Speaker 1: We'd like to say, welcome Sarah Westwood back to the
Speaker 1: Armstrong and get a show. Long time, no talk, Sarah.
Speaker 1: How you doing, I'm good, Thanks for having me. She
Speaker 1: is the political and investigative reporter for the Washington Examiner. First,
Speaker 1: I would I would appreciate it if all you Sarah's
Speaker 1: would get together and decide whether there's an H on
Speaker 1: the end of your name or not. Yesterday I was
Speaker 1: dealing with my son, a tutor and a therapist. One's
Speaker 1: a Sarah with an H and one is a Sarah
Speaker 1: with an A, and I kept getting mixed up, and
Speaker 1: I think you all should just decide on one and
Speaker 1: move forward. Well, if someone was an H, I would
Speaker 1: say that is the correct way to spell it without
Speaker 1: an age. She's forgotten the letter. Also, I think all Kirsten's,
Speaker 1: Kristen's and Kirsten's need to get there and get together
Speaker 1: and choose one's fair. Um. So a couple of different
Speaker 1: directions we could go. Um. First of all, I really
Speaker 1: I literally liked your article. Before we get into some
Speaker 1: of the critical race theory stuff and how it gets
Speaker 1: into the schools um uh. I liked your definition of
Speaker 1: critical race theory in one of your articles in which
Speaker 1: you said it is now a catch all term for
Speaker 1: lessons and policies that encouraged children to see themselves in
Speaker 1: others almost exclusively through the lens of race. I appreciate
Speaker 1: that because I feel like there's a lot of the
Speaker 1: pushback on some of the critical race theory says that
Speaker 1: that's not specifically critical race theory, but what most of
Speaker 1: us mean, those of us who didn't go to Harvard
Speaker 1: Law School in the nineties, we mean anything that leans
Speaker 1: towards um where we're focusing on race for for everything
Speaker 1: in society. That makes sense to me, right, And I
Speaker 1: think you're touching on something super important, which is that
Speaker 1: so much of the opposition to critical race theory UM
Speaker 1: or excuse me, so much of the supporters of things
Speaker 1: that would be classified as critical race theory or focusing
Speaker 1: the debate on how we define critical race theory. And
Speaker 1: if you're not specifically referring to the nineteen seventies academics
Speaker 1: framework from Bell, then you know you don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about, and you're not qualified to engage in
Speaker 1: this debate. I think it's a way of sort of
Speaker 1: trying to invalidate a lot of the feelings of parents
Speaker 1: by making them feel like they don't know what they're
Speaker 1: talking about. But ultimately, critical race theory has to mean
Speaker 1: any sort of policy that is focusing on race um
Speaker 1: and teaching children that they should see the world through
Speaker 1: the lens of race and see themselves through that lens
Speaker 1: of race. And so I think um by pushing back
Speaker 1: on the idea that critical race here even exists in
Speaker 1: K through twelve classrooms at all. Uh, it's a way
Speaker 1: for supporters of this kind of curriculum to avoid having
Speaker 1: to engage in a debate over the merits of teaching
Speaker 1: kids sort of way of looking at the world. I like.
Speaker 1: I like that distinction, Sarah Westwood of the Washington Examiners.
Speaker 1: So you got into a question that I think a
Speaker 1: lot of parents probably don't know and we all should.
Speaker 1: How does a particular curriculum textbook end up in the school?
Speaker 1: Is it come from the federal government, from the state,
Speaker 1: from the who who makes these decisions? And you looked
Speaker 1: into that, I did what what we you know sort
Speaker 1: of laid out in an article about this is that
Speaker 1: typically it's the textbook adoption decisions and curriculums decisions are
Speaker 1: made at the local level. Local school districts will have
Speaker 1: these sort of committees of educators and experts that will
Speaker 1: make recommendations to the school boards, and the school boards
Speaker 1: will approve what goes into the schools. And that's why
Speaker 1: you see so many eruptions of CRT opposition at school boards,
Speaker 1: because that's the pressure point for parents to express their
Speaker 1: opposition and try to get the school boards not to
Speaker 1: just rubber stamp some of these more controversial textbooks and
Speaker 1: lessons that the local committees are recommending. Yeah, we've been
Speaker 1: saying for a long time on this show that people
Speaker 1: and I include myself on this people are not active
Speaker 1: enough at the local level. Man, we're willing to get
Speaker 1: into an argument about who's going to be president or
Speaker 1: some federal policy. Don't go to the city council meetings.
Speaker 1: We don't go to our school board meetings the things
Speaker 1: that we can actually control and argue about things that
Speaker 1: we have very little input on. I've been to one
Speaker 1: city council meeting. I think in my entire life that
Speaker 1: I spoke at overall homelessness in my neighborhood. I should
Speaker 1: go on a regular basis. Same with school board means,
Speaker 1: we should get more involved, because, as you just laid out,
Speaker 1: it's at that local level that they're deciding what gets
Speaker 1: into your school, right, And I think this dr Key
Speaker 1: site has sort of raised a level of awareness that
Speaker 1: I haven't seen about the importance of the school boards.
Speaker 1: And you are seeing some of that activism take the
Speaker 1: form of politics in that some parents are organizing recall
Speaker 1: UH efforts, stuffs happening in Loudon County, Virginia, which is
Speaker 1: outside of DC, where parents have organized this massive recall
Speaker 1: effort for several school board members to try to get
Speaker 1: them removed from their seats through politics, and out of
Speaker 1: Texas in South Lake, Texas, which is sort of an
Speaker 1: affluent suburb, there was actually a fair amount of money
Speaker 1: that was thrown behind UH some parents who challenge school
Speaker 1: board members on the basis of those over support for CRT.
Speaker 1: So you are starting to see that happen in isolated places,
Speaker 1: and I think as local elections creep up and as
Speaker 1: we get into this next school year starting in the fall,
Speaker 1: you're going to see a lot more of that in
Speaker 1: parents realizing the importance of focusing on those elections. So
Speaker 1: I was looking at your Twitter feed there Sarah with
Speaker 1: an h And I saw your retweeted an article and
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've written anything about this or
Speaker 1: you're just more or less commenting on it. It was
Speaker 1: a New York Times article from a while back where
Speaker 1: it talked about, um, we're stigmatizing children by labeling them
Speaker 1: as behind. All these kids that haven't been in school
Speaker 1: for a year and a half, um with regular learning,
Speaker 1: and some schools are going to continue with the zoom learning,
Speaker 1: where if you're a parent and you've got kids doing
Speaker 1: the zoom learning, you know they aren't learning even close
Speaker 1: to normal level. And uh, and you retweeted this idea
Speaker 1: that it's traumatizing to school to children somehow to tell
Speaker 1: them that they're behind. Well, what else are we gonna do?
Speaker 1: We're going to ignore it? Right? That seems like a
Speaker 1: convenient way to avoid accountability for the learning loss is
Speaker 1: that the schools and the teachers unions have inflicted on
Speaker 1: these kids by keeping the schools closed for so long.
Speaker 1: And there's just an overwhelming body of evidence that the
Speaker 1: benefits of having kids in the classroom outweigh any remaining
Speaker 1: risks to these children. And yet we're seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: these Massy mandates being imposed on the schools, which isn't
Speaker 1: necessarily detrimental to learning in itself, but it certainly taves
Speaker 1: the way to have some of the commitments to full
Speaker 1: reopenings rolled back. And so I think that's why a
Speaker 1: lot of parents, you know, including myself, I started kindergarten
Speaker 1: this year, are a little bit worried, may not open
Speaker 1: us scheduled? Your son will start kindergarten this year? Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: good because I know several people who'se uh whose kids
Speaker 1: started kindergarten last year, and it just was heartbreaking because
Speaker 1: kindergarten is such a special time. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's all about fun and play and learning to
Speaker 1: be around other kids and stuff like that, and it's
Speaker 1: just so cute. And the fact that there's a you know,
Speaker 1: a million and the kids across the country that missed
Speaker 1: out on that experience and we're sitting there staring at
Speaker 1: a zoom camera as a five year old is just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: I hope your your your son gets to be in school. Um,
Speaker 1: how's the masking around where you where you live in
Speaker 1: DC area? I M yeah, I do live around the
Speaker 1: DC area, and recently, you know, after the CDC guides
Speaker 1: came out in the spring, suggesting that vaccinated people didn't
Speaker 1: necessarily have to wear mask indoors or outdoors or anywhere.
Speaker 1: The masking really fell around the districion. You know, for
Speaker 1: the first time, I felt comfortable going places without wearing one.
Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see the level of compliance though.
Speaker 1: That follows this latest move from the find administration yesterday
Speaker 1: to try to encourage people, even vaccinated people, to mask
Speaker 1: up once again certain indoor situations, because vaccinated people have
Speaker 1: been told that they didn't need to do that by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States just days ago, and
Speaker 1: he said, he specifically said, I repeat, if you are vaccinated,
Speaker 1: you do not to were a mask just a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago, right, And it's the science behind you know,
Speaker 1: these decisions hasn't changed. There were variants in the spring,
Speaker 1: and it's clear that the vaccine continues to protect vaccinated
Speaker 1: people against severe cases and cuts down on transmission significantly.
Speaker 1: And yet because the Biden administration has missed its vaccination targets,
Speaker 1: they're trying to keep the virus under control. But the
Speaker 1: problem is that this severely under cuts the argument for
Speaker 1: the vaccine has of course, of course this could serve
Speaker 1: to really undermine their vaccinies. Yeah, I was just talking
Speaker 1: about that. It's absolutely amazing. The stick is so that
Speaker 1: my theory is there's a carrot and a stick on
Speaker 1: the COVID right or the vaccine, and the stick apparently
Speaker 1: doesn't bother people that are vaccinated. They've decided for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: and fine with me that I'm not worried about it. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you're not worried about the stick end of it.
Speaker 1: Now the carrot of you don't have to wear a
Speaker 1: mask anymore has been removed, so now there's no reason
Speaker 1: for those people to want to get vaccinated. Um, do
Speaker 1: you ever wish you were still the White House reporter
Speaker 1: for CNN? So like yesterday when they did a one
Speaker 1: eight in the mask, you can say, hey, what the hell?
Speaker 1: I don't know if that would be my styness on
Speaker 1: the air at least, but definitely the messaging from the
Speaker 1: left from the DA has been for incoherent when it
Speaker 1: comes to mask are they and to the vaccine as well?
Speaker 1: Does it work? Or should we be worried about the
Speaker 1: delta variant? Should we be celebrating the efficacy of vaccines
Speaker 1: enough that we don't need to worry about it. It's
Speaker 1: it's been very confusing, and for anyone who is still
Speaker 1: wrestling with the decision of whether to get vaccinated, you know,
Speaker 1: there isn't a lot of reliable message coming out of
Speaker 1: the government about what they should do and what risks
Speaker 1: their case, no doubt. Sarah Westwood political and investigative reporter
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner, follower on Twitter or just read the
Speaker 1: newspaper or whatever. Sarah, thanks for your time to I
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Thanks for having me Armstrong and Jetty