Guess the (CRT) Syllabus?

[icehorse]

It's a theory of sociology that examines the ways in which various forms of oppression and/or privilege overlap. For example, you can examine and compare the ways in which black people and disabled people are affected by living in a society; and intersectionally you can examine how being BOTH black and disabled manifests differently. It's about how these systems interact and interlock to create layers of oppression and privilege.

So far, so good, we're agreed. But I believe there's a lot more to the story.

So let me ask you this, do you think IT places higher values on the lived experiences of the most oppressed?

 

[Yerda]

When I read your post #99 it seemed to me you were summarizing CRT and/or the school's proposal, were you not?

No. I posted a snippet from the wiki page.

 

[icehorse]

No. I posted a snippet from the wiki page.

Do you think that snippet does a decent job of describing CRT? (I do not)

 

[Yerda]

Do you think that snippet does a decent job of describing CRT? (I do not)

My guess is that it's a very broad outline, being a paragraph. I don't know enough to say whether it is a decent description or no. What problems would you have with it?

 

[Yerda]

I found this from a class description for an intro class:

Is this better?

 

[icehorse]

I found this from a class description for an intro class:

View attachment 74240
Is this better?

Thanks for the class description.

As I've said to various people, a few times in this thread, the devil is in the details. For example, in this thread there is at least one open question about the nature of intersectionality. I've heard various explanations of some of the ideas you listed above. Some seem reasonable, some do not. I think I'm going have to read that book, not looking forward to it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far, so good, we're agreed. But I believe there's a lot more to the story.

Of course there is. There's a lot of views within the field.

So let me ask you this, do you think IT places higher values on the lived experiences of the most oppressed?

No, and that question makes no sense. IT is not a monolith. There is no one thing it says, does or can be applied to - it's a field of study and a theoretical framework used in sociology.

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks for the class description.

As I've said to various people, a few times in this thread, the devil is in the details. For example, in this thread there is at least one open question about the nature of intersectionality. I've heard various explanations of some of the ideas you listed above. Some seem reasonable, some do not. I think I'm going have to read that book, not looking forward to it.

I think the overriding question is how should history and current events be taught in schools and whether or not such teachings should be applied in the political sphere.

It appears that "intersectionality" was a term coined in 1989, a full quarter-century after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Obviously, knowledge of intersectionality and critical race theory was not needed in order to gain the political and public support in favor of civil rights. Even terms like "white privilege" didn't come into play until the late 80s and 1990s.

But none of these terms or subjects of study were prevalent at the time of the Civil Rights Movement or the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

So, whatever the narrative and rhetoric which was used during the 50s, 60s, and 70s obviously was successful in changing and reversing racist policies, whereas the kind of stuff ostensibly coming out in the late 80s and 1990s has somehow generated a reaction against it.

 

[icehorse]

No, and that question makes no sense. IT is not a monolith. There is no one thing it says, does or can be applied to - it's a field of study and a theoretical framework used in sociology.

I'm not following. Are you saying IT is so slippery that you cannot point to any foundational claims it makes?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not following. Are you saying IT is so slippery that you cannot point to any foundational claims it makes?

That's like asking if media studies makes "one foundational claim". It's an analytical framework, not an ideology or singular theory.

If anything can be called a foundational "claim" of IT, it's that we can analyse the ways in which privilege and oppression interact. That's it.

 

[icehorse]

That's like asking if media studies makes "one foundational claim". It's an analytical framework, not an ideology or singular theory.

If anything can be called a foundational "claim" of IT, it's that we can analyse the ways in which privilege and oppression interact. That's it.

Ok, so back to the school board's resolution. The resolution is clearly reacting to some specific ideas or claims. Here are two snippets from the resolution:

1 - 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;

2 - The following elements of CRT cannot be taught:

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

==

To me, these two are bad ideas. So the first question is, do you agree that the above are bad ideas?

If so, then who's getting it wrong? Is it CRT itself? Is it how this syllabus is being developed? Or.. ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, so back to the school board's resolution. The resolution is clearly reacting to some specific ideas or claims.

Or, they're reacting to what they THINK these things are, but they don't understand the concepts.

Here are two snippets from the resolution:

1 - WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory is a divisive ideology

It's not an ideology. It's the application of critical analytical theory to the concept of race. It has been a part of sociology courses for years.

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

This is just an absurd claim. Critical theory doesn't deal with "moral fault" and it certainly doesn't assign moral fault to individuals based on race.

2 - The following elements of CRT cannot be taught:

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

Not a thing.

To me, these two are bad ideas. So the first question is, do you agree that the above are bad ideas?

Yes. But they have nothing to do with CRT or intersectionality.

If so, then who's getting it wrong?

The people framing the syllabus that way. They clearly have no understanding of what CRT or intersectionality are, or are framing it dishonestly for personal reasons.

 

[Orbit]

Just a general comment about intersectionality: it just means that you have to take into account all of a person's social statuses if you want to understand their position in society (race, class, gender, (dis)ability, etc etc etc). For example if I tell you I'm a woman, it tells you something about my position in society but not very much.

Add in race and the picture gets a bit clearer, add social class, still more, add any marginalized statuses, you know still more. An associated concept in sociology is called "multiple marginality", where people are disadvantaged in more than one way,

Why do we care? Because their experience in social institutions may be shaped by these multiple social locations, and institutions may need to adjust to accommodate multiple social locations--avoiding a "one size fits all" perspective.

The idea originally came about to describe that women have a social location, but black women have 2 strikes against them in terms of social inequality because of more than just one marginalized status. There's nothing in Kimberle Crenshaw's (the person who came up with intersectionality) work that is especially challenging or strange. It just seems to be common sense to me.

 

[icehorse]

Or, they're reacting to what they THINK these things are, but they don't understand the concepts.


It's not an ideology. It's the application of critical analytical theory to the concept of race. It has been a part of sociology courses for years.


This is just an absurd claim. Critical theory doesn't deal with "moral fault" and it certainly doesn't assign moral fault to individuals based on race.


Not a thing.


Yes. But they have nothing to do with CRT or intersectionality.


The people framing the syllabus that way. They clearly have no understanding of what CRT or intersectionality are, or are framing it dishonestly for personal reasons.

You might be right, but how do you know? The school board didn't just pull these ideas out of thin air. Is the book mentioned definitive? If not, what is?

 

[Orbit]

You might be right, but how do you know? The school board didn't just pull these ideas out of thin air. Is the book mentioned definitive? If not, what is?

The school board is putting forth ideas that are being promulgated by the well-known academic institution Fox News. If you want to know what is being taught, ask the teachers--and note that no one is consulting them.

 

[Orbit]

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

Here's what you need to understand about the academic concept—and how it's portrayed in political circles.

www.edweek.org

 

[icehorse]

Just a general comment about intersectionality: it just means that you have to take into account all of a person's social statuses if you want to understand their position in society (race, class, gender, (dis)ability, etc etc etc). For example if I tell you I'm a woman, it tells you something about my position in society but not very much.

Add in race and the picture gets a bit clearer, add social class, still more, add any marginalized statuses, you know still more. An associated concept in sociology is called "multiple marginality", where people are disadvantaged in more than one way,

Why do we care? Because their experience in social institutions may be shaped by these multiple social locations, and institutions may need to adjust to accommodate multiple social locations--avoiding a "one size fits all" perspective.

The idea originally came about to describe that women have a social location, but black women have 2 strikes against them in terms of social inequality because of more than just one marginalized status. There's nothing in Kimberle Crenshaw's (the person who came up with intersectionality) work that is especially challenging or strange. It just seems to be common sense to me.

What concerns me is when legit issues get dogmatically linked to sub-optimal solutions. As an example, in the case of intersectionality, I've heard several times (including in the school board's proposal), that "lived experience" counts more than actual expertise.

 

[Orbit]

What concerns me is when legit issues get dogmatically linked to sub-optimal solutions. As an example, in the case of intersectionality, I've heard several times (including in the school board's proposal), that "lived experience" counts more than actual expertise.

There's a context to this idea. Listening to those who are affected by problems is a legitimate source of information, in contrast to a top-down view of social issues. That's the context. For example, welfare fraud: it's very low as a rate but it exists. Where it exists, statistics will only tell you so much about it (this is an example of expert knowledge).

You have to listen to the people who are living it (who will tell you about the Catch-22s of welfare, like getting a minimum wage job that makes you make too much money to qualify for the child care that makes it possible to have the job. So you have to quit and go back on welfare because there's no one to take care of your kids.)

 

[icehorse]

The school board is putting forth ideas that are being promulgated by the well-known academic institution Fox News. If you want to know what is being taught, ask the teachers--and note that no one is consulting them

This gets back to the OP Where's the syllabus?

As a general observation, not directed at you @Orbit, it seems that no one associated is willing to put any stakes in the sand as far as any specific claims or ideas we can associate with CRT. Yes, we get some general ideas, but as I've said many times in this thread, the devil is in the details, and the details of CRT seem slippery. Given the contentious nature of the topic, it would seem that details would really help.

 

[icehorse]

There's a context to this idea. Listening to those who are affected by problems is a legitimate source of information, in contrast to a top-down view of social issues. That's the context. For example, welfare fraud: it's very low as a rate but it exists. Where it exists, statistics will only tell you so much about it (this is an example of expert knowledge).

You have to listen to the people who are living it (who will tell you about the Catch-22s of welfare, like getting a minimum wage job that makes you make too much money to qualify for the child care that makes it possible to have the job. So you have to quit and go back on welfare because there's no one to take care of your kids.)

I completely agree. You listen to people and you collect data and you generate some statistically based conclusions.

What you ought NOT do is prefer one person's story over the stats.