Exploring injustices
Dear Editor:
I read the article on the new PTA in the Feb. 14 Methow Valley News with interest. One of the members of the PTA mentioned some concerns regarding our school district, specifically about “gender ideology,” “sexualization,” and whether “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) was being taught in our schools. I have a great deal to learn about these topics and I hope the PTA seeks to help educate us about them rather than use them to isolate and intimidate specific groups of students and staff. We are, after all, a district of inclusion, aren’t we?
Specifically, CRT is a system of thought that seeks to investigate how racism may still be embedded in our institutions: our laws and criminal justice system, our economic system, and our educational institutions. The Human Genome Project has taught us that race as a biological concept does not exist: there are no genes setting white skinned people apart from black or brown skinned people other than genes for skin color. Race, and the practice of using it to sort human beings, is a result of our history, our sociology. Ta- Nehisi Coates writes: “race is the child of racism, not the father.”
Is it important to help students investigate the institutions in which they live, especially given our complicated history with “race?” Is it OK to feel a bit uncomfortable if we discover that our system of justice is not as color blind as we have been told? Or that parts of our educational systems may still have practices which discriminate against specific groups of students because of racial or gender stereotypes? Can we be in fact, not just in myth, a great country if we don’t encourage our children to undertake such investigations and seek to correct such injustices should they exist?
David Asia
Twisp
An important first step
Dear Editor:
Braver angels: What a concept and a beautiful title. Who doesn’t love the descriptive word “brave,” and when married with the noun “angel” there is something so unobjectionable about it.
Last weekend Janice Dickinson stretched out her arms to our community and invited us all to participate in step one of an effort to reign in our extreme feelings, sand down a few edges and consider our role in keeping our community a little more united than the rest of our country.
We were encouraged to identify ourselves as blue or red. A few heads shook as if to say, “just call me a brave angel, that’s enough.” I estimated that we had 80% blues and 20% reds. There were hints of purple hovering in the background and corners, but not an option for the activity of the day. Purple is a comfortable place to stay out of trouble but perhaps a heap of purple people would leave our country a bit flavorless as a culture.
So how do we keep our diversity and preserve sustainable peace when the topics of the day threaten a national divorce? It was declared at the meeting that we cannot afford a divorce. A poll revealed that, of the people in the room, about 35% of the people felt disdain towards the opposition, another 35% had respect for the opposition, leaving about 30% who pitied the “deceived” opposition. I spoke with one individual who was uncomfortable with the disdain they felt.
The goal, as I understand it, is not to water down who we are, but to learn better how to bring colorful discussion to the table without overturning it. The focus of this first session was to analyze how we behave in our own camps of like-minded friends and family.
I look forward to the next event and I hope we get more reds, because the program doesn’t work in an echo chamber. I felt welcomed, and encouraged. Perhaps together we will learn a little better how to listen with curiosity, calm our triggers, practice patience and grace with others’ mannerisms, speak objectively and walk away better informed about how others think.
Kim Frey
Twisp
