Critical Race Theory?

[Kooky]

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean; Harris, Angela. “Critical Race Theory (Third Edition)”

Given it is a broad discipline concerned with radical change, how can you make such a claim though? I've already provided you with a direct quote of an author saying something that obviously alienates many white people.

And of course, this single author whose quotes you cherry picked is more representative of the field than a literal introductory textbook, and your evidently superior intellect frees you of the need to back up these bull**** claims with actual evidence, because evidence is for pedants and idiots.

I agree that it is not a central or necessary tenet of CRT that all white people are racist, but it is pretty clear that some scholars do indeed say things that obviously, and understandably, alienate many white people (and many non-white people too).

If "it is pretty clear", how come that you have so far failed to produce even a single example of these racist scholars who presumably alienate, alongside a complete lack of evidence of the "many white people" alienated as such (How many, anyway? How many white people are "many"? 10% of all Whites? 20%?)

Whether or not you believe you normatively should be able to do so, you cannot redefine words like racism and white supremacy that have such negative connotations, apply them to people based on an accident of birth then expect all reasonable people to simply say 'of course you are right and we agree we are racists complicit in white supremacy' (never mind all people).

Let me guess, you don't believe you need to back up this claim with evidence, either.

 

[Kooky]

Aye, those who blame every individual in
a group for the actions of others are bigots
who make things worse for all.

And of course, that's why the words of this one individual damn the entire field of Critical Race Theory.

 

[Augustus]

And of course, this single author whose quotes you cherry picked is more representative of the field than a literal introductory textbook, and your evidently superior intellect frees you of the need to back up these bull**** claims with actual evidence, because evidence is for pedants and idiots.

Someone asked for a specific example. I provided one from a scholarly source.

This is evidence. Agreed?

And yes, a specific author is more illustrative of the views of that specific author than a 'literal introductory textbook" that does not feature the words or ideas of that specific author. Agreed?

You seem to have misunderstood something again because you didn't read the post in context and are thus arguing against a figment of your imagination.

It would be nice if you did try to read posts more carefully and without your preconceived assumptions as these seem to lead to basic mistakes in every single reply that could easily be avoided.

If "it is pretty clear", how come that you have so far failed to produce even a single example of these racist scholars who presumably alienate, alongside a complete lack of evidence of the "many white people" alienated as such (How many, anyway? How many white people are "many"? 10% of all Whites? 20%?)

You just accused me of "cherry picking" an example and now you are accusing me of not providing any examples at all. See what I mean about these basic errors that could easily be avoided?

You are also adding your own negative editorialising again by adding things that I didn't say because, again, you are jumping to incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

(If you want to know: I didn't say they are 'racist scholars', I just find the idea flawed and counterproductive)

Let me guess, you don't believe you need to back up this claim with evidence, either.

You quite genuinely have never seen any evidence that many people dislike being tagged with highly negative epithets they don't believe apply to them?

 

[metis]

Jackson's attitude toward slaves, which continues in the Democrat party of today, was that he felt that it was the white man's religious duty to take care of the blacks.

That is just a nonsensical lie that you should be ashamed of. Having compassion for those that might be disadvantaged for whatever reason is what Christ taught us to do, and stereotyping is not a Christian teaching.

BTW, of the two main parties, it's the Republican Party that is the more racist prone in today's world as study after study has shown

Critical race theory judges everyone by skin color; black and white.

It does not "judge", so you are not telling the truth again.

This misguided compassion racism is telling, since it suggests there are few, if any, Democrats of character.

Wow, you're really into stereotyping, which is a form of dishonesty. Therefore, speaking of "character", ...

 

[Epic Beard Man]

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean; Harris, Angela. “Critical Race Theory (Third Edition)”

Given it is a broad discipline concerned with radical change, how can you make such a claim though? I've already provided you with a direct quote of an author saying something that obviously alienates many white people.

I agree that it is not a central or necessary tenet of CRT that all white people are racist, but it is pretty clear that some scholars do indeed say things that obviously, and understandably, alienate many white people (and many non-white people too).

Whether or not you believe you normatively should be able to do so, you cannot redefine words like racism and white supremacy that have such negative connotations, apply them to people based on an accident of birth then expect all reasonable people to simply say 'of course you are right and we agree we are racists complicit in white supremacy' (never mind all people).



A generic overview of CRT for a popular audience doesn't negate what individual scholars may say on the issue.

Sigh*

 

[Augustus]

Sigh*

Predictable

 

[Kooky]

And yes, a specific author is more illustrative of the views of that specific author than a 'literal introductory textbook" that does not feature the words or ideas of that specific author. Agreed?

So you weren't talking about Critical Race Theory, only about a single author? You weren't making unwarranted generalizations backed up by nothing?

Nope.

If you want to weasle out of your own bad argumentative constructions, you have to do that more skillfully than just tacitly assuming I'm going to forget literally every previous claim you've made to this thread.

You are also adding your own negative editorialising again by adding things that I didn't say because, again, you are jumping to incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

And once again, you fail to answer questions, and fail to back up your arguments with evidence.

You quite genuinely have never seen any evidence that many people dislike being tagged with highly negative epithets they don't believe apply to them?

Once again, you fail to adress the question. You dodge and weave and refuse to supply anything of substance to this debate. This is why I do not believe you are engaging with this topic in good faith.

(If you want to know: I didn't say they are 'racist scholars', I just find the idea flawed and counterproductive)

What idea, specifically, and why?

 

[Kooky]

Predictable

Try argueing in good faith next time, you may get a different reaction than the one you already expect.

 

[Augustus]

So you weren't talking about Critical Race Theory, only about a single author?

If you want to weasle out of your own bad argumentative constructions, you have to do that more skillfully than just tacitly assuming I'm going to forget literally every previous claim you've made to this thread.

I don't "tacitly assume you will forget", I explicitly noted you were wrong from the very beginning based on poor reading comprehension and incorrect bias ridden assumptions.

If you need reminding though. The post in question:

a) Note the term "scholars", not "CRT"
b) Note the term "some people might indeed think that"

So not "Augustus thinks CRT says all white people are inherently racist", but "as plenty of scholars do say something to that effect, it is understandable that some people may indeed think that".

I'll leave you to continue barking up wrong trees as its tiresome to correct basic errors in every reply only to see you double down on the error in the next post.

 

[icehorse]

Here's a link to an article that proposes we ought to teach social justice in our math classes.

From a pedagogical perspective this would making the teaching AND learning of both topics much harder. This would be a step backwards in teaching and learning. If adding a class on social justice makes sense, that's fine. But to merge the two topics is an overreach.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

 

[Kooky]

@icehorse
Here is an introductory article about Critical Race Theory, I thought you might want to read this since you were so enthusiastic about learning more about it from a reputable source:

Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn't

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse
Here is an introductory article about Critical Race Theory, I thought you might want to read this since you were so enthusiastic about learning more about it from a reputable source:

Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn't

That's a step, here's an article I think is pretty even-handed:

13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate - FIRE

 

[Friend of Mara]

That's a step, here's an article I think is pretty even-handed:

13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate - FIRE

That article, despite being from a source that is anti-left, seems to be for teaching CRT. Well not necessarily CRT but what so many people are now called CRT. They even made that distinction early on. Good for them.

 

[icehorse]

That article, despite being from a source that is anti-left, seems to be for teaching CRT. Well not necessarily CRT but what so many people are now called CRT. They even made that distinction early on. Good for them.

I think it's interesting that you'd categorize FIRE as "anti-left" - can you say how you arrived at that conclusion?

 

[metis]

Let's deal with the reality, namely that this current "debate" about the CRT was not directly brought forth about education but is merely something that the political right is parroting because the Republicans really have nothing else to offer, so they resort to these "culture wars".

BTW, that same Republican Party did not actually create or display any "party platform" for the 2020 election, which in the past was always done, pretty much proof that they really have nothing to offer by to hype these "culture wars" and continue on with their "Party of No" obstructionism that they used during the Obama years.

For example, they said they would replace the ACA but never put forth a proposal when they had the control of both houses and the presidency for two years. All they do now is to blindly follow the constant spiel of hate and dishonesty bellowing out of the Donald's mouth.

Fortunately, many Pubs are seeing this facade and have had enough, including some rather big names. But will that be enough?

 

[Friend of Mara]

I think it's interesting that you'd categorize FIRE as "anti-left" - can you say how you arrived at that conclusion?

Mostly the language they use. Given some of the cases I read I can agree with them. But anyone that puts "religious liberty" and "free speech" in their main agenda have a high percentage chance of being conservative. If they are just genuinely for that then good for them. But quotes like these make me wonder what their intentions are.

"Under the guise of “nondiscrimination” policies"
"students who merely express religious beliefs in public are condemned and even punished for “hate speech” or “intolerance.”"

 

[icehorse]

Mostly the language they use. Given some of the cases I read I can agree with them. But anyone that puts "religious liberty" and "free speech" in their main agenda have a high percentage chance of being conservative. If they are just genuinely for that then good for them. But quotes like these make me wonder what their intentions are.

"Under the guise of “nondiscrimination” policies"
"students who merely express religious beliefs in public are condemned and even punished for “hate speech” or “intolerance.”"

tricky topics these.

I consider myself a classical liberal, and I worry about extremism from the right and the left. It's sad for me to hear that defense of free speech is seen by some to be a conservative value

 

[Kooky]

I think it's interesting that you'd categorize FIRE as "anti-left" - can you say how you arrived at that conclusion?

Could be this:

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or FIRE is a group which claims to "defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities."[1][2] It is an advocate on such issues as "free speech" codes, religious liberty, due process for students, allocation of funding for student organizations, and defense against ideological indoctrination. The organization was founded in 1999 by a University of Pennsylvania professor, Alan Charles Kors. FIRE is a major proponent of the intellectual diversity movement which aims to dismantle the so-called liberal bias in higher academia.

Or this:

FIRE is a former member of the State Policy Network, a group of right-wing think tanks and other politically-active nonprofits.

FIRE was a sponsor of Turning Point USA's 2017 "Student Action Summit".

Sources:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - SourceWatch
State Policy Network - SourceWatch
Who Funds Conservative Campus Group Turning Point USA? Donors Revealed

 

[Kooky]

It's sad for me to hear that defense of free speech is seen by some to be a conservative value

Perhaps one reason is because conservatives tend to disguise their antileftist agendas behind free speech rhetoric, while leftists are much more straightforward in what they seek to accomplish?

I'm also surprised by your performance of sadness here, given that you yourself seem to be using your "freedom of speech" topics here on RF primarily as a vehicle to transport anti-transgender issues, rather than talking about actual censorship that factually occurs at the hands of your government (e.g. against military and intel agency whistleblowers).

 

[icehorse]

Perhaps one reason is because conservatives tend to disguise their antileftist agendas behind free speech rhetoric, while leftists are much more straightforward in what they seek to accomplish?

I'm also surprised by your performance of sadness here, given that you yourself seem to be using your "freedom of speech" topics here on RF primarily as a vehicle to transport anti-transgender issues, rather than talking about actual censorship that factually occurs at the hands of your government (e.g. against military and intel agency whistleblowers).

You presume too much about my stances. As for leftists being straightforward, really? My experience is that leftists tend to be very evasive about the stances they take.

As for things like whistleblowers - yours is an excellent point!

But zooming out, my general stance is that most of us RFers probably fall pretty close to "moderate left leaning". So debating the tactics of the right seems uninteresting. OTOH, I think we ought to also be concerned about the far left going too far. That seems like more interesting fodder for RF.