Op-Ed: CNN Host Says Question To Education Secretary About Tulsa Race Massacre Was A ‘Gotcha' Question. Umm…No!
Source:
Here's the thing: white conservatives want to do away with DEI, critical race theory, and everything else that gets their racial resentment flowing, but they don't really want to get into the weeds of whether their anti-progress stances have merit, or whether the people in charge of deciding what constitutes DEI and CRT are equipped to make such assessments. All white conservatives do is make claims with little to nothing to substantiate them and dismiss any challenges to those claims as 'woke,' 'leftist,' or, in the case of CNN host Scott Jennings and his ilk, fraught with 'gotcha' questions.
Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon was grilled during a congressional hearing about the Trump administration's efforts to ban what it considers to be 'illegal DEI practices' at K-12 public schools. She was asked for examples of what historical teachings might fall under that category, specifically, whether teaching students about the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 would violate federal policy.
'I'd have to get back to you on that,' McMahon responded multiple times, including after she was asked if she even knew the massacre happened — indicating that the white person in charge of the office that is deciding how much Black history is too much Black history wasn't aware of arguably the most well-known race riot in American history.
The importance of why someone in McMahon's position should be better versed in Black history — especially if she's involved in deciding what should and shouldn't be taught — eluded Jennings, apparently.
During a Wednesday segment of CNN's 'News Night with Abby Phillip,' Phillip noted correctly that McMahon has shown herself to be a woefully underqualified Cabinet member in the administration of President Donald Trump, despite the administration presenting its anti-DEI agenda as a campaign for meritocracy. Jennings responded by deflecting to his perceived failing of the Biden administration (because MAGA supporters have nothing if they don't have, 'But…but…but Sleepy Joe' ) before segueing to his actual point, which was generally no real point at all.
'The only thing I care about for the education secretary — the literal only thing I care about — is what they are doing to close the Department of Education,' Jennings said. 'I don't care how many books she's read; I don't care what answers to 'gotcha' questions she had. I just want to know how quickly we can close the department.'
See, this is what I call mindless Trumpetting .
First of all, Jennings is out here gleefully admitting on live air that he doesn't care how educated the Secretary of Education is as long as she shuts down the department she's in charge of, an agenda of President Donald Trump that is transparently rooted in ideology, not merit or practicality.
Secondly, everything isn't a 'gotcha' question just because a MAGA official who doesn't know things got 'got.'
McMahon was asked about Tulsa and Ruby Bridges in a discussion about what her office considers 'illegal DEI' curriculum. (She wasn't even asked the more relevant question: What does school curriculum have to do with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the first place, unless we're simply otherizing any teachings that don't center white America?) McMahon wasn't asked any difficult questions, but she was asked questions that would have forced her to present Trump's anti-DEI mission in a way that isn't so vague and ambiguous.
And the Trump administration couldn't have that because people might find out the anti-diversity and critical race theory war is actually just a bunch of racist nonsense.
That would be the ultimate 'gotcha,' wouldn't it?
SEE ALSO:
Education Secretary Linda McMahon Didn't Know About The Tulsa Race Massacre When Asked About 'Illegal DEI' In Education
Trump's Job Corps 'Pause' Is MAGA's Plan To Eliminate Poor Youth
SEE ALSO
Op-Ed: CNN Host Says Question To Education Secretary About Tulsa Race Massacre Was A 'Gotcha' Question. Umm…No! was originally published on newsone.com
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
43 minutes ago
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK -- As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK (AP) — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Former S.F. Mayor London Breed reveals her post-City Hall career plans
Former San Francisco Mayor London Breed has been quiet about her professional plans since she left office in January, but that's starting to change. The Aspen Policy Academy announced Wednesday that Breed and G.T. Bynum, the Republican former mayor of Tulsa, are its first bipartisan 'civic innovation' advisers-in-residence. The academy, a Bay Area-based operation of the Washington, D.C. think tank Aspen Institute, said Breed and Bynum will spend six months mentoring fellows on policy projects, representing the academy at events and working on projects about policy subjects of their choosing. It's not a full-time job, though it does come with a stipend, and Breed is believed to be exploring other unspecified career opportunities as well. Still, the academy's announcement provided the first public indication of how San Francisco's former mayor is spending some of her time following 12 years as an elected official in the city. 'This program is about more than learning how government works — it's about inspiring a new era of civic leadership,' Breed said in a statement released by the academy. Aspen Institute CEO Dan Porterfield said in a statement that mayors 'bring distinctive insights to the work of policymaking given their proximity to the people and communities they serve.' Breed and Bynum 'will be an invaluable resource to future policy leaders,' Porterfield said. The Aspen Institute has connections to Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization tied to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He was one of Breed's top benefactors when she ran for reelection last year. Breed also appointed a former Bloomberg staffer to the board of supervisors during her final weeks in office. Breed was elected mayor in 2018 and served in the role for more than six years, until she was unseated in November by Daniel Lurie. A native of the city who grew up in public housing in the Western Addition, she was the first Black woman mayor of San Francisco. Her tenure at City Hall was marked by a series of overlapping crises, including the pandemic, which hurt the city's economy and upended the agenda on which she campaigned. Breed won praise for her early response to COVID-19, but her tenure quickly became dominated by public outrage over rampant drug use on city streets and record overdose deaths driven by the rise of fentanyl. As downtown offices emptied out, major retailers fled Union Square and viral videos of brazen property crimes spread online. San Francisco's reputation took a nosedive, further complicating Breed's fight for another term. Her reelection campaign last year centered around a hopeful message, pointing to a drop in reported crime and other developments as evidence that she was leading San Francisco out of its pandemic doldrums. But Lurie, a political outsider who'd never held elected office before, ultimately defeated her by 10 points
