When a newly-elected school board member stood up to oppose teaching critical race theory…
In a bizarre “Complaint” filed against recently-elected Vermont School Board member Elizabeth Cady, two citizens allege Cady’s inquiries about the introduction of Critical Race Theory (CRT) constitute a “clear breach” of School Board Operations Policy. As in many states, this controversial ideology is seeping into Vermont’s curricula. Cady’s case is instructive of the coercive pressure exerted by CRT radicals against those who dare question the hasty implementation of this novel, race-based “theory.”
Laura Taylor and Emily Franz allege that Cady “gave the impression that… she would represent special interests or partisan politics for personal gain.” No monetary “personal gain” is identified. Their real complaint, in my opinion, is summarized in their conclusion:
CRT proponents oppose dissenting opinions. A core principle of CRT asserts that free speech liberties have been used to oppress Black people, and thus White people cannot be permitted a differing opinion -- free speech is an obstacle to “equity.” (Ryszard Legutko calls this “coercion to freedom.”) A quasi-religious ideology, CRT is being launched in Vermont schools via what scholar Christopher F. Rufo aptly identifies as an “institutional orthodoxy.” This dogma does not tolerate disagreement, as it “feels that each and every member” of society “should” agree to use skin color as a determinant of education and public policy. If one disagrees, one is a heretic to be targeted, shunned and slandered.
The complaint falsely attributes an article written by reporter Guy Page to Mrs. Cady, which dared employ the word “uppity”:
In a bizarre “Complaint” filed against recently-elected Vermont School Board member Elizabeth Cady, two citizens allege Cady’s inquiries about the introduction of Critical Race Theory (CRT) constitute a “clear breach” of School Board Operations Policy. As in many states, this controversial ideology is seeping into Vermont’s curricula. Cady’s case is instructive of the coercive pressure exerted by CRT radicals against those who dare question the hasty implementation of this novel, race-based “theory.”
Laura Taylor and Emily Franz allege that Cady “gave the impression that… she would represent special interests or partisan politics for personal gain.” No monetary “personal gain” is identified. Their real complaint, in my opinion, is summarized in their conclusion:
CRT proponents oppose dissenting opinions. A core principle of CRT asserts that free speech liberties have been used to oppress Black people, and thus White people cannot be permitted a differing opinion -- free speech is an obstacle to “equity.” (Ryszard Legutko calls this “coercion to freedom.”) A quasi-religious ideology, CRT is being launched in Vermont schools via what scholar Christopher F. Rufo aptly identifies as an “institutional orthodoxy.” This dogma does not tolerate disagreement, as it “feels that each and every member” of society “should” agree to use skin color as a determinant of education and public policy. If one disagrees, one is a heretic to be targeted, shunned and slandered.
The complaint falsely attributes an article written by reporter Guy Page to Mrs. Cady, which dared employ the word “uppity”:
Before we point out the clear breach of the policy, we must take a minute to point out that the word “uppity” has deeply troubling racial and sexist undertones. It is deeply disturbing to us that a school board member would post under such an offensive, racist, and sexist title, and yet, it is not even the most unsettling aspect of the post.
