Useful Elephants

Controlling Debate by Controlling Language

Thanks again to the American Thinker for running this piece. You can visit the website at: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Don’t think of an elephant.

You are probably thinking of one right now.

But what if you were told “don’t think of an elephant” and you didn’t think of an elephant because it was impossible to do so since the word elephant had been defined out of existence?

What if the only way you could think about an elephant was if someone asked you not to think about a large, grey, tusked thing?  You may still think about an animal but you would no longer be able to think clearly and concisely about just an elephant – it could just as well be a narwhal.

And that is the elephant in the room regarding the debate over the teaching of critical race theory in public schools: When you can define the words, you can define the discussion and that is half the battle.

An ability to express an idea clearly is critically important in any political context.  If one cannot express certain concepts like “freedom” in any rational and coherent way, if it can only be felt in the pit of one’s stomach, then, for all practical purposes, it no longer exists in the public sphere.

When discussing the woke/progressive movement, it cannot be over-stressed that words matter and the freedom to choose which words to use to express an idea is at the heart of a free and functioning society.

True, our current president may not exactly know what words he is using at any given time: “You know, the thing, that guy over there who runs that place, c’mon man, the likelihood is highly unlikely, lying dog faced pony soldier President Harris,” may not have come out of his mouth in a row but they do feel that way far too often.  But his staff and supporters and enablers surely know that words – truthful or not – can be used shape, amplify, or shutdown any given debate over any given topic.

Not only should allowing words to be misused in order to control a discussion should be anathema to all, it should be just as problematic to allow narrow but crucially important rhetorical dodges to control a debate.

One of the most prevalent current dodges involves the back-and-forth around whether or not critical race theory is being “taught” in schools – they key word here is taught.

Those in favor of the concepts behind CRT, such as MSNBC Host Joy Reid (speaking of words, note to Microsoft: while I appreciate the intent, having to re-edit my text because Word autocorrects “MSNBC Host” to “Overpaid Delusional Narcissist” every time I type it is kind of time consuming) steadfastly maintains that CRT is not being taught in schools because third-graders aren’t being handed Delgado and Stefanic’s “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” textbook when they come back in from playing four-square at recess.

That line of argument, while disingenuous, is rather simple, understandable, and, in the limited amount of time available on a cable news show, extremely defensible.  Even though it is usually made to change the premise of the discussion, it may, in the tiniest sliver of the truth way as possible, even be technically correct and then debating that point devolves quickly into a “he said/they said/ze said” triangular argument.

So the answer, if one is trying to make the point that CRT is really being taught in primary and secondary schools, is, well, don’t – without using the caveat “derived from” first. 

Saying that certain aspects of a curricula are “derived from” CRT rather than “are” CRT does a number of things to strengthen one’s debating position.  First, it has the advantage of being accurate and true.  Second, it removes the undergirding of a Reid-type legalistic technical defense from the start, thereby eliminating a well-worn trope that has allowed TV types and school board members an automatic out from the discussion (even the most disingenuous CRT proponent has at some time admitted a relationship between what is discussed by legal scholars at college and what is taught in school).  And, third, it is perfect as the basis for clear and simple analogies to illustrate what is actually occurring.

Does every mechanic have to take physics and memorize each and every law of thermodynamics to know how to fix and engine?  No. 

Does every passenger on an airplane have to be able to drag co-efficiency equations in their head to be able to put their seat in its locked and upright position?  No. 

Does every eighth-grade earth science class have Alfred Wegener’s seminal work on plate tectonics - Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane – on its reading list?  No.  Do most of the kids that are even vaguely paying attention come away with a rudimentary understanding of continental drift and volcanoes and earthquakes and such?  Yes, and that is what, terrifyingly, is happening with the tenets of CRT.

It could be said, sticking with the educational analogy, that school children are being taught a “Cliff Notes” version of CRT rather than having to slog through – what an incredibly tedious and extremely annoying venture that must be – the whole critical race canon but learning it they are.

And with that “learning” – specifically because of the limiting of language at the heart of critical race theory – comes an un-learning of being able to think in any other way.