‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

It is true that we probably have somewhat different values. I don't personally value TJ having some high rating as decided by magazines and would happily sacrifice scores if I believed it was possible to better provide education to gifted students across Fairfax County. And I do believe that the test makes it harder for FCPS to do this well, though it certainly allows TJ to select for specific kinds of students that make it score well in magazine ratings.

I also believe that it is not good to separate students into many strata earlier in life and believe that the lottery limits the effect of wealth and other inequities on young kids. You may believe that we should reward students who studied their brains out in school, did test prep on weekends, and joined clubs so they could round out a resume. Those are different values and that's okay.

It is also very likely that we have different opinions about the expected outcome of ending the test. I believe that it will make it easier, not harder for students to access high quality education and recognizing that there are so many students that could succeed at TJ will encourage FCPS to allocate more resources to magnet programs so there can be more slots for these students. I also hope that this will demonstrate the need for a humanities-focused alternative, which currently does not exist (the humanities education offered at TJ is atrocious, IMO). I also believe that moving away from strict testing as the primary mechanism for excellence will help TJ recover some of its creative side that is so valuable for young learners. The creativity available during 8th period has been slowly crushed under the weight of standardized learning processes over the last several decades. A lot of the skills I learned during 8th period are no longer made available to students in order to serve the almighty test score. I hope that admitting smart students who aren't bound to testing will help this.

It is also very likely that we have different opinions about the ability of the test to separate students into strata.

I do not support destroying TJ. I believe that this makes FCPS education better and encourages more TJs.

We disagree. That's fine. But you list my peers among extremists and you claim that I intend to sabotage quality education. Why is your position not extreme?

White men are like 35% of the U.S. population in total. So on the back of the envelope, a corporate culture that inclines toward hiring white men, also inclines against hiring from 65% of the population. That's a lot of talent available for your competitors to hire.

And the numbers get even more dramatic the younger you look. Non-hispanic white U.S. residents under 16 made up less than 50% of the population at that age as of last year. And the trend direction is obvious. Source:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-census-data-shows-the...

The left-hand side of this chart is what the future of the American workforce will look like. The right-hand side is what it used to look like:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/most-common...

If a company does not figure out how to hire, retain, and promote people who are not white men, they are going to see a shrinking talent pool for decades to come. The data is obvious to corporate leaders, which is why so many companies are treating diversity as an issue for management of the business.

To quote Howard Zinn (even if you disagree with his politics - it applies to both sides of the aisle): "You can't be neutral on a moving train. Events are already moving in certain deadly directions, and to be neutral means to accept that."

Being "above" politics is not a virtue when the politics in question are harmful - thus, the "moral crusade".

Generally, it is not, but there is a risk that "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" will misrepresent the opinions of "people who are X".

Also, "people who are X" usually have diverse opinions, while the "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" crowd often develops a monolithic opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are called anti-X.

To give an example, I know gay people who want equal rights, but are disgusted by the "prides". If a woke straight person heard me saying that I support equals rights but don't like the "prides", they would call me a homophobe. Because it is known -- among the woke straight people who support gay rights -- that all gays support the "prides".

Similarly, an Indian person probably wouldn't be offended by finding out that I practice yoga (they might actually be happy about it), but a woke white person might sic a Twitter mob on me for the sin of cultural appropriation.

> Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others?

Nothing, unless I appropriate their cause in service of signaling my wokeness and attacking people I don't like.

For example, when racism is used as a weapon in fight between two groups of white people, who already had another reason to fight each other, but used this opportunity to make their attack more socially acceptable.