From the “yeah, that’s the point” department we have San Francisco Unified School District board president Gabriela Lopez, who said this week that anyone criticizing their decision to rename more than 44 school buildings is “undermining” the district’s attempts to further the cause of “anti-racism.”
As you’ve probably heard, the school district made headlines last week when they voted to remove the names of “controversial” individuals from area schools. While the decision was purportedly made to cleanse the district from honoring people with “racist” histories, a close look at the list was enough to give anyone pause. It wasn’t like they were changing the name of David Duke High or Adolf Hitler Elementary.
In fact, it wasn’t long before reporters, researching the names involved, found that the district failed to do even basic homework.
For instance, they got rid of Paul Revere because he supposedly joined in the “conquest” of the Penobscot Tribe, a matter of serious historical dubiousness. They also canceled philanthropist James Lick because he supported a racist statue. The only problem? That statue didn’t go up until many years after Lick’s death.
We won’t even get into the removal of Abraham Lincoln’s name.
Even with all of these embarrassments, however, Lopez decided that it remained a worthy cause.
“So, for me, I guess it’s just the criteria was created to show if there were ties to these specific themes, right? White supremacy, racism, colonization, ties to slavery, the killing of indigenous people, or any symbols that embodied that,” Lopez said. “And the committee shared that these are the names that have these ties. And so, for me, at this moment, I have the understanding we have to do the teaching, but also I do agree that we shouldn’t have these ties, and this is a way of showing it.”
Lopez said that she was offended to even be asked about it.
“So then you go into discrediting the work that they’re doing, and the process that they put together in order to create this list,” she said. “So when we begin to have these conversations, and we’re pointing to that, and we’re given the reasoning and they’re sharing why they made this choice and why they’re putting it out there, I don’t want to get into a process where we then discredit the work that this group has done. The real issue is how we are challenged when we talk about racism.”
Right. In other words, if a group or government does something in the spirit of “anti-racism,” then it is above scrutiny and beyond criticism. If you bring either to the table, you’re doing the work of white supremacists.
This is how wokeness works. This is why it isn’t being eradicated like the cancer that it is.