Klar on Cady: CRT proponents oppose dissent

By John Klar

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:

“We are both strong supporters of the EWSD [East Westford School District] and its work on equity and inclusion. We feel that each and every member of the School Board should be as well.”

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 Vermont Daily 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.”

Guy Page used the term exactly as the dictionary defines it, depicting Elizabeth Cady as being treated as “uppity” for standing up to CRT bullies! Guy Page didn’t employ the word offensively, or to allude to Black people.  Definitional contortions by the Franz/Taylor grammarians imputed a litany of moral condemnations to bully Cady into silence — treating her as if she were uppity; falsely impugning her as a racist for an article she didn’t write.  Vermont parents must scrutinize this stifling effort and its tyrannical proponents.

Guy Page’s article describes Elizabeth Cady as “…a pro-school choice, Critical Race Theory critic mom who in March defeated an incumbent pro-Critical Race Theory, anti-school choice candidate for a seat on the Essex School Board… [S]he’s a woman dedicated to a vision of a Vermont committed to fairness and equality for all. And she’s not afraid to speak out and urge others to do likewise….”

Elizabeth Cady merely asked for fuller dialogue and expressed sensible reservations about CRT.  Yet Franz and Taylor claim that

With this post, along with her continual campaign of misinformation and contextually inaccurate data, Ms. Cady has made it clear that she does not believe in the district’s equity work, and that she is actively encouraging others to join her in this crusade, which she has made political through this post on a conservative website.”

What board member Cady wrote was this: “Whether or not you agree with the above being taught in schools is a personal choice, but my concern is that our community, as a whole, has been uninformed of these changes in schools and what it means to prioritize equity, specifically what is the desired end-state of equity in our schools….  If, as a parent or taxpayer, you share some of these concerns or have some of your own, I encourage you to attend the meeting and speak.” 

This seems like a reasonable Voltairean appeal: but opposing views are verboten to the CRT cult.  What Franz and Taylor dub “the most unsettling aspect of the post” is that Elizabeth Cady dared question their newfound institutional orthodoxy:

“This flagrant policy breach demonstrates what is apparent to many of us: EWSD School Board Member Liz Cady has a personal agenda that is not in the best interests of our schools, our students, or our community.”

But isn’t the shoe on the other feet? Franz and Taylor advance a personal agenda to impose a CRT ideological indoctrination on Vermont children.

Cady is a whistleblower and hero, whose loyalty to students and parents is her visible “personal agenda.”  The voters clearly wish to permit her to have her voice.  But most important, parents everywhere must critically examine this anti-Constitutional doctrine being rapidly introduced into America’s schools.

Republished from May 13 American Thinker

Categories: Education

12 replies »

  1. William F. Buckley Jr said, ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’

    Liz was elected overwhelmingly by her peers to question the direction of the school board to which she serves. I’m confident there will be many more who follow her lead.

    Sen. Russ Ingalls

    Essex/Orleans District.

  2. To Mr. Klar, Mr. Page, and other Elizabeth Cady supporters: please don’t corrupt Ms. Cady’s perspective by injecting your personal bias.

    If there is one aspect of education governance Ms. Cady supports, and that I support too, it is a parent’s ability – in her words – “to receive out of public education”. Yes. School Choice. To interject more than that concept in this debate detracts from the main premise.

    As a former school board director, I agree with Ms. Cady that Public School Boards aren’t transparent, that budgets should have more public input, and that parents should have more say in what is taught to their children. And as a former school board director, I can say with certainty that NEVER did I see two individual people, let alone an entire district constituency, agree 100% on what a free and appropriate education should be.

    But Elizabeth Cady has brought to the fore the one governance concept that will eliminate all other education dogma and disagreements from this discussion. School Choice.

    Providing every parent with a publicly funded ‘tuition voucher’, to attend the school the parent deems best for their child, eliminates all other collective disagreements. To paraphrase Ludwig Von Mises: School Choice “…is the realization of what we should call economic democracy… that… can only be acquired by means of the consumers’ ballot, held daily in the market-place.” Be it a Free-Market Economy or Marxist Socialism, a comprehensive historical context or the sophistry of Critical Race Theory, a secular or parochial belief, as the common libertarian axiom holds – ‘While I disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.’

    Understand this. The current public education monopoly has in it the inherent and unavoidable nature of conflict and dysfunction. That Laura Taylor and Emily Franz, for example, “allege that Cady gave the impression that … she would represent special interests or partisan politics for personal gain” should not be denied. Ms. Cady is acting in her own self-interest – as we all should be able to do. And there is only one education governance model that allows this diverse range of possibilities to occur.

    School Choice. Period!

    • Jay, she was asking about and criticizing CRT at the May 4 meeting. I agree with you that school choice is also something she stands strongly for.

      • Guy, I understand what she talks about from time to time – and what we choose to listen to and report. But when Ms. Cady ran for office, her main thrust was School Choice. I’m trying to emphasize that more important issue – to avoid becoming the kettle calling the pot black.

        CRT, for example, is a political ploy – a distortion of history. And while I agree with Ms. Cady in that regard, I’m advising that ‘to each his own’. CRT advocates are as entitled to study CRT as Ms. Cady and I are entitled to question it, especially when it’s presented to our children in a school curriculum. The point being that none of us will prevail in this debate if we each insist on censoring the opinions of others. And public-school governance requires the standardization of one or the other.

        Either we trust parents to decide for themselves what their children learn in school, and perhaps fail from time to time while learning from the experience, or we standardize what everyone is allowed to do. As G. B. Shaw opined: ““Liberty Means Responsibility. That Is Why Most Men Dread It.”

        The matter at hand, the most important civil rights issue of our time, is not that CRT is being taught in our public-school monopoly. The problem is that our education system IS a Monopoly. Break the monopoly, allow parents to choose the school that best meets the needs of their children, and all else becomes politically irrelevant.

        Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees.

    • I think H.Jay is right here — the issue at it’s root is not whatever non-sense they want to foist on us it’s that they are structurally empowered to do the foisting. We don’t need to convert them from their errant ideas or even debate them…we need to escape them. Let the money follow the kid. We’ll see who still wants to buy their vision.

      • Precisely!

        “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” ― Friedrich W. Nietzsche

  3. Now let me see if I understand: This newbe-come-here transient (…you know Military family) shows up and has the effrontery not only to sit at the cool kids lunch table but to START TALKING HERESY, no less…Equality over Equity???? …I mean W-T-!??@?!?# …I mean who does she think she IS …and LORD, look at those socks. Time to activate the “MeanGirl” squad. Is that about it?.

  4. That is the reason you have a School Board. To present different opinions on policy or procedures for discussion is what this member should do. So she disagrees with a policy or has questions concerning implementation is a reasonable function. Just because someone seriously promotes a questionable policy or project is no reason to condemn a Board Member who doesn’t agree. She probably represents a majority of the families that have children in the specific district. Their attempt to to shove through a questionable program and stifle honest discussion is disturbing.

  5. As we see how an articulate adult board member is attacked for a dissenting opinion, one can only imagine what could happen in a classroom setting to a defenseless white child who may feel and express some discomfort when exposed to the tenet :: ” White silence is violence “

  6. If the school wants a curricula about prejudice, it would be far more effective to play reruns of All In The Family created by Norman Lear. Archie disliked anyone who was different than himself. We heard the actual defamatory words on the show and we all survived and learned about our own prejudices. Words like whop, kike, Pollock, jungle bunnies. All those nationalities suffered discrimination in real estate, jobs and social acceptance. Laws and quotas for opportunity were instituted in the 60s and 70s to level the playing field. By the year 2000 if one finds themselves underprivileged they should only have to look in the mirror to find fault.

  7. Perfect example of what happens when you ARE NOT paying attention and you let they who feel it’s their way or else get away with the “agenda” for WAY too long. I so wonder where these infiltrators got their training. Following the money gives somewhat of an idea as to who funds the CRT and Social Justice offshoots of 1619 Project, as well as flying flags to exhibit their accomplishments. Money laundering is a HUGE racket by golly!! Look over here – no over there! We have lost how many generations now as a result of this propaganda?

Leave a Reply