Guess the (CRT) Syllabus?

[icehorse]

Three things:

1 - I hate this style of "journalism"
2 - Anyone wanna take a stab at what the CRT syllabus would have been in Temecula?
3 - Do you think us RFers can come to a loose agreement about what might be taught in a CRT class?

Ban on teaching critical race theory in Temecula, Calif., sparks heated debate

 

[Shadow Wolf]

3 - Do you think us RFers can come to a loose agreement about what might be taught in a CRT class?

No.

Anyone wanna take a stab at what the CRT syllabus would have been in Temecula?

If it's like other places no more than mentioning things like slavery or Black Wall Street and opposition to Reconstruction.

 

[Stevicus]

Three things:

1 - I hate this style of "journalism"
2 - Anyone wanna take a stab at what the CRT syllabus would have been in Temecula?
3 - Do you think us RFers can come to a loose agreement about what might be taught in a CRT class?

Ban on teaching critical race theory in Temecula, Calif., sparks heated debate

They posted a link to the resolution in the article: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23460546/critical-race-theory-resolution.pdf

WHEREAS, All Students deserve a high-quality education and experience in the Temecula
Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD" or the "District"); and

WHEREAS, Nothing in this resolution shall require any staff member to violate local, state,
or federal law; and

WHEREAS, The TVUSD Board of Education affirms its requirement that teachers rely on the
Board of Education adopted curriculum as the authoritative source for the context of
instruction; and

WHEREAS, The TVUSD values all students, respects diversity, celebrates the contributions
of all, and encourages culturally relevant and inclusive teaching practices. The TVUSD
further believes that the diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff,
parents, guardians, and community members is an asset to be honored and valued; and

WHEREAS, The TVUSD believes that people should "not be judged by the color of their skin
but by the content of their character" (Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963) ; and

WHEREAS, The TVUSD desires to uplift and unite students by not imposing the
responsibility of historical transgressions in the past and instead will engage students of all
cultures in age-appropriate critical thinking that helps students navigate the past, present, and
future; and

WHEREAS, racism has no place in American society and especially not in the Temecula
Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD" or the "District"); and

WHEREAS, the TVUSD condemns racism and will not tolerate racism and racist conduct
(see, Board Resolution #### dated #### (cite policy against racism here); and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory ("CRT") is an ideology based on false assumptions about
the United States of America and its population; and

WHEREAS, the definitional foundation of Critical Race Theory involving an artificial
distortion of the traditional definition of "racism" is fatally flawed; and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory is a divisive ideology that assigns moral fault to
individuals solely on the basis of an individual's race and, therefore, is itself a racist ideology;
and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory assigns generational guilt and racial guilt for conduct
and policies that are long in the past; and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory violates the fundamental principle of equal protection under
the law; and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory views social problems primarily as racial problems and,
thus, detracts from analysis of underlying socio-economic causes of social problems; and

WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks will not be used as a source to
guide how topics related to race will be taught; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the TVUSD has the legal authority to determine
the curriculum taught in the TVUSD within the parameters set by law; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees can require teachers to teach the curriculum approved by
the Board of Trustees; and

WHEREAS, the laws of the United States of America and the State of California do not
require that Critical Race Theory be taught in public schools (grades K-12); and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on the 13th day of December, 2022, by the Board
of Trustees of the Temecula Valley Unified School District:

Critical Race Theory is rejected and will not constitute the basis for any instruction in the
TVUSD. The following specific elements of Critical Race Theory cannot be taught:

1. Racism is racial prejudice plus power, a concept that is often used to argue that (i) only
individuals classified as "white" people can be racist because only "white" people control
society and (ii) individuals in ethnic minorities cannot be racist because they do not control
society.

2. Racism is ordinary, the usual way society does business.

3. "Interest convergence" or "material determinism", according to which the incentive to move
away from racist policies depends primarily on the self-interest of the oppressor class, i.e.
"whites".

4. "Differential racialization", according to which the "dominant society racializes different
minority groups at different times, in response to different needs such as the labor market"

5. The "voice-of-color" thesis, according to which merely "minority status … brings with it a
presumed competence to speak about race and racism", a concept often used to discredit
opposing arguments on the basis of the opposing person's race;

FURTHERMORE, the following doctrines derived from Critical Race Theory cannot be
taught:

a. An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist and/or sexist, whether
consciously or unconsciously.

b. Individuals are either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class because of
race or sex.

c An individual is inherently morally or otherwise superior to another individual because of
race or sex.

d. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment due to the
individual's race or sex, or an individual should receive favorable treatment due to the
individual's race or sex.

e. An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed
in the past or present by other members of the same race or sex.

f. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological
distress on account of his or her race or sex.

g. Meritocracy or traits such as, but not limited to, a hard work ethic or the scientific method
are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of
another race.

h. The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true
founding of the United States, or the preservation of slavery was a material motive for
independence from England.

Notwithstanding the above restrictions, social science courses can include instruction about
Critical Race Theory, provided that such instruction plays only a subordinate role in the overall
course and provided further that such instruction focuses on the flaws in Critical Race Theory.
ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2022, on motion of Trustee ####, seconded by Trustee
####, on the following roll call vote:

 

[Stevicus]

3 - Do you think us RFers can come to a loose agreement about what might be taught in a CRT class?

The resolution seems to focus on items they don't want covered in class. If CRT doesn't actually teach those items, then there doesn't appear to be any basis for disagreement.

So, which items are forbidden to teach?

1. Racism is racial prejudice plus power, a concept that is often used to argue that (i) only
individuals classified as "white" people can be racist because only "white" people control
society and (ii) individuals in ethnic minorities cannot be racist because they do not control
society.

From what I can tell, most people don't agree with the notion that "racism is racial prejudice plus power." I'm not even sure that CRT teaches this view. The standard mainstream view is that racism is racism, and that anyone can be considered racist by expressing negative or hostile views towards people of another race.

2. Racism is ordinary, the usual way society does business.

I don't know who actually teaches this, although such a teaching would imply that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the entire Civil Rights Movement never happened.

3. "Interest convergence" or "material determinism", according to which the incentive to move
away from racist policies depends primarily on the self-interest of the oppressor class, i.e.
"whites".

Hmm...I'm not even sure what this refers to. It sounds like a subtle dig at the so-called "white liberal saviors" and suggests that their motives may not be entirely selfless.

4. "Differential racialization", according to which the "dominant society racializes different
minority groups at different times, in response to different needs such as the labor market"

There might be something here to look at, particularly as it addresses economics and labor markets. Since slavery, sweatshops, child labor, and other such atrocities have been outlawed on US soil, businesses go overseas to exploit people of color. Within the US itself, the ongoing issue with illegal immigration has created a virtual underground workforce upon which the economy has become dependent, as it is often said that they do the jobs Americans won't do.

5. The "voice-of-color" thesis, according to which merely "minority status … brings with it a
presumed competence to speak about race and racism", a concept often used to discredit
opposing arguments on the basis of the opposing person's race;

I'm not sure that anyone teaches this either. There are conservatives who are also racial minorities who aren't bestowed with the same level of intellectual or moral authority.

So, if this is a list of items which aren't being taught anyway (and few people seem to agree with any of these viewpoints), it seems like all this panic over CRT is just a nothingburger. It also seems to focus less on actual history and more on perceptions of how society is viewed today. My view is that history should teach how things happen, the connections between events, their causes and effects. It shouldn't be just some random, haphazard list of crimes and grievances.

These are other things that can't be taught, according to the resolution:

a. An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist and/or sexist, whether
consciously or unconsciously.

Has anyone ever actually claimed that someone is born racist or sexist? If they did, they'd be wrong, so if they're telling the schools they can't teach incorrect information, then okay. But that's all they really have to say.

b. Individuals are either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class because of
race or sex.

The only people I've ever seen say stuff like this are white liberals from wealthy families who live the insular lives of the oppressor class. They're not to be taken seriously.

c An individual is inherently morally or otherwise superior to another individual because of
race or sex.

I don't believe I've heard anyone say anything like this at all. But again, they'd be wrong if they did.

d. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment due to the
individual's race or sex, or an individual should receive favorable treatment due to the
individual's race or sex.

This would be against the law. Anyone advocating this would be advocating the violation of law

e. An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed
in the past or present by other members of the same race or sex.

This would also be against the law, and quite probably a violation of human rights.

f. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological
distress on account of his or her race or sex.

There some protesters in the article which had signs which read "History is supposed to be uncomfortable," and maybe there is some truth to that.

But that might be more in the realm of nationality, not necessarily race or sex. All too often, I've noticed how the dialogue tends to focus solely upon the United States, and only in regards to black and white people, as if both groups are monolithic and all the same (with other races put into the background).

g. Meritocracy or traits such as, but not limited to, a hard work ethic or the scientific method
are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of
another race.

Well, again, I just don't see this as being brought up. Someone said the scientific method is racist or sexist? Where are they getting this from?

h. The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true
founding of the United States, or the preservation of slavery was a material motive for
independence from England.

Well, I hope no one is teaching this, since this would only be part of the story. It's not entirely false, but much of the motive was the land itself. Half the states abolished slavery early on, and that was an early disagreement which would later culminate in the Civil War. If they were all pro-slavery, then that dispute would never have happened. But they did all agree on wanting more land and territory.

 

[icehorse]

@Stevicus - Wow, fantastic answers, thank you, thank you!

I'm not sure how I missed the link to the draft resolution. The only citation in the resolution is to works by Delgado, Stefancic, and Harris, and their book "Critical Race Theory" and another piece by the same authors?

So we're left to sort of reverse engineer a few conclusions from the details of the draft resolution:

1 - The board was assuming, or had some information that the book mentioned was going to be the main driver of the class syllabus.
2 - Someone on the board studied the book and in the draft enumerated problematic ideas from the book.

If the above is mostly true, then I'd conclude a few things:

1 - I'm impressed by the effort put in by the board.
2 - I'd guess the protestors were largely ignorant of the book and the actual proposal.
3 - I'd guess "the press" is also largely ignorant.

 

[Orbit]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

I have to roll my eyes everytime someone cries over this nonsense of it demanding people today are responsible and guilty for things in the past.

 

[icehorse]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

But presumably, some schools want to teach some variations. We should have access to those teaching plans.

It seems in this case that the devil (or not), is VERY MUCH in the details!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

Whilst I agree, when both sides are using CRT as an (inaccurate) word to describe larger programs, it's worth addressing the details of claims made, rather than the accuracy of the terms used, imho.
They are inaccurate, but terms change based on common usage. The academic meaning of CRT will remain true within the halls of law schools and similar, where systemic controls, patterns and trends are assessed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The resolution seems to focus on items they don't want covered in class. If CRT doesn't actually teach those items, then there doesn't appear to be any basis for disagreement.

So, which items are forbidden to teach?

From what I can tell, most people don't agree with the notion that "racism is racial prejudice plus power." I'm not even sure that CRT teaches this view. The standard mainstream view is that racism is racism, and that anyone can be considered racist by expressing negative or hostile views towards people of another race.

CRT is not about racism at an individual level, though. It's a way of assessing system racism. I would assume it's in that context that they are including 'power', since the powerless are not in control or responsible for systems in place. Further, it ties current systems back to their origin.

So, if this is a list of items which aren't being taught anyway (and few people seem to agree with any of these viewpoints), it seems like all this panic over CRT is just a nothingburger. It also seems to focus less on actual history and more on perceptions of how society is viewed today. My view is that history should teach how things happen, the connections between events, their causes and effects. It shouldn't be just some random, haphazard list of crimes and grievances.

I think it is largely a nothingburger. In relation to your comment about it focusing more on the now, there is (basically) a view that racist systems remain racist.

Has anyone ever actually claimed that someone is born racist or sexist? If they did, they'd be wrong, so if they're telling the schools they can't teach incorrect information, then okay. But that's all they really have to say.

Kinda. If you're raised in a position of privilege, and you're not actively trying to dismantle the systems which granted you that privilege, then you're racist (that's not my view, incidentally, just a horribly brief summary of CRT).
It's not enough to be individually non-racist, and there is no allowance for a position of 'neutrality' in relation to systems. You're actively anti-racist in terms of your actions and relationships to systems, or you're racist.

This would be against the law. Anyone advocating this would be advocating the violation of law

Affirmative action is only just now being further clarified by US courts, but would fall into the bucket of 'favourable treatment due to race or sex'.

There some protesters in the article which had signs which read "History is supposed to be uncomfortable," and maybe there is some truth to that.

But that might be more in the realm of nationality, not necessarily race or sex. All too often, I've noticed how the dialogue tends to focus solely upon the United States, and only in regards to black and white people, as if both groups are monolithic and all the same (with other races put into the background).

Indeed, even ringfencing race is difficult. But I don't think history is supposed to be uncomfortable. It's supposed to be as accurate and fulsome as possible. In relation to relatively modern history, we should be able to do a decent job of showing how things happened, and discuss the motivations behind them. But politics have always interfered (whether they are related to race or otherwise).

Well, again, I just don't see this as being brought up. Someone said the scientific method is racist or sexist? Where are they getting this from?

Not sure about this one, to be honest. There have been a number of language guides created in the academic world of late, drawing from a couple of primary sources, and suggesting words to be avoided. They are better used as toilet paper than guides in my opinion, but 'hardworking' was a term it was suggested not to use, due to racial connotations.

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

What’s a “justice-involved person”?

www.theatlantic.com

Well, I hope no one is teaching this, since this would only be part of the story. It's not entirely false, but much of the motive was the land itself. Half the states abolished slavery early on, and that was an early disagreement which would later culminate in the Civil War. If they were all pro-slavery, then that dispute would never have happened. But they did all agree on wanting more land and territory.

The problem with using a particular lens to look through history is that you will basically start to see everything as a nail, I think. When used correctly, and in an appropriate forum, CRT is one way of assessing systems, with a particular focus and track record on legal and governance systems.
Ultimately for high school kids (and certainly primary kids, which is my expertise) we should be more worried about using a variety of source information, and allowing kids to see that some history is settled, and some is not.
Teaching kids about things like the Tulsa Race Massacre is important, as is knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement, warts and all, but I'm constantly bemused by the views of some Americans on things like the War of 1812, Native American relations, the timing and reasons of entry into WW1 and WW2, Vietnam...lots of stuff.
A more general acceptance that the country has a flawed history, and a recognition of that, along with the things the country has achieved (which are also pretty amazing) is where I'd be heading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would start with some basic electrical engineering.

 

[icehorse]

I would start with some basic electrical engineering.

You optimist you. I would start with pre-Algebra, sigh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S

You optimist you. I would start with pre-Algebra, sigh.

What a relief! I was wondering if you got it when I got a "like". I guess it is a good sign that the "threat" of critical race theory is so minor to me that I have to read a bit before I remember the new use of the acronym.

 

[icehorse]

Critical race theory isn't a monolith, it's an entire perspective along a spectrum of thought. It comes from Criminology as a field and is mostly taught in law school. Some of the things mentioned in the resolutions are just misrepresentations/misunderstanding of concepts from Sociology. Neither the school board nor the press really know what CRT is.

Well if it isn't a monolith, that makes it harder to know what it is.

Looking through the school board's resolution, AND
doing some reverse engineering, AND
assuming they've accurately understood the proposed syllabus (based on the book?)

I'd say:

- Teaching history as honestly as possible is a fine idea. But how do establish context? Take the topic of slavery: when do you start, and how broadly across the world should you look? E.g., slavery was common in Africa before Europeans arrived.

- Assigning moral fault based on skin color is a counter productive and divisive idea.

- Assigning generational fault seems bad.

- Declaring racism to be the master problem that rules them all seems bad.

- Promoting the idea that "lived experience" trumps actual expertise seems bad.

- Ranking individual's relative morality based on skin color seems bad.

- The idea that meritocracy is racist or sexist seems bad.

And so on.

So, if these are NOT important ideas in CRT, how do you know? I'm happy to read about CRT

 

[Stevicus]

CRT is not about racism at an individual level, though. It's a way of assessing system racism. I would assume it's in that context that they are including 'power', since the powerless are not in control or responsible for systems in place. Further, it ties current systems back to their origin.

Yes, although power generally rests in the hands of a relatively few people at the top of the hierarchy. It's not necessarily bestowed by skin color, although I can recognize that our history, social systems, culture, and overall demographics might create certain psychological perceptions about power and the current systems in place. I would question whether it's actively, consciously implemented in an overt manner - or if it's more of an internal feeling.

I think it is largely a nothingburger. In relation to your comment about it focusing more on the now, there is (basically) a view that racist systems remain racist.

One could reasonably question why that's the case and how true progress can be measured. One can look back at the time of the Civil Rights Movement, all of the landmark Court decisions, the acts of Congress, along with various other reforms and changes across the board, and see that society was trying to change the system so that it wasn't racist anymore. To suggest that racist systems remain racist would call all of that into question. One might question whether our society and government took the right approach to deal with the issue at hand. I think the main issue back then was that they all talked the talked, but when it came to society actually putting its money where its mouth was, they didn't really do the follow through.

Kinda. If you're raised in a position of privilege, and you're not actively trying to dismantle the systems which granted you that privilege, then you're racist (that's not my view, incidentally, just a horribly brief summary of CRT).
It's not enough to be individually non-racist, and there is no allowance for a position of 'neutrality' in relation to systems. You're actively anti-racist in terms of your actions and relationships to systems, or you're racist.

The idea of privilege is kind of tricky, since ordinary, common, working-class people don't usually see themselves as "privileged." That's where there's a bit of class disconnect, and the notion itself seems to be propagated and embraced mainly by upper class white people. They might see themselves as privileged, and they probably are, but that's their own biases showing through.

I guess the key question is whether anyone is actively and sincerely trying to dismantle the systems which grant privilege. As a socialist, I believe in the social, political, and economic equality of all human beings. No one should be considered superior or privileged above another human being. I don't think we need to reinvent the language or revise history to make that happen, as that wouldn't even change the system anyway. The system is changed through changing the structure, laws, and policies which govern that system.

Affirmative action is only just now being further clarified by US courts, but would fall into the bucket of 'favourable treatment due to race or sex'.

Affirmative Action might be called a necessary evil. It had to come about because there were too many weasels trying to sidestep the Civil Rights Act by coming up with lame excuses why they weren't hiring racial minorities and women - other than what many called "tokenism." SNL Weekend Update used to parody George Wallace: "I don't judge a man by the color of skin..." So, they had to bring in Affirmative Action because of this.

Indeed, even ringfencing race is difficult. But I don't think history is supposed to be uncomfortable. It's supposed to be as accurate and fulsome as possible. In relation to relatively modern history, we should be able to do a decent job of showing how things happened, and discuss the motivations behind them. But politics have always interfered (whether they are related to race or otherwise).

Politics will always interfere, as well as economics - as every political action seems to come with a price tag which some political factions balk about. If there is any discomfort behind history, I agree there really shouldn't be. There doesn't need to be. Sometimes, I think it might motivate a certain moral imperative to go out of one's way to prove that one is not like how people were in the past. As you say, there's a certain pressure on people to be seen as actively trying to dismantle the system that was built in the past, and there are those who are claiming to be doing exactly that. That, in and of itself, has become the significant political issue of our time.

Not sure about this one, to be honest. There have been a number of language guides created in the academic world of late, drawing from a couple of primary sources, and suggesting words to be avoided. They are better used as toilet paper than guides in my opinion, but 'hardworking' was a term it was suggested not to use, due to racial connotations.

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

What’s a “justice-involved person”?

www.theatlantic.com

The problem with using a particular lens to look through history is that you will basically start to see everything as a nail, I think. When used correctly, and in an appropriate forum, CRT is one way of assessing systems, with a particular focus and track record on legal and governance systems.
Ultimately for high school kids (and certainly primary kids, which is my expertise) we should be more worried about using a variety of source information, and allowing kids to see that some history is settled, and some is not.

Teaching kids about things like the Tulsa Race Massacre is important, as is knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement, warts and all, but I'm constantly bemused by the views of some Americans on things like the War of 1812, Native American relations, the timing and reasons of entry into WW1 and WW2, Vietnam...lots of stuff.
A more general acceptance that the country has a flawed history, and a recognition of that, along with the things the country has achieved (which are also pretty amazing) is where I'd be heading.

I've noticed a general thrust in how history is often presented is that "the system," at least in terms of our founding principles, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, etc. are all perfectly fine - and practically viewed as sacrosanct - at least on paper. Such a view would suggest that the problem is not that the system was bad, but that there were so many bad, unscrupulous people who misused it for their own nefarious purposes. As a result, the system still remained, except slightly tweaked here and there to make people feel better about it.

But it's really only been about making people feel good, not so much about any real, concrete systemic changes. Or if there are changes, nobody seems to be able to see it or perceive it in any visible way.

 

[Orbit]

Well if it isn't a monolith, that makes it harder to know what it is.

Looking through the school board's resolution, AND
doing some reverse engineering, AND
assuming they've accurately understood the proposed syllabus (based on the book?)

I'd say:

- Teaching history as honestly as possible is a fine idea. But how do establish context? Take the topic of slavery: when do you start, and how broadly across the world should you look? E.g., slavery was common in Africa before Europeans arrived.

- Assigning moral fault based on skin color is a counter productive and divisive idea.

- Assigning generational fault seems bad.

- Declaring racism to be the master problem that rules them all seems bad.

- Promoting the idea that "lived experience" trumps actual expertise seems bad.

- Ranking individual's relative morality based on skin color seems bad.

- The idea that meritocracy is racist or sexist seems bad.

And so on.

So, if these are NOT important ideas in CRT, how do you know? I'm happy to read about CRT

A lot of these things are misunderstandings of sociology concepts. Nowhere in sociology does it assign blame for skin color, but conservatives have constructed this straw man to upset everyone. Simply stating facts, like that there is inequality in, say income, that shows up along racial lines is enough for the conservatives to infer that they are being blamed, but that is NOT what is being taught.

What is taught about meritocracy is that it is largely a myth, or at least doesn't apply to most people when you're using a society-wide lens. The observed facts on social class mobility don't support it. This upsets conservatives, who again create a straw man of it by deciding that means rich white people don't deserve what they have. This is all occurring in their fevered imaginations.

It is exhausting to debunk all of the ridiculous claims, and none of it is even taught in K-12. Conservatives think that talking about racial history is a problem so they want to silence it.

Now are there more "radical" lines of thought in CRT? Sure, but they are taught at the graduate level and are part of a spectrum of thought that tries to make sense of how society is structured along racial lines.

Here's an example of CRT that I teach in my college classes: "After WWII, African American soldiers returned home with their GI Bill benefits, but couldn't use them. They couldn't use the educational benefits because at that time there were very few colleges that would accept Black people, and the historically Black colleges were full and not very large in number. So the institution of education contributed to veterans not being able to become upwardly mobile through education.

They also could not use their housing benefits (VA mortgage) because house deeds had "restrictive covenants" attached to them saying that a white person couldn't sell their house to a Black or a Jew. So the Black rate of home ownership was lower, and restricted to lower property-value Black communities. The housing market was in effect, racist.

These kinds of things are called "institutional racism" and describe how the institutions in society can produce differential outcomes based on the color of your skin." That's the evil CRT that is taught at the undergraduate level. You don't get the actual theory until graduate school, and NONE of it is taught at the K-12 level.

 

[icehorse]

You don't get the actual theory until graduate school, and NONE of it is taught at the K-12 level.

I'm not tying to be snarky here: How do you know what flavor of CRT was going to be taught in Temecula?

Again, I think the devil is in the details. The extreme left is making inroads here and there in our society. Some of their solutions are fine, some are not. Each idea ought to be exposed to daylight and evaluated on its merit.

 

[Orbit]

I'm not tying to be snarky here: How do you know what flavor of CRT was going to be taught in Temecula?

Again, I think the devil is in the details. The extreme left is making inroads here and there in our society. Some of their solutions are fine, some are not. Each idea ought to be exposed to daylight and evaluated on its merit.

I know it's not taught, because it's a K-12 school board, and neither sociology nor CRT is taught at the K-12 level.

 

[icehorse]

I know it's not taught, because it's a K-12 school board, and neither sociology nor CRT is taught at the K-12 level.

Then what's your guess as to why there is this kerfuffle in Temecula?

 

[Orbit]

Then what's your guess as to why there is this kerfuffle in Temecula?

It's national--conservatives on school boards are watching what is happening in Florida, and trying to emulate them. Why Temecula? Dunno. Probably a particular school board member has a bee in their bonnet.