Network that advocates for teachers to “disrupt Whiteness and other forms of oppression.”
The Abolitionist Teaching Network has a list of “demands” on its website including “[f]ree, antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff,” and its co-founder Bettina Love has said, “If you don’t recognize that White supremacy is in everything we do, then we got a problem,” adding, “I want us to be feared.” . . .
The DOE scrambled to explain its actions Wednesday in a statement that read, “The Department does not endorse the recommendations of this group, nor do they reflect our policy positions. It was an error in a lengthy document to include this citation.”
Anti-racist educator Ibram X. Kendi recently headlined the American Federation of Teachers’ TEACH 21 Conference, speaking at a livestream session titled, “A Conversation with Dr. Ibram X. Kendi.” The official AFT conference agenda stated, “Hear from Dr. Ibram X. Kendi in this free-ranging discussion with student activists and AFT members on his scholarship and on developing anti-racist mindsets and actions inside and outside classrooms.”
During the livestream, which has not been posted on the AFT website, Dr. Kendi compared those who oppose critical race theory to Southern segregationists from the 1950s. According to an article titled “Anti-racist education benefits all of us” published on the AFT’s website:
Ingram asked Kendi about the furor over critical race theory and related pushes against teaching about enslavement and discrimination. Kendi compared it to the reaction to Brown v. Board of Education, when some white people were fearful that desegregated schools—and the Black children in them—were going to be harmful to their children. Today’s fears are similar in that misinformation is being spread about potential harms; one bold lie is that teaching about racism conveys to white children that they are inherently evil. Kendi was clear and compassionate: He does not know of any anti-racist teacher who would believe or convey that any child or group of people is inherently bad or racist.
But Dr. Kendi misrepresents the growing concern by parents, educators, and community members over the toxic and polarizing tenets of critical race theory, and falsely states that no anti-racist educator teaches that all whites are inherently racist; Robin DiAngelo, whose anti-racist approaches are embedded in K-12 curriculum in a number of school districts – and whose book White Fragility is on recommended reading lists across America – explicitly teaches just that.
Instead of disassociating with such polarizing tenets of anti-racism – which is an example of critical pedagogy under critical race theory – Kendi attempts to gaslight educators when it comes to remembering his own ideas, as well as the ideas of other anti-racists who use an identity-based model, which polarizes by skin color and offers little in terms of holistic, universal solutions to the real problems of racism and racial disparities today.
Recently, on the Black News Channel, Temple professor and BNC host Marc Lamont Hill asked Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Rufo to “name something positive about being white.” This took place during Lamont Hill’s 26 minute interview with Rufo about the pros and cons of Critical Race Theory in America.
This video highlights the excerpt, but also brings attention to the impact culture has on racial disparities in the United States (something Rufo attempted to analyze during the interview), and how exploring culture has become increasingly taboo with anti-racists and those who push Critical Race Theory in education and government.
Full interview of Christopher Rufo by Marc Lamont Hill on the Black News Network here:
Purchase Exploring White Fragility: Debating the Effects of Whiteness Studies on America’s Schools here.
The Gates Foundation recently donated $3.6 million to The Educational Trust, an advocacy group behind “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,” which has designed a new “anti-racist” math curriculum which is more concerned with ending so-called “white supremacy culture” than teaching students objective, linear math. Please click on the picture above to watch a video analysis of Gates’ support of this program, and his bigotry of low expectations. Thanks for watching!
American progressives are the masters of euphemism. They don’t “censor” books or plays; they “retire” them. They don’t “remove” lessons about the founding fathers from our kids’ curriculum; they “de-center” them. At every turn, they find some friendly-sounding phrase to obscure the illiberal and savage attacks they make on our culture. But one progressive euphemism stands out as uniquely dangerous: whiteness. . . .
What makes all of this so dangerous is that progressives are not railing against a system; they are railing against people. They are not demonizing a culture; they are demonizing people. This is why white people must confess their privilege. They must feel shame and contrition for the immoral nature of their pigmentation. Any clear-headed person can see what a dangerous game this is.
The antidote to progressive doublespeak is to say what they refuse to say. They do censor, they do remove, and yes, they do mean white people when they talk about who has to change and how to save our society. In this way, progressives regularly express good old-fashioned racism about white people and their ways under the guise of some broad investigation of that society. But do not be fooled. The next time you read about whiteness, the next time it is scapegoated into the cause of all that ails society, know what is being said. They truly believe the problem is white people.
Bree Picower, an Associate Education Professor at Montclair State University, projects her own racist anti-white worldview onto preservice teachers in education programs, as well as on active teachers in K-12 schools.
Bree Picower, an Associate Education Professor at Montclair State University, is anti-white. Her new book, titled Reading, Writing, and Racism: Disrupting Whiteness in Teacher Education and in the Classroom, projects her own racist anti-white worldview onto preservice teachers in education programs, as well as on active teachers in K-12 schools.
Which makes Picower’s particular brand of anti-whiteness even more concerning, being that her audience are educators instructing America’s children, who not only mold the minds of youth, but also have the ability to indoctrinate these young people with Picower’s poisonous ideas.
Like DiAngelo’s White Fragility (which begins with a Forward from noted Black Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson), Picower’s book begins with a Forward from Bettina Love, a Black “abolitionist” professor from the University of Georgia. Beginning each book with a Forward from a person of color is obviously their attempt to provide a level of authenticity to their racist worldviews — worldviews which see America as a nation founded on slavery and oppression, and see “whiteness” and the cultures of those who identify as white as violent entities that must be disrupted and dismantled.
“The United States is not just racist; it is anti-Black,” Love writes in her forward to Picower’s book. “The word ‘racism’ does not adequately describe the ways in which the US kills, destroys, and spirit murders Black people.”
Love goes onto write that “America’s obsession with greed, violence, hate, and Black suffering always reaches into the most sacred spaces of American democracy, including schools.” This line is important, because it serves as a thesis for Picower’s book, Reading, Writing, and Racism: that the United States is a violently racist and anti-Black country, and that this violence and anti-Blackness stems directly from the white supremacist curriculum pervading K-12 schools, curriculum steeped in so-called “whiteness” that must be called out and eradicated.
Love states in her Forward:
Too often teachers want to reflect a happy world to children, where no one was enslaved, no one was beaten, no families were separated, and White people never hurt anyone. These feel-good stories of White heroes and do-gooders uphold White supremacy and undermine the mental well-being of youth of color. To be frank, I am tired of seeing children, all children, opening up a textbook and reading about Black people as slaves and Native Americans as savages. I am even more appalled when teachers do not see anything wrong with these representations.
Love’s logic, or lack of logic, is a microcosm of the fallacious and propagandistic nature of Picower’s entire book. In literally the same paragraph, Love insists slavery shouldn’t be white-washed from school textbooks, but then complains that she’s sick of seeing children opening up books that portray Black as slaves. But again, this lays bare the central theme of the book: that whites, no matter what they teach, are racist and oppressive and can do no good.
Thus the stage is set for Bree Picower’s anti-white book titled Reading, Writing, and Racism: Disrupting Whiteness in Teacher Education and in the Classroom. In it, Picower cherry-picks bizarre and strange examples of so-called “viral racist curriculum,” some of which she literally pulls from anonymous sources on Facebook, others which she dredges up from dusty, long-abandoned textbooks from the early 1970s. And it’s these strange, cherry-picked curriculum resources, which have been collected under the #CurriculumSoWhite, that Picower holds up as the norm in America’s K-12 schools.
“I have made the choice to focus on these viral examples because they are telling for many reasons,” Picower writes in her Introduction. “These singular examples reflect the toxicity of the entire body of school curricula. People outside of education rarely have a window into what happens behind classroom doors, so when these examples appear online for all to see, they call into question what other racial injustices are going on in schools.”
This is a key part to Picower’s anti-white indoctrination: like DiAngelo, she prays on naïve and unsuspecting preservice teachers and college education majors, baiting them with distorted facts and misinformation, hoping to turn them into activists who will go out and recruit others to push the radical message.
But these singular examples do not reflect the entire body of school curricula, not by any stretch of the imagination, and saying so is a form of educational malpractice. Like DiAngelo, Picower seems very comfortable generalizing about entire groups of people and entire bodies of curriculum.
The ideas at the heart of Picower’s book, most of which are creative regurgitations of DiAngelo’s questionable theories, are packaged into five chapters. The first is titled “Curricular Tools of Whites” (defined by Picower as “scripted responses used to maintain teachers’ investment in White supremacy”), is a clear rip-off of what DiAngelo refers to as “moves of whiteness” (defined by DiAngelo as “a linguistic strategy used to support or challenge current power relations”).
In a nutshell, the chapter lays out seven “tools” racist teachers use to maintain white supremacy in schools, none of which are based in any rigorous scientific analysis or backed-up with any quantitative research. In short, these “tools of whiteness” have come straight out of Picower’s brain, invented to increase the appeal of her anti-white racism and to better enable her to indoctrinate young, unsuspecting preservice teachers into this toxic ideology.
Chapter 2 is called “The Iceberg: Racial Ideology and Curriculum,” which is a reinvention of DiAngelo’s “iceberg of culture” and “white racial frame,” and examines four “case studies” to show how America’s teaching force both consciously and unconsciously produces curriculum based in white supremacy and anti-black racism.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 continue to recycle DiAngelo’s writings on historical racism, white socialization, white privilege, systemic racism, colorblind racism, and how these combine to form a K-12 educational system steeped in white supremacy and anti-blackness. Again, no rigorous testing of any of these theories are done by Picower, and she employs no quantitative studies of any kind.
Picower indeed acknowledges in her book that she is a privileged white person, who has no right profiting off of black suffering. She has two principles when it comes to her racial justice work. One, she keeps her “gaze” on “Whiteness” (which means she focusses all her research on how only whites need to change for the world to improve). And two, when asked to present or consult on racism, she makes sure she has a person of color with her, so she can hide behind them and claim she’s not racist.
Perhaps a third principle could be to refrain from indoctrinating America’s future teachers with racist propaganda aimed at disparaging entire groups of people, or to stop writing racist books that do all of the above.