Why is Sam Morningstar so critical of critical race theory?

Updated on : December 8, 2021 by Landen Donovan



Why is Sam Morningstar so critical of critical race theory?

Because I am an atheist in the first place. And I am a moderate liberal in my personal politics. But, more than that, at my core, I despise Marxist theory, in any iteration or form. It is pseudo-religious and I am against any aggressive ideology that is imposed on people as a dogma and that represses freedom of expression and thought.

Contrary to propaganda and perhaps popular opinion, CRT is NOT the continuation of the American civil rights movement. It arises from the Critical Theory, which is a neo-Marxist ideology.

To be really frank about it ... I see it as intellectual poison.

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 rather focus on punishing perpetrators of gun violence with stiffer 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

“They tell you that if you don't want your children told what to think instead of how to think, you are denying racism. You are wrong. One way they trip you up is with objections about what CRT stands for. Take a step.' John McWhorter

These are the 26 aspects of critical race theory that are problematic. (I attach an Appendix below to further describe all words or phrases with an * next to them in the main body)

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal

1. It politicizes race in the same way that Marxism politicizes class by forcing the complexity of history through a narrow lens. Whiteness * (and

Keep reading

“They tell you that if you don't want your children told what to think instead of how to think, you are denying racism. You are wrong. One way they trip you up is with objections about what CRT stands for. Take a step.' John McWhorter

These are the 26 aspects of critical race theory that are problematic. (I attach an Appendix below to further describe all words or phrases with an * next to them in the main body)

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal

1. It politicizes race in the same way that Marxism politicizes class by forcing the complexity of history through a narrow lens. Whiteness * (and its associated privilege) is treated in the same way that Marxists treat the bourgeois class, even if both are problematic to define rigorously.

2. The will to power is clearly the name of the game. CRT draws heavily on the critical theory of the culturally Marxist Frankfurt School (**). The key aspect behind such thinking is the breakdown of power systems with a view to changing them to conform to an ideal. Social engineering is the extension of such thinking with an end goal focused on the result.

3. You use the word critical theory in a way that seems to be based largely on critical thinking. Don't be confused. CRT is purely ideological. It does not promote free thinking, but rather tells you what to think. This is the antithesis of critical thinking ***.

4. Too often it elevates subjective "reality" above objective facts. Religious extremists have a similar opinion. The line from the point of view of epistemology to personal revelation is short.

5. You have a grim view of the Enlightenment and too often pour cold water on empirical evidence that challenges your conclusions.

6. Its definitions are poor, ideologically driven and deliberately convenient ... It seems to define the system or the institution as anything that its defenders do not like. For example ... Affirmative Action is an obvious type of systemic discrimination, but how many proponents of the CRT would agree to its removal?

7. Choose data to support your preconceived conclusions (as did religious fanatics) and change goal posts when called. He is not shy about turning language into weapons.

8. Too often, its proponents cannot agree on the essential level of study, ie. What is the fundamental group? How does CRT solve the problem that the groups themselves are all too often constructions whose existence depends on how the part is cut? The individual on the other hand is real and not divisible from the sociological point of view. However, this is the same level that CRT advocates routinely avoid in their analysis.

9. Many of your supporters cannot truly articulate what CRT stands for ... this is a classic sign of dogma. Their ideology is buried in a new language of specifically defined terms that at first glance seem scientific.

Image source: Mentor Training. California State University

10. Its defenders are extremely hostile to those who challenge their orthodoxy. Look at the abuse one receives when its central dogma is challenged. This is not unlike the backlash freethinkers face in denouncing religious orthodoxy. One could easily substitute heretic for deplorable here.

11. Use euphemisms to promote a soft sell that on closer inspection are misleading, for example. Anti-racism pedagogy. When questioned about the toxicity of their ideology, CRT advocates often accuse others of making a straw man argument. Failed CRT applications are dismissed with the No True Scotsman fallacy of the form ...... Yes 'but that's not really what CRT is ...'.

12. It is prone to semantic overload. The logic is this: no good person can disagree with the statement 'Black lives matter', therefore disagreeing with the BLM organization whose name is represented by those words implies opposition to the statement and indicative of a bad person. Islamists do the same when they equate their ideology with the core of Islam, so that, by definition, opposition to them must be Islamophobic.

13. It has failed to adequately address the intersectional overlaps that weaken its intellectual foundations.

Source: Syracuse University Libraries (FYS101). With this amount of complexity, you could also return your analysis to the level of the individual.

14. Does not delineate how far he is willing to go. What are its limits? How do you know when you reach your goal? What controls do you have over your own ideological excesses or over the extremists or nihilists in your movement?

15. Their defenders have a holier attitude than you and all too often believe that they are on the right side of history. They seem to see nothing wrong with conveying unproven ideas to captive school audiences. This Hegelian notion characterizes both National Socialism and the various incarnations of dialectical materialism.

16. It is fundamentally illiberal to often criticize those who prefer to address racism on an individual level. Its toxicity is revealed in the way in which it accuses the defenders of the latter with the broad stroke of aiding racism. In other words ... all other approaches other than those that fall under the CRT umbrella are racist. One cannot deviate too much from the mantra of doctrinal purity.

Liberalism at its core rightly favors character content over skin color. CRT advocates view this approach as turning a blind eye to what they claim is systemic racism. (Image Source: Republic of Arizona)

17. Your advocate seldom admits when they are wrong and hardly ever gets the idea that their ideas could have ill effects. This is another coincidence with religious extremism.

18. Accuses others of racism while supporting a view that is essentially based on race. The projection is nauseating. ****

19. Seeks to be inserted in a wide scope of both the public and personal spheres. CRT has already been successful in the areas of law, arts, humanities, social sciences, and education. Now he has moved on to the military and the hard sciences.

20. You have an obvious mythology that you treat as a truism even if that mythology is flawed, for example. The 1619 Project and the notion of slavery as the original sin of the Republic.

Opinion | Helped verify the facts of the 1619 project. The Times Ignored Me. The newspaper series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks of his critics are far more dangerous. Https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

21. Proponents of CRT push the false logic that by banning CRT from school, you are effectively not teaching history properly. This is sheer nonsense that is politically motivated. There are many ways to teach history, warts and all, without having to go through pedagogy through an ideological lens. The Holocaust has its obvious mistakes, as do the death camps in Cambodia. It is not necessary to adopt the CRT for students to be aware of these evils.

22. You have a priesthood class that sits behind a veil of selfish credentialism to pontificate to the rest of us what to believe as we earn fame and fortune in marketing and promoting ideology (often ignoring the irony of profiting from of capitalism).

23. Use guilt to spread your message. Guilty White is particularly effective *****.

24. It is divisive (as mentioned above) and actually sets an us versus them scenario that will not cure the racist division. To extinguish a fire it is necessary to remove the oxygen supply, not to increase it with abandon. CRT adds to the oxygen supply of the racial divide.

25. It limits research in key fields by arguing that some voices are more authentic than others and therefore deserve more consideration based on race (which is of greater value here but is nevertheless seen by advocates of the CRT as a social construct ... imagine). Black voices in the debate on racism, for example, carry more weight than white voices. However, when those voices do not defend the narrative, they are conveniently denounced, which is why black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder have less credibility in the eyes of CRT defenders who say white fellow travelers like Robin DiAngelo or Peggy. McIntosh. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. Shared experience only matters if it is the correct shared experience. BS detector overload.

26. Your fundamental premise of systemic racism has an obvious flaw that you cannot explain without twisting into an intellectual pretzel. Proponents of the CRT cannot explain why Asians or even Nigerian immigrants (in Houston, for example) perform better than whites in a system that has been specifically designed to benefit whites.

Appendix

* For CRT theorists, whiteness signifies a mindset and outlook towards black people that sees them as subhuman or, alternatively, as support for the institutions that keep black people depressed. All white people suffer from whiteness and should be forced to admit it and promise to take steps to become aware of their whiteness and privilege and to apologize for it. But privilege and whiteness can never be overcome until society and the systems that sustain it collapse. (Source Educate, do not indoctrinate)

** The Frankfurt School, more appropriately known as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread by many universities around the world. It was originally housed at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an institute attached to the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation from Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure and the Institute moved to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City (source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

*** Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and / or evaluating information collected or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to believe. and action. (source: Foundation for Critical Thinking)

**** In the CRT lexicon, anti-racism is not the same as opposing racism. For CRT theorists, anti-racism means making an active effort to oppose and undermine the institutions that they claim keep blacks at bay. These range from private education to the police and criminal justice system, capitalism, private enterprise, and property rights. To be anti-racist, you must disavow those institutions and work to discredit and tear them down. (SOURCE: Educate, not indoctrinate)

Racism in CRT is understood as the prejudice that whites impose on blacks. According to CRT theorists, blacks can never be racist because the internal balances of power in Western democracies are heavily skewed against them. Black people can be prejudiced against white people and choose not to like white people or discriminate against them, which is understandable given the way white people act to repress black people. But that prejudice is not racist since racism implies having the power within a society to repress another race or deny it resources (SOURCE: Educate, not indoctrinate).

***** How can I cure my white guilt? (Posted in 2018)

Quora seems to increasingly require this standard type of disclaimer. Do not confuse this with my personal belief. The question asks something about conservatives. As I know many conservatives and am aware of what they are talking about, I can summarize their views fairly.

While I can share some of your beliefs, "arguing" with me about what many conservatives think is completely pointless.


My opinion? Critical Race Theory probably doesn't have a "good" place in public education. At best, it could fit it into AP History.

But, in reality, they are not teaching Critical Race Theory. Some educators are trying

Keep reading

Quora seems to increasingly require this standard type of disclaimer. Do not confuse this with my personal belief. The question asks something about conservatives. As I know many conservatives and am aware of what they are talking about, I can summarize their views fairly.

While I can share some of your beliefs, "arguing" with me about what many conservatives think is completely pointless.


My opinion? Critical Race Theory probably doesn't have a "good" place in public education. At best, it could fit it into AP History.

But, in reality, they are not teaching Critical Race Theory. Some educators are trying to apply the activist strategies of some critical race theory to frame early childhood education. And that kind of social activism has no place in public schools.

Conservatives have started calling this practice "Critical Race Theory." But is not. But I'm not sure what you would call it. And this is a critically important part of the discussion. We could also give them different names:

  • There is a left-wing progressive field of study known as Foobar Frooptyloops that applies critical theory to issues of racial practices, institutional structures, and civil rights.
  • Conservatives are upset that some teachers are employing Fizzbuzz Blunderbluss, because they are concerned that teachers will internalize racist attitudes.

The discussion is then:

  • Some conservatives argue that Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss is related to the activist rhetoric of Foobar Frootyloops. So conservatives just call these techniques "Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss".
  • In response, some progressives reply: "But Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss is not Foobar Fruitloops" and "By not teaching some of the underlying facts in Foobar Fruityloops, you are trying not to teach history!"

Both sides are fully talking to each other. The question is:

Should public school teachers use educational techniques that encourage children, based on their skin color, to view themselves as oppressed or oppressive?

Conservatives say no.
They perceive that progressives disagree.
(And some - a very noisy minority of activists - actually do.)

What do conservatives really fear about critical race theory?

Fear? No. It's not really scary. Is to go to.

The problem here begins with communication. Today, people use "critical race theory" to refer to different things. So when you ask what conservatives fear, you need to consider what they specifically oppose. And not what you think "critical race theory" refers to.

Conservatives are outraged that:

  • Some government employees (eg, school administrators) use new materials, which are sometimes described as expressions of "critical race theory."
  • As an excuse to intentionally or unintentionally instill racist values
  • in primary and secondary school children.

Some conservatives worry that telling Johnny he's racist because he's white and telling Tommy that Johnny uses racism to oppress him because he's black is ... well, racist itself. And if that kind of express and shameful labeling is used, it is potentially harmful to children in multiple ways.

“But that is not what they are teaching. They are only teaching the historical context ... "

Well. Stop. You are defending ALL teachers in ALL circumstances. Do you personally have the knowledge of what all the teachers are doing? Do you accept the possibility that some teachers do something else? Why have you instinctively defended ALL teachers?

Snatch before the conspiracy, I say. But don't tell conservatives that doesn't happen. Many and most teachers are teaching history. No problem. Conservatives don't care about that; American history has some nasty warts. But it's our story, so not showing it would be foolish.

However, there are some school districts that teach much more than history. And use materials that include activities that effectively teach young children that they themselves are hopelessly racist or oppressed because of the color of their skin.

When you have people in positions of authority (eg teachers) who tell Johnny that he is racist and who tell Tommy that he is oppressed, you are influencing their personal identities. You are telling them how to see the world. They are children. Not far from learning to tie your shoes. They don't have the metacognition to understand the "historical context" for which you are apologizing. And when adults really demonstrate that this race-based approach to treating people is valid now, you are reinforcing it through the power structure of government schools, and they learn that intentional discrimination is acceptable.

You can say, "It's not racist because ..." But kids just aren't that stupid. They see you do it and they focus your attention on it, and they understand it.

At least, that's the BIG concern. (A small subset of conservatives speak of an anti-white bias. Okay. That is their opinion. Considering some of the material they have complained about, one can see how they might think that. As a general statement, that is not seems correct.)

Now, on the other hand, progressives might say, “What's wrong with that? It's true."

Well, it isn't. To believe it's true, you have to make some generalized assumptions about today's society. And while there are undeniable elements of truth about racial oppression and injustice - we all know this about American history - too broad claims based on a crudely drawn class identity quickly become inaccurate.

All critical theory is class reductionism. Yes, even critical race theory. It is too simplistic a mental model. Which can easily fall apart when you start to dig deep and look at individual people and communities. Yes, even when he makes claims about systemic racism.

Conversely, one of the arguments (which conservatives would do well to acknowledge) is that the system as a whole may still produce disparate racial outcomes, even if no individual possessed any racist spirit.

Both sides are wrong. Both sides are repeatedly mischaracterized. Often on purpose.


So, funny side story. Since COVID-19, we have had many "problems" in our neighborhood. Especially involving drugs. Two heroin dealers on opposite corners. This means a lot of traffic from strangers. A couple of fights and so on. And there is a parking lot near an apartment building and sometimes people park there. The owner is upset and his cars are regularly towed.

A couple of weeks ago, it was around 2am and I was woken up by loud screaming and sobbing outside. So I get up, put on a robe, and go downstairs to check.

And there is a young woman, on her phone, crying or screaming, it was not exactly clear, what was happening. And she was knocking on doors. And he had never seen this person before so he was confused as to what was happening. So I go on the porch to get a better look. And my girlfriend comes down because she also woke up and was curious to know what was going on.

And there's someone in a van (who we can't see) telling him to get back in the car and be respectful. The girl gets into the car, sobbing. There is some kind of discussion. She gets out of the car again. And she sees us, we are about 60 feet away, watching what is happening.

Damn whites. Damn whites. There is nothing better to do than stalk me. Fuck off! FUCK YOU! "

So my girlfriend and I looked at each other, “Huh? We did?

So this girl walks some more, muttering and cursing white people. Every now and then telling us "fucking whites" to stop harassing her. Once again, we are 60 feet apart. I haven't said a word.

Girlfriend mutters, "If I stopped yelling, no one would be trying to figure out what's going on."

“Well, I mean, she's visibly distraught. About something. Maybe your car was towed? I've never seen her before. The parking lot is clearly marked. "

Then someone gets out of the truck. It is the mother of this girl. And she's trying to comfort her, but the daughter doesn't want any of it.

I'm tired of hearing this, so I walk across the street, introduce myself, and ask what the problem is. The daughter goes and sits on a bench, still sobbing.

Mom apologizes for her daughter because

"No, it's okay. She's clearly upset. What's wrong?"

They just moved in a few days before. The daughter works a lot, summer job. He came home. Parked in one of the "junkie" spots, not knowing any better. I walked to another place. And someone called the towing company and they towed the car.

So, mom calls the towing company. I know the boy. I tell him the magic words to say, and boom, the towing company agrees to release the vehicle. They only have to drive 2 miles to get it. It could have been worse.

We exchange phone numbers. I'm sorry you had this bad experience. Welcome to the Neighborhood. Feel free to call me if you need anything.

Did this 16-year-old apologize? Of course, no. However, I was not expecting it. (And I'm just saying: when I was 16 years old working in Flint, Michigan, if I had walked around the neighborhood saying, "Damn blacks!", My mother or my grandmother would have hit me physically. And no, I'm not saying this mother should have done that).

We were his problem because we were white? Supossely Yes.

Do you think he could convince himself otherwise? I do not believe it.

Something terrible to see of a child. Not just heartbreak, which I can understand. But that he had already internalized that we were somehow causing him a problem. Because she is black and we are white.


Conservatives just don't care too much that someone in Ann Arbor or Berkeley is exploring critical race theory. Or even trying to translate those ideas into real and viable political and legal strategies. At least, not in an abstract way.

Sure, they are often on the opposite side of the political aisle. And conservatives can fervently disagree with various parts of their beliefs, writings, research, and so on. Or even question whether some of those beliefs are fundamentally accurate. But that is part of the social dialogue, even if there is disagreement, that is not something to worry about. Or even be upset.

But if your strategy is to "catch the kids while they're little," and you start paying public school teachers to tell Johnny that he's more or less a member of the KKK and that Tommy can never get anywhere and that he will get welfare because Johnny will keep him depressed no matter what he does, conservatives have a serious problem tackling elementary education like that.

And yes, I exaggerate in the previous paragraph. But I hope that illustrates the specific problem that conservatives perceive. That is not history. Those are horrible lessons to demonstrate to children. Conservatives don't want to teach that.

Having public school teachers stuffing prepackaged identities into children's brains based on the color of their skin is indoctrination, not education. And since many conservatives do not want to support that with their money, they will be angry.


Some other content for your reading pleasure:

Considering all nuclear waste, why is nuclear power considered clean? - Science Grok! How clean is nuclear power if it produces so much nuclear waste? People often misunderstand nuclear waste, both the danger and the amount of waste created

LIKE MY THINGS? Send me some coffee (or some rabbit slippers) with Bitcoin: 39wFdvb2jV2JXcwt4k4TuqdwQENj566heX

Normally I would consider myself liberal / progressive, but my stance on this would make me more moderate.

CRT is a Marxist philosophy that substitutes class for race. It asserts that the United States was built by and for whites and that systemic racism imposed at all levels makes it impossible for non-whites to overcome it unless they become 'white adjacent'. Only whites can change society, non-whites lack any power to do so other than the aforementioned 'white adjacency'.

My take on CRT is ...

  1. It is true that America has been created by white people and that white people have elaborated all levels of
Keep reading

Normally I would consider myself liberal / progressive, but my stance on this would make me more moderate.

CRT is a Marxist philosophy that substitutes class for race. It asserts that the United States was built by and for whites and that systemic racism imposed at all levels makes it impossible for non-whites to overcome it unless they become 'white adjacent'. Only whites can change society, non-whites lack any power to do so other than the aforementioned 'white adjacency'.

My take on CRT is ...

  1. It is correct that the USA has been created by White people and that White have crafted every level of society to their liking. At times Whites so dominated Blacks and Native Americans that they truly lacked agency to determine their live outcome. Problem is CRT is too American centric. This is true of every society, it’s best defined as Dominant Group vs Subjugated Group(s).
    1. Common complaints of SGs across the world: excessive police force used against them, lack of proportional representation from govt to media, society designed against their cultural preferences.
    2. Examples of DGs and SGs around the world: Han Chinese vs Uighurs and Tibetans; Punjabis in Pakistan vs Baluchis; Turks vs Kurds in Turkey, Moroccans vs native Western Saharans.
  2. It places Whites at the top of a global hierarchy and dimensions a history of empire and innovation by other groups. For a brief window in human history some White nations dominated much of the globe. But before Whites were no more powerful and today many nations across the globe are achieving parity. Historically Chinese and Arabs have been far more advanced than Europe. North Africans ruled most of Spain for 800 years.
  3. Even in the USA many non White groups outperform Whites by many metrics. The notion that racism in the USA is so strong right now that non Whites can’t overcome seems exaggerated. How could someone who moved from Pakistan 5 years ago that now runs a successful business be described as White Adjacent? Especially when White Hispanics and Poor Anglos do so much worse than dark skinned Indians or Nigerian immigrants.
  4. There is no doubt that generations of legacy racism against Blacks and Native Americans remains a contributing factor. CRT is wrong to assume *all* different outcomes among groups is due to systemic racist but many CRT critics are wrong to assume all differences are due to things like IQ. (how do NIgerians outperform White students if Africans have low IQs?)
  • Often relies on subjective storytelling and resists empirical analysis, by design.

It is undermining its use in the social sciences and potentially leading to counterproductive policies. Conversely, it means CRT advocates have their built-in scapegoat. Something failed to do what was expected? Evil oppressors prevented it, we need more of the ideology to cure it. And everything must be viewed through the racial lens, or else you’re an evil oppressor.

  • Spreads negative stereotypes of the groups it aims to benefit

By emphasizing cultural differences and assigning often negative stereotypes such as "

Keep reading
  • It is often based on subjective storytelling and resists empirical analysis, by design.

It is undermining its use in the social sciences and potentially leading to counterproductive policies. Rather, it means that CRT advocates have their built-in scapegoat. Did something fail to do what was expected? The evil oppressors prevented it, we need more ideology to cure it. And everything must be seen through the racial lens, or else you are an evil oppressor.

  • Spreads negative stereotypes of the groups it aims to benefit

By emphasizing cultural differences and assigning often negative stereotypes like “it is white supremacy to expect proper grammar, showing up on time and civility from people of color”, it enforces the bigotry of low expectations AND can foster the belief that differences between races are truly biological. That’s racist.

That’s aside from the demeaning belief that blacks and PoC can only do well if they are around whites, but not too many and not too few. It is certainly leading to liberal demands for segregation, from college to business. You’ll undermine ethnic minority civil rights if society says yes, you’re so emotionally burdened dealing with everyone else, go to the ghetto, you like it there. And when ethnic minorities withdraw to “safe spaces”, it creates more stress on those who choose to remain in public institutions.

Campus leaders couldn't care less about racial progress - USA Today

  • Unfairly assigns collective guilt, and then uses reaction to it to prove its premise

Arguing that all whites are racist, even when their actions and words don’t fit the definition, is akin to slandering everyone in a room as the modern equivalent of evil witches.

It is a testament to our non-racist society is that calling someone racist launches an immediate personal defense, because it is such a damning label. Yet social justice identitarians use the self-defense of a slur that can cost you your job and college enrollment as proof you’re guilty. Then they ramp up the pressure, admit your privilege, apologize, go for more indoctrination until you’re publicly servile. And it is done as a condition of your education and employment. (This is institutional oppression, just as ordering Jews and Hindus to attend Bible study at work would be.) Would you like to guarantee people hate you and your political movement? Yet liberals in power argue that this social “whitelash” is proof they’re right. It only proves their circular logic.

  • Destroys social trust and the ability for people of different groups to work together

It destroys social trust. It makes people afraid to interact with others of other ethnicities, because said people can take offense at everything. And there are bullies who will seek offense to tear down a target, whether someone they have a personal grudge against or simply shame and sic the mob on for the thrill of power.

It reinforces the idea of stereotyping while generating animosity. It happens as white kids sit in a classroom “like a funeral” while non-whites celebrate in the other room. Or ordering adults to sit in a meeting where they’re told to assume various things based on one’s race, sex and sexual orientation and always take demographics into account. And you’re made to apologize for the sin of your inborn traits to either the group or various representatives of said group. Guilt-tripping and publicly shaming people for their race will generate resentment by them for the literal victimization, while it teaches the others observing it to denigrate said group as morally inferior. As if inverting the social pyramid of the 1950s to systematically oppress a different group is “fair”.

Then there’s the racist lumping of all whites together, somethings throwing Asians into the mix. Or Seattle’s “dismantling racism” course ordering Jews to attend lectures that equated them to white supremacy.

  • The solutions it offers are often counterproductive.

If every explanation is systemic racism, you can’t address problems like low levels of literacy, illegitimacy, drug abuse or anything else without injecting political indoctrination. Or that the only real solution IS more political indoctrination if not outright communism …

Thus you get calls for “revolution” instead of more money for drug rehab, more job training, a more forgiving probation system, more mental health beds, or encouraging marriage to rebuild the black family. No, let’s mistake appearances for substance. Here are the BLM T-shirts and kneeling with money given to political groups that never help those in need.

References:

AGAINST CRITICAL RACE THEORY Paul C. Mocombe West Virginia State University

Critical Race Theory: A Critique by Alpesh Maisuria

https://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/1/contribution/437/

Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?

Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism Jeffrey J. Pyle

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2124&context=bclr

How Critical Racial Theory of Leftists Poisons Our Discussion of Racism

How anti-racism lessons INCREASE student intolerance by 'causing animosity to other cultures'

You know what? I will give a different opinion as a supporter of CRT.

I am not a lawyer, but I have read some papers in the discipline (for example, Derrick Bell's commentary on Brown v. Board of Ed, among others, Words that Wound by Mari Matsuda and a variety of writings by Delgado, Stefancic, Crenshaw, etc.). So I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the writings of some of the celebrities in that field and I think they are actually really useful, and that CRT, which they pioneered as a branch of Critical Legal Studies, has positively affected the children's life.

An article that I want

Keep reading

You know what? I will give a different opinion as a supporter of CRT.

I am not a lawyer, but I have read some papers in the discipline (for example, Derrick Bell's commentary on Brown v. Board of Ed, among others, Words that Wound by Mari Matsuda and a variety of writings by Delgado, Stefancic, Crenshaw, etc.). So I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the writings of some of the celebrities in that field and I think they are actually really useful, and that CRT, which they pioneered as a branch of Critical Legal Studies, has positively affected the children's life.

One article I want to point people toward is A. Leon Higginbotham Jr.’s review of Derrick Bell’s Race, Racism, and American Law. (I want to say that if you don’t have access to JSTOR, then please, please, please do not add https://sci-hub.se/ in front of the JSTOR link and then hit enter.) Derrick Bell’s book was the first casebook focused strictly on American law’s interface with racism, and one of the founding documents of Critical Race Theory.

(As an aside, I will note: contrary to avowed “free speech,” advocates on the right, it is illegal to use Derrick Bell’s book to teach a class, a graduate-level law school class, in six states: Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Idaho. So, you know.)

In any case, Judge Higginbotham’s review began as a fairly straightforward review. But soon it took a turn into a miniature piece of research unto itself. Derrick Bell’s book began with one of the most well-known (and widely reviled) Supreme Court decisions in American history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Now, more or less every mediocre American high schooler knows Dred Scott and how it embodied antebellum American thinking regarding racism. Many may have read parts of the decision—at least a few key paragraphs—and particularly bright students may be able to give you a fairly whole picture of the idea of the decision.

This was not the case half a century ago—even among legal professionals.

Higginbotham:

I have often wondered why it was not until a decade after my 1952 graduation from Yale Law School that I first read any major portion of the Dred Scott case, and even worse, that I had never been aware of the powerful dissents of Justices McLean and Curtis.

In recent years I have talked to hundreds of law school professors and have found that even today very few have any real knowledge of the racist reasoning, historical inaccuracies, rationale or consequences of the Dred Scott decision. My esteemed and liberal constitutional law professor at Yale, John Frank, had only a one-sentence reference to Dred Scott in his casebook. In his comments on the Taney era Professor Frank noted, "We need not pause long with the judicial work of the Taney court.... Foremost of the Supreme Court decisions at the time was in the case of Dred Scott, . . . which, for all its fascination, no longer has immediate relevance for our times. "

Similarly, the four volume work by Professors Emerson, Haber and Dorsen, Political and Civil Rights in the United States, has been by far the most encyclopedic and scholarly treatise in its field. Yet in their classic, they do not cite the Dred Scott case even once. Nor do they include any substantial analysis of slavery law and its interrelationship to present constitutional problems.

So Higginbotham was a Yale-educated lawyer, educated by esteemed academic lawyers, and well-read in the scholarly treatises of his field, and he was only really exposed to Dred Scott v. Sandford about a decade after graduation!

The great works in the field simply never referred to it except to say that it didn’t matter anymore. Higginbotham thought this was ridiculous. How could you train the next generation of lawyers without at least referencing some of the most important legal cases in the history of the Supreme Court? After all, if you’re refusing to refer to race relations cases as they pertain to Constitutional Law, you’re implicitly broadcasting the notion that race relations cases are not worthy of consideration as a matter of Constitutional Law.

With that in mind, he undertook a survey. He got a collection of some 22 caselaw textbooks (that is, textbooks made to educate lawyers) published from 1895 to 1973 and saw how many of them included one or more of the following cases: for antebellum race relations cases, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Prigg v. Pennsylvania (related to the Fugitive Slave Act and whether state officials were forced to assist in the recapture of slaves); for post-reconstruction cases, Higginbotham chose The Civil Rights Cases (1883) (which basically found laws against private racial discrimination to be unconstitutional) and Plessy v. Ferguson.

These four cases, Higginbotham reasoned, were a good barometer to find out just how seriously caselaw textbooks were taking race relations decisions as a legitimate field in which new lawyers ought to be educated. He only counted either principal or major excerpted cases as counting (i.e., no single-line treatments). He also excluded those casebooks that didn’t mention the powerful dissents of, say, Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson:

In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case. … The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law.

Higginbotham did not want to prove that the law was racist or that the Supreme Court was a racist institution. He wanted to know the degree to which American law students were exposed to caselaw on race relations on both sides. He wanted the racist diatribes of Justice Taney, but the just and righteous dissent of Harlan, as well. After all, if you merely present the racist findings as the Decision of the Court, that implicitly normalizes them as the received wisdom. As Higginbotham says:

Yet, tragically, the casebooks read by generations of law students did not present the other view, as embodied in Justice Harlan's forceful dissents. Again, the exclusion of such powerful dissents from casebooks indicates what may have been the withholding of significant ideas from generations of lawyers who would later become business leaders, union lawyers, presidents, senators, congressmen, and public officials throughout the land. Perhaps if the analysis which Professor Bell so wisely included had been part of the constitutional law teaching from 1896 to the 1940's, at least some lawyers would have been more leery of the racist views they proposed.

If you only ever read the singular, profoundly racist position of the Court, that’s the sole legal voice you’re getting on the issue.

So, what were the results?

Only five of the 22 textbooks (less than a quarter) published from 1895 to 1973 dealt with Dred Scott as a principle case. None of the textbooks printed between 1928 and 1950 excerpted it or treated it as a principle case. From 1928 to 1972, only one author (in 1951) included it.

In other words, in legal textbooks, Dred Scott v. Sandford all but vanished. Thayer’s 1895 textbook had it, but only one in the roughly half-century between 1928 and 1973 did. The rest were all in textbooks published between 1895 to 1928.

Only Thayer’s 1895 textbook dealt with Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Not one of the surveyed legal textbooks published in the 20th century that Higginbotham reviewed touched on Prigg v. Pennsylvania as a major case. And throughout that entire period, only one casebook (and not the same casebook) gave Harlan’s dissent in The Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson. The racism of the court in those decisions was on full blast; the egalitarianism of Harlan was not.

We should also note one of Higginbotham’s footnotes as important:

Prigg is important because it arose in an earlier era-1842. In Prigg, the Court, through Justice Story, liberally construed the powers of Congress to extensively legislate for the capture of fugitive slaves, even though there was no enabling clause in article IV, section 2. Conversely, the Supreme Court later construed the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments as narrowly as possible, strictly limiting the powers of Congress despite the presence of enabling clauses in the two amendments. Justice Harlan put Prigg in this perspective through his dissents in the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson. In the Civil Rights Cases, while speaking of Prigg, he noted:

“We have seen that the power of Congress, by legislation, to enforce the master's right to have his slave delivered up on claim was implied from the recognition of that right in the national Constitution. But the power conferred by the Thirteenth Amendment does not rest upon implication or inference.... That doctrine ought not now to be abandoned when the inquiry is not as to an implied power to protect the master's rights, but what may Congress, under powers expressly granted, do for the protection of freedom and the rights necessarily inhering in a state of freedom.”

In other words: the Court was prepared to grant Congress extensive powers to ensure the arrest and capture of runaway slaves, but when it came to preserving the rights and liberties of freed slaves under the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, the Court found itself reading those amendments as absolutely narrowly as possible, even when the actual amendments expressly granted Congress powers to enforce them.

Excluding Harlan’s dissents and cases like Prigg, tore some much-needed legal context out of American race relations: examples of how the court was willing to restrain the laws to protect private racism, but bring the full force of law to reinforce slavery. And only one textbook detailed Prigg, and only one textbook (and not the same one!) gave Harlan’s dissent in the Civil Rights Cases.


So, how does this affect our children?

How does Higginbotham’s work up here (despite Higginbotham not being a Critical Race Theorist), or Derrick Bell’s word or Matsuda’s or Crenshaw’s or Delgado’s work affect our children?

It’s simple.

The legal profession is one of the backbones of our political and societal system. People are subject to laws, to censure, and to punishment as ordered by our government and our judicial system. They rely on this legal system to get justice against wrongs inflicted upon them by other individuals and by the government. They require men and women trained in the laws, with a full and robust knowledge of legal history and context, to advocate on their behalf. This includes a knowledge of the realities of American society—such as racism.

A lawyer that refuses to acknowledge, or is given no reason to acknowledge, the existence of racism cannot adequately advocate for a client that is a victim of racism, whether personal or systemic.

The law profession had, until the advent of Critical Race Theory as a field of legal scholarship, carried out a long process of elision and erasure of key race relations cases whose context was necessary to fully comprehend the history and role of the Court and the American judiciary when it came to the objective fact of American race relations.

Because of that, generations of lawyers were not educated in how American racism interacted with the American judiciary. They were not exposed to Justice Taney’s decision in Dred Scott, the decision in Prigg, or to the dissents in Civil Rights Cases or Plessy v. Ferguson that fought back against the normalization and legitimization of the racist rhetoric in those cases. We need to stress this: American law schools did not want to teach this subject. When Derrick Bell first published his book, he was at Harvard Law. He was forced out over Harvard’s hiring practices. Harvard refused to teach a class on race and American law. Mari Matsuda and Kimberlé Crenshaw had to organize a grassroots, student-led shadow class at Harvard Law using Bell’s book as a textbook. And this was in the 70s.

It was the work of legal scholars like Bell, Matsuda, Crenshaw, and so on that not only arrested that elision of key race relations cases, but made sure they were taught to the next generation of legal scholars.

Now, is CRT taught to children?

No.

But it’s taught to the legal professionals that might be defending them or their parents.

It’s taught to the legal professionals who were exposed to the racially-fraught history of the Court and dedicated their careers to a practice of the law informed by history and a desire for racial justice—including racial justice for children.

It’s taught to the legal professionals that enter politics and bring with them a more complete and (yes) historically accurate idea of how American law has interacted with race, which will inform their legislation—which will, in turn, affect American children and will hopefully make their future more equitable and just.

It’s taught to the legal professionals who become judges and might rule differently, or more compassionately, or simply more intelligently, because they’re not under the misapprehension that law is a black box.

It’s taught to the legal professionals who have come to realize that legal narrative is just as legitimate a means of exposition, since narrative is human and the law involves humans.

Todas estas cosas afectan positiva y materialmente la vida de nuestros hijos, porque son parte integral de hacernos más conscientes y más conscientes de la historia y el contexto de las relaciones raciales y la ley estadounidense.

Heritage Foundation es un sitio de extrema derecha. Todo en esta pieza es sólo una vaga palabrería ideológica que nunca proporciona evidencia real.

Marxism views society in a structural way, thus applying scientific realism to society. But the relevant structures are what Marx calls "the social relations of production." Applied to capitalism, the relevant structure is the capital / wage labor ratio. This means that workers, who do not have their own means of earning a living, must seek jobs from employers where they must submit to the administrative autocracy established by the owners. The owners (the company

Keep reading

Heritage Foundation is a far-right site. Everything in this piece is just vague ideological verbiage that never provides real evidence.

Marxism views society structurally — thus applying scientific realism to society. But the relevant structures are what Marx calls “the social relations of production.” As applied to capitalism, the relevant structure is the capital/wage labor relationship. This means workers — who do not have their own means to a livelihood — must seek jobs from employers where they must submit to the managerial autocracy set up by the owners. The owners (the firm) owns all the revenue even tho workers do the work.

Thus the Marxist analysis is about the class structure, and class oppression.

“Race” is an invented concept, as in the fictional “white race” vs “black race” division concocted by North American elites in early 1700s to justify their new system of life time slavery for people of African ancestry.

Marxism historically did not have any particular theory about this scheme as it exists in USA (other than Marx saying that white labor cannot be free as long as black labor is “branded”). Later on by 20th century, Marxist views about the role that white supremacy and systemic race discrimination plays for the benefit of the capitalist employers was developed.

But the legal scholars who devised “Critical Race Theory” were not Marxists. The fact they were focused on the systemic nature of racial inequality and how it continues despite the civil rights laws, is not derived from Marxism. However, it does assume as accurate the sociological data that show that race discrimination and racial inequality continues to exist despite the civil rights laws. Thus the legal system in the USA generally does not address this feature of the society’s structure.

The reason the Republicans have got their knickers in a knot over “Critical Race Theory” is that they want to deny the persistence of anti-black discrimination in areas such as hiring, bank loans, schooling, and treatment by the criminal justice system. They do not want any education in the schools about the racist history of the USA which created these patterns. But being in denial about persisting systemic racism is itself a white supremacist political position. That’s because it implicitly believes that it is RIGHT AND PROPER that “whites” should get preference for hiring, or mortgage loans or sentencing by judges and so on.

This comes up right now because there were massive protests against violent racist police conduct in many cities in the USA last summer — millions of people were involved. This movement attacked various aspects of policing, demanding shifts of funding to things like affordable housing to address homelessness or social workers to address dispute resolution, methods to de-escalate conflicts, and in general non-police social services to address some of the causes of violent interactions. According to an extensive study of the Black Lives Matters protests, 93 percent were entirely peaceful. But you will see them demonized here on Quora repeatedly as “violent” and “riots” and so on — and GOP legislatures have passed laws criminalizing protest — in violation of the First Amendment.

I think I do. Basically, it is developed to notice where race intersects with culture and gender and other things that could affect an individual. It was developed by a professor who basically doing a study at a GE plant in Colorado said something like: yes, this GE plant employs a lot of black people. However, they are only black men and they work in the factory and not in the administrative offices and they do not have any executive power. Only white men have managerial power. And this GE plant employs a lot of women, but they all work as support staff for white male managers. And there

Keep reading

I think I do. Basically it is developed to notice where race intersects with culture and gender and other things that might impact an individual. It was developed by a professor who basically doing a study on a GE plant in Colorado said something like - yes this GE plant employs plenty of black people. However it’s only black men and they work on the factory floor and not in the administrative offices and they don’t hold any executive power. Only white men hold managerial power. And this GE plant employs plenty of women but they all work as support staff for the white male managers. And there are really not any black women.

So, I will agree this is an important thing to notice and talk about. This is a tool is what it is.

Where CRT gets to be a problem is when too many people are taught/indoctrinated as the lens to view the world. CRT is combined with Marxism (that hot stew of toxic mess) and we get some of the more dysfunctional ideology from the left. Marxism was all about class - that did not work out as it is clear that communism just made more people poor. So they shifted to Neo Marxism which basically everyone is ranked from oppressor to victim - despite who you are as a person a white male is defacto an oppressor and something like a black female is defacto a victim. It’s dehumanizing

Since CRT has left the Ivory Tower and is now entering the common parlance of media and society we are more divided than ever before. Some things are worth conserving, MLK dream of content of character vs. color of skin is such a value. CRT shits all over MLK dream.

As someone who is constantly torn between the worlds of science and humanities, I think a lot about this question.

Without going into much detail, I think it is better not to look at critical theory today, but at its lineage, that is, from the Middle Ages, when monks methodically analyzed religious texts (usually the Bible).

Although we are in a much, much more modern environment, the techniques we use in critical theory and literary analysis, be it Anglo-American closer reading or more European explication de texte, are actually contemporary.

Keep reading

As someone who is constantly torn between the worlds of science and humanities, I think a lot about this question.

Without going into much detail, I think it is better not to look at critical theory today, but at its lineage, that is, from the Middle Ages, when monks methodically analyzed religious texts (usually the Bible).

Though we find ourselves in a much, much more modern setting, the techniques we use in critical theory and literary analysis—be it the more Anglo-American close reading or the more European explication de texte—are really just contemporary extensions of biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics (a fancy word for interpretation of a text).

And though you probably don’t think of monks and a modern chemistry lab as part of one tradition, both the humanities and sciences all came out of the old academy, the monasteries that eventually became our modern university system. However, beginning in the Renaissance, things became more secular, and by the Enlightenment, the sciences and the humanities had really diverged, with the former taking an empirical approach and the humanities continuing with an interpretive approach.

Critical theory, in a broad sense, is the modern evolution of biblical hermeneutics, building off centuries of philosophy to read texts—not just in the traditional sense of words on a page, but a more contemporary notion of a text: larges structures of society that incorporate aspects of a written text, through signs (much like words).

Can we test critical theory? No, but I would say that’s not what critical theory is seeking to do. Aside from its problems (and there are many, depending on who you would ask), critical theory provides an interpretive framework for the world.

You can certainly attempt operationalize it into an empirical framework (let’s say, testing the effect of racism on job applications), but there is going to be some mismatch, as you’re working with two separate ways of seeing the world.

Esta es una explicación bastante reductiva, ¡pero espero que sea útil! No existe una forma correcta o incorrecta de ver el mundo, siempre que tenga en cuenta la distinción crucial entre lo empírico y lo interpretativo.

Marx apreciaría el objetivo de la teoría crítica. Cuando la idea de la teoría crítica fue vomitada por primera vez en la Escuela de Frankfurt en la década de 1930, su objetivo era debilitar los cimientos institucionales de Occidente. ¿Por qué? Para hacernos susceptibles a la revolución comunista. Entonces, se puso a trabajar en la iglesia, la familia, etc. La teoría crítica escoge las pequeñas grietas en las instituciones para destruirlas. No muy diferente a una infección bacteriana.

In America, the traditional racial divide has proven to be a decent-sized rift to cultivate your pus. With this mechanism, critical theorists are attacking basic institutions

Keep reading

Marx would appreciate the goal of critical theory. When the idea of ​​critical theory was first spewed out at the Frankfurt School in the 1930s, its aim was to weaken the institutional foundations of the West. Why? To make us susceptible to communist revolution. So, he went to work in the church, the family, etc. Critical theory chooses the little cracks in institutions to destroy. Not unlike a bacterial infection.

In America, the traditional racial divide has proven an decent-sized crack to cultivate their pus. With this mechanism, Critical Theorists are attacking basic institutions; police, the justice system etc.

Marx would be mystified by race as we understand it - an irrelevant immutable characteristic. He was casually dismissive of non-European races. However, he would appreciate the value of destroying the West to bring about the next stage of history.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.