If critical race theory teaches that race is a social construct that has been used by law to divide people, what are conservatives afraid of?

Updated on : January 17, 2022 by Kane Rutledge



If critical race theory teaches that race is a social construct that has been used by law to divide people, what are conservatives afraid of?

Regardless of the never-ending debate about what CRT is and if it is in schools, here are some real things that are happening in K-12 schools. It's not just about teaching accurate history. The more I learn, the more absolutely toxic it looks.

A teacher has filed a lawsuit after seeing emotional distress over practices introduced as part of anti-racist education. Teachers were told as part of the training, “White identity is inherently racist . '” And they accept that “white individuals are' loud, authoritarian ... and controlling '”. The program regularly mandated that participation by race be segregated into 'privilege'

Keep reading

Regardless of the never-ending debate about what CRT is and if it is in schools, here are some real things that are happening in K-12 schools. It's not just about teaching accurate history. The more I learn, the more absolutely toxic it looks.

A teacher has filed a lawsuit after seeing emotional distress over practices introduced as part of anti-racist education. Teachers were told as part of the training, “White identity is inherently racist . '” And they accept that “white individuals are' loud, authoritarian ... and controlling '”. The program regularly mandated that participation by race be segregated into 'privilege groups' and separate 'privilege' outings. The materials included things like a cartoon of a white person with Satan and the statement "Whiteness", said the school supplies, grants you stolen land, stolen wealth, special favors and the ability to "mess with the lives of your friends, neighbors, loved ones and all other human beings of COLOR. " It is a kindergarten through eighth grade school and kindergarten students participated in the program. The schools website has the statement,

This ties in with a document written in the field alleging that white fathers, particularly mothers, operate to facilitate a myth of a period of infantile innocence that must be protected, that structures children's social relationships and culture, and informs their rights and status in society. The document argues that this establishes and perpetuates a titled white supremacist mindset and inhibits social justice. Young children should not protect themselves from painful or unpleasant realities.

Interrogating Innocence: “Childhood” as an Exclusive Social Practice - Julie C Garlen, 2019 In the contemporary American context, the construction of childhood innocence is a powerful social myth that structures the social relations and culture of children and ... https: //journals.sagepub .com / doi / full / 10.1177 / 0907568218811484

The teacher who filed the lawsuit said that when she expressed her concern, she was called a racist. Program administrators have responded to the lawsuit by saying that any teacher or student problem is the problem of white frailty.

I can't imagine what parent in their right mind would want their children to be subjected to this.

A teacher sues the Illinois school district over an anti-white curriculum even as leftists insist the schools are not teaching. 12 schoolchildren, including those in kindergarten. Quick Facts The lawsuit claims that Evanston / Skokie School District 65 has violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Plaintiff Stacy Deemar alleges segregation, in addition to teaching an anti-white curriculum, which presents, among other content, an image that compares "whiteness" to a contract with the devil. The lawsuit also claims that the curriculum advocates the abolition of the family nucleus in favor of a “blackhttps: //www.standingforfreedom.

This K-12 math curriculum through a CRT lens comes with a teacher workbook that:

- instructs teachers to criticize capitalism in order to inspire transformative change and generate equity.

- says that teachers should identify and challenge the ways in which mathematics is used to defend capitalist and imperialist views

-Teachers should use examples of people who have used mathematics as resistance. Provide learning opportunities that use math for resistance.

-Describe the characteristics of individualism and objectivity as traits of white supremacy that are harmful to society.

Clearly, this is not just a more comprehensive history teaching. It is indoctrination of political ideology.

A path to equitable math instruction Dismantling racism in math instruction Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their educational practice https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11 /1_STRIDE1.pdf

Another lawsuit, this one from a black mother of a high school student.

Critical race theory collides with the law Can a school require students to "confess their privilege" in class? https://www.educationnext.org/critical-race-theory-collides-with-law/

There are other examples of this in schools. I don't see how this is a positive step for anyone anyway. I used to think that conservatives said that universities and schools were indoctrination centers with ideological biases of the extremist left was a conspiracy. Now I think they are right. I think parents need to be much more careful when paying attention to what is really going on in schools. And anyone who says that you are being a stupid FOX News conspiracy theorist or that conservatives are just opposing it because they are racist is setting you on fire.

If that was the only thing the Critical Theory of Race taught, I doubt that many people would object; however, CRT teaches that race is much more: it is the primary, if not exclusive, determinant of whether a given individual is likely to be an Oppressor or a Victim in their relationships with members of other races.

This principle is so strongly felt that CRT advocates have actually claimed that being an Oppressor is ingrained in the DNA of white people!

So CRT departs from the main tenants of the United States, who see the individual as the gateway to existence, because if each indi

Keep reading

If that was the only thing the Critical Theory of Race taught, I doubt that many people would object; however, CRT teaches that race is much more: it is the primary, if not exclusive, determinant of whether a given individual is likely to be an Oppressor or a Victim in their relationships with members of other races.

This principle is so strongly felt that CRT advocates have actually claimed that being an Oppressor is ingrained in the DNA of white people!

So CRT departs from the central tenants of the United States, who see the individual as the entrance of existence, because if each individual is nothing more than the representative of a racial construct, which cannot be overridden by reason, no one is free, our rights are non-existent and our attempts at justice are meaningless.

And this has always been the point.

In the intellectual framework of Marxism, always, the solution to the battle between Oppressors and Victims is for the Victims to overturn the social order and take all the levers of power. So the government will be run by proponents of, guess what? Critical race theory!

They will vigorously pursue and eradicate racism wherever it exists, which in their eyes is everywhere.

CRT does not coexist with other ideologies because its teachings are absolute; if you disagree on some point, it is completely because you are racist.

This poisonous branch of Marxism was specifically designed by supporters of Marxism to suit American society, where classism has never advanced very far.

However, in the traditional society where Marx saw society overturn when the proletariat had enough of the bourgeoisie to rise up and overthrow the government, the proletariat was large enough than the bourgeoisie to make the consequences credible.

But right now, the share of the country that is African-American is only about 13% of the total. Hence the need to persuade as many members of the Oppressors as possible to join the victims.

And that is why we are seeing the push to teach CRT in our schools.

Okay, let's see. Governor De Santis argued that it would make white students feel bad about themselves. That's not the point. The point is to understand why certain laws, institutions, etc. they are basically based on racist ideas. Once you understand where things evolved from, you can understand how to fix them. But some people want the idea that anything was racist or based on racism to be whitewashed so they don't have to face it. Example? Lieutenant Governor Patrick pulled the strings and had an author pulled from an event in Texas. The reason? The author wrote a book on the Alamo that basically

Keep reading

Okay, let's see. Governor De Santis argued that it would make white students feel bad about themselves. That's not the point. The point is to understand why certain laws, institutions, etc. they are basically based on racist ideas. Once you understand where things evolved from, you can understand how to fix them. But some people want the idea that anything was racist or based on racism to be whitewashed so they don't have to face it. Example? Lieutenant Governor Patrick pulled the strings and had an author pulled from an event in Texas. The reason? The author wrote a book on the Alamo that basically said the reason Texas fought was to maintain slavery. There is a quote about the one who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Conservatives love to remind people that Democrats supported slavery in 1860. They want to whitewash history to paint themselves as the good guys when that hasn't been the case in a long time. Yes, the Democrats were the bad guys in the 19th century. But the parties changed. Who has been trampling the little ones since the 1980s? Psst, it's not the Democratic Party.

CRT doesn't make any sense, and it never has. It claims that race is a social construct, but it presupposes that certain people are of specific races, otherwise there would be nothing to base the theory on. If we are all of the same race, there would be no way to distinguish between people to determine their level of oppression. I am white, but I identify as black, therefore gibs reparashuns ...

Conservatives have no idea what CRT is and don't mind learning. They were told by Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson that it's disrespectful to whites and that's enough to scare them for months (until now). It could fade after the midterm elections, then they'll move on to something else like trying to prove the vice president was secretly born in Africa or something ...

If critical race theory teaches that race is a social construct that has been used by law to divide people, what are conservatives afraid of?

They are the ones who take advantage of it the most.

This is a great question to play "spot the racist piece of shit"

Many winners !!

The problem with CRT is that while we can pass anti-discrimination laws, we cannot make people accept those who are different from them. Laws control behavior NOT what someone thinks or believes. Discrimination is a learned process and no social theory can change that.

It will create exactly what it claims to condemn.

Sounds like shit "Did you use laws to divide people?" That's seriously what CRT advocates want to do.

Accuse others of whom you are guilty ... -the left

Critical race theory teaches hatred based on skin color. What are my grandchildren going to think of me?

Because every word is false.

They are not afraid. They are using it to drive their followers crazy for political gain.

It's the latest thing that people (especially conservatives) are taking the name and using it to do a lot of damage out of hatred and discontent for something that the GREAT majority of people don't really understand.

The thing is, the main focus of most of what you read about CRT online is on conservatives trying to legislate bans on teaching it in public schools. They talk about how, since the words Criticism and Theory are in the title, it must be a reflection of Marxist "Critical Theory" (Yes, there is a connection, but it is not "A to B") and what you keep hearing. of conservatives who criticize

Keep reading

It's the latest thing that people (especially conservatives) are taking the name and using it to do a lot of damage out of hatred and discontent for something that the GREAT majority of people don't really understand.

The thing is, the main focus of most of what you read about CRT online is on conservatives trying to legislate bans on teaching it in public schools. They talk about how, since the words Criticism and Theory are in the title, it must be a reflection of Marxist "Critical Theory" (Yes, there is a connection, but it is not "A to B") and what you keep hearing. One of the conservatives who criticize it is the claim that it should be banned because "it is racist."

Much to unpack here.

But. This is what I promise. I promise to give conservatives reading this article at least one good reason why they should LOOK AT CRT in an effort to understand it and understand what it teaches, and I promise not to try to convince you why you should throw away everything you believe about the world and you worship at the altar of CRT.

Certainly not ... partly because I know I don't understand it well enough to worship at that altar, or to reject it outright. Most people who don't have a Poly Sci JD or MS would probably do well to admit it to themselves.

BUT we can understand it well enough to avoid the trap of letting politicians or experts with a political agenda use what they tell us to irritate and distract us from real problems that they are not offering solutions to.

Then. What is CRT? Teaches? Why do people think it should be banned? and what value can we learn from it?

To begin with, Deepak Purti wrote a good, well-stocked outline with a look at what it is, what the connection is to Marxist critical theory, along with an outline of basic principles that I will repeat in a minute.

Deepak Purti · Updated June 29 What is critical race theory? Britannica's "Critical Race Theory" encyclopedia entry reads: Critical Race Theory (CRT) was officially organized in 1989, at the first annual Critical Race Theory Workshop, although its intellectual origins date back much further back, to the sixties and seventies. Its immediate precursor was the cr ... (more)

It is important to understand that critical race theory is not something that is taught in public schools. It is an academic framework taught at the School of Law and Political Science that examines how political and legal frameworks negatively affect people based on race.

It is not a religion. Like any philosophical concept, it is something that you learn, examine, discuss, find nuggets of truth, and in cases like this, you use it as a lens to examine the world in a particular way. It is a way of learning, not WHAT to think about society and the law, but HOW to think and, in doing so, how to understand a certain perspective, often one that is not yours.

Deepak's answer drew the basics from an American Bar Association article.

A Lesson in Critical Race Theory Coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, critical race theory is the practice of interrogating race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of law. erudition. / crsj / publications / human_rights_magazine_home / civil-rights-reimagining-policing / a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory /

While acknowledging the evolutionary and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines some key principles of CRT, including:

  • Recognition that race is not biologically real, but socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) disproves the idea of ​​biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
  • Recognition that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded in systems and institutions, such as the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This discards the idea that racist incidents are aberrations, but rather manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
  • Rejection of popular understandings of racism, such as arguments that limit racism to a few "bad apples." CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or "color blindness." CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that is primarily responsible for reproducing racial inequality.
  • Recognition of the relevance of people's daily lives for scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting informed research on deficits that excludes epistemologies of people of color.

CRT does not define racism in the traditional way as the sole consequence of inconspicuous and irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals, rather it is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of elections. It exposes the ways in which racism is often hidden in terminology related to “core”, “normal” or “traditional” values ​​or “neutral” policies, principles or practices.

Now. Let's read that and find the part that scares us so much that we need to ban it. Why? Why should a law student or young man who dreams of getting into politics after finishing his master's degree not fully understand what is being talked about here? Disagree or disagree ... Fully understand the perspective of the people who fully buy the ideas taught there and the perspective of the people who don't? "

The core idea of ​​CRT is that racism exists in our society at a systemic level, that it is not just "bad people doing bad things" that is codified in law.

What is meant by that?

A good way to examine this idea is to examine the political climate of the 1980s and early 1990s and the widespread popularity of the War on Drugs, and the support from both sides of the aisle for "tough on crime" legislation. ".

In the 80s and early 90s, it didn't matter if you were a Republican or a Democrat, if you wanted to win, you were "tough on crime." The most common political attack of the time was "soft on crime" and especially "soft on drugs."

The origins of the rising tide often date back to the early 1980s with the rise of the Medellín cartel and a major rallying point that came with the 1986 death of basketball star Len Bias.

Cocaine killed Bias, autopsy reveals: The dose is said to trigger heart failure; University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died of "cocaine intoxication" after ingesting an unusually pure dose of the drug that stopped his heart in minutes, Maryland's chief medical examiner said Tuesday. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-06-25-sp-20106-story.html

In October of that year, Reagan enacted the "Drug Abuse Act." The law allocated funds for prisons, education, and drug treatment. But within the law it was the beginning of something that would have far-reaching consequences and, over the next several decades, adversely affect African-Americans disproportionately: mandatory minimums and especially harsh court sentencing requirements for crack.

In September 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crimes Enforcement and Control Act, introduced in the House by Texas Democrat Jack Brooks and drafted in the Senate by Joe Biden into law. The Act upped the ante on mandatory minimums and added a new wrinkle that would again disproportionately affect black people: the Three Strikes laws.

24 states would add "3-Strikes" laws to their books between 1993 and 1995. 1

You know. Because if you want to legislate fairness in Justice, clearly the best way to do it is "BASEBALL METAPHOR !!!!"

Another small detail in the 1994 crime bill was tougher penalties for youth, including the ability for prosecutors to charge children as young as 13 as adults for certain crimes.

Now. These laws were not racist laws passed with a specific racist intent, for the most part, these laws were passed by well-meaning politicians who were a.) Trying to combat drug abuse, and b.) Trying to be tough on crime to be able to win your next election.

And yes, probably some racists, but that's not the point.

The point is that it is not the individual racists who rubbed their hands and stroked their knobs in anticipation of how they could cause these laws to negatively impact communities of color, it is the laws themselves that created a system that for decades to come had a negative impact. profound unintended impact on the incarceration of people of color, especially African American men and boys.

Three Ways the 1994 Crime Bill Continues to Hurt Communities of Color - Center for American Progress Legislators must dismantle the harmful crime bill policies and enact solutions that reduce reliance on incarceration, avoid unnecessary criminalization and remove the draconian laws that keep millions of Americans in prison. : //www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/05/10/469642/3-ways-1994-crime-bill-continues-hurt-communities-color/ Race, mass incarceration and disastrous war on Drugs Unraveling decades of racially prejudiced drug policies is a monumental project.

The fact is that in both 1986 and 1994, the mandatory minimums were much more severe for crack, used more by African Americans than for cocaine, which was used much more by whites.

The previous Brennan Center article explains where the problem occurred:

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, procedural practices, and legislation resulted in blacks being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for possession and distribution of crack. Five grams of crack cocaine, the weight of a couple of packets of sugar, was considered, for the purposes of the sentence, the equivalent of 500 grams of powdered cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed a higher number of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests came from black communities that were disproportionately affected by crack sentences, facially neutral but illogically harsh.

By 2013, largely as a result of these laws, one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 24 was serving time.

Mandatory Sentencing and Racial Disparity: Assessing the Role of Prosecutors and the Effects of Booker https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/mandatory-sentencing-and-racial-disparity-assessing-the-role-of-prosecutors-and - the-booker-effects

Three strike laws had an equally disparate effect.

More blacks incarcerated under "3 strikes", according to study Penalty system: the rate of incarceration for "third attack" is 13 times higher than that of whites, reports a group of activists. But prosecutors charge that the survey is flawed. 20found% 20similar,% 20 fault% 20a% 20% 20bios% 20rcial. & Text = By% 20contrast% 2C% 20el% 20study% 20 said, from% 20% E2% 80% 9C Third% 20trike% E2% 80% 9D% 20inmates.

When you examine the real world results, what you are seeing are legal frameworks that end up disproportionately affecting black men, not because of "racist judges" but because those judges had no choice due to the way the system was codified. in law.

In this case, understanding the Critical Theory of Race helps legislators not only pass off the problem as "racists in the system," but also have a framework of ideas to examine the system itself and work to pass legislation that help solve some of the problems. issues such as the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

Fair Sentencing Act - Wikipedia The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–220 (text) (pdf)) was an act of Congress that was enacted into federal law by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, on August 3, 2010, which reduces the disparity between the amount of crack and cocaine powder needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100: 1 weight ratio to an 18: 1 weight ratio 1 and eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. 2 Similar bills were introduced in various US congresses prior to their passage in 2010, and the courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act implemented the initial disparity, reflecting the view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the disparity in sentencing is unjustified. The additional controversy surrounding the 100: 1 ratio was the result of some describing it as racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being convicted of crack cocaine offenses. 3 Legislation to reduce disparity was introduced in the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Law. The law has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and nonprofits have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and the complete elimination of the disparity (i.e., enacting a sentence ratio of 1: 1). Background edit Crack use increased rapidly in the 1980s, accompanied by an increase in violence in urban areas. 4 In response, the Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included a provision that created a disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same penalties for possession of a quantity of crack cocaine as for 100 times the same amount of cocaine powder. The law also contained minimum sentences and other disparities between the two forms of the drug. 5 Disparity and sentencing effects edit In the three decades prior to the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possession of crack cocaine faced much harsher penalties than those in possession of powdered cocaine. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years, a person who had powdered cocaine could receive the same sentence only if they had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years, a person who had cocaine in powder could receive the same sentence only if it had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years , a person who had powdered cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same penalty. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same penalty. 6 At that time,

Or the broadly bipartisan First Steps Act of 2018

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text

Then. Why should conservatives work to really understand the CRT instead of just rejecting and banning it?

Aside from the fact that doing so could help prevent them from putting their faces up in public ...

Let's talk for a second about gun control. Or, more accurately, Gun VIOLENCE control.

Hot topic, right? Liberals want to reduce gun violence by restricting access to guns and finding ways to keep the kinds of guns that are most likely to be used to kill other people out of the hands of the kinds of people who are likely to use them for that purpose. Right?

Conservatives have the kind of strong “don't be raped” approach that demands free access to guns and would prefer to focus on punishing perpetrators of gun violence with harsher penalties for gun violence-related crimes.

Do not misunderstand. I don't entirely disagree that strict enforcement is part of the solution to reducing gun violence.

But look at the ideas of adding again, mandatory minimums and severe penalties through the CRT lens, NOT to convince yourself that this is a bad idea, BUT to better understand why some people are so hesitant to go down that path. Again. To better look for possible pitfalls before going through a few more decades of a mistake. Find ways to try to avoid those pitfalls.

This is what General Miley was talking about when he replied to Matt, "How the hell am I still in Congress, not in jail?" Gaetz, who somehow brought the issue to a congressional hearing that had nothing to do with systemic racism.

You learn things to understand them. You understand them to gain perspective. And perspective matters. Therefore, forbidding learning institutions to teach things that broaden perspective is always a mistake.

Pretend we have to ban elementary schools from teaching something that is difficult for Harvard law students to understand? I mean. Let's go.

Don't have a real job to do?

Footnotes

1 https://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/Documents/cj/BulletinOct-2010.pdf

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.