6 ms·

A Deeper Look at Critical Race Theory

24 points by jkuria 5y ago

zug_zug 5y ago
Since this topic has always been such an unproductive hot-button, maybe a good way to achieve consensus (assuming that's the goal here) would be to concretely define exactly which particular statements/views people find too controversial for school. As it stands, there seems to be no consensus on the definition of the theory, nor does there seem to be consensus on whether said theory is being taught in schools.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I think spending time discussing how one race is oppressed, and another is the oppressor, it’s not the best use of time in the classroom. I think as children enter high school, there are better ways we can go about talking about race and culture, and having respect for one another, without making it about the oppressed and the oppressor. My core conflict with this methodology is that it divides people and pit them against one another, instead of focusing on how we can all be better, kinder, and more respectful of each other in general.
  - 8note 5y ago
    The currently still is an opressed and plenty of opressors. If you don't recognize that the conflict is already there, you're going to have a harder time getting rid of it. The opressed have to learn about it to survive, so it's only the bystanders that don't learn about it if you leave it off the curriculum
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I am not from the US but I don't think that is correct. There are repercussions for some ethnicities because the civil rights movement is very recent history, but there is not an oppressor anymore. On the contrary, kids should be taught that there were oppressors, but they are gone now. Then concentrate on the after effects. As the poster said, you are just playing people against each other and the result is predictable and measurable.
  - nemesis1637 5y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your logic. Every high school in the United States (and the rest of the Western world) teaches the history of WWII, with undoubtedly millions of both Jewish and students with German heritage and I don't think they're pitted against one another in the end. Further, "there are better ways we can go about talking about race and culture, and having respect for one another, without making it about the oppressed and the oppressor." - How so? Why do we need to teach students to have respect for one another if not for a long history, and complex present, of one group of people oppressing another? If there was no historical and current oppression, the entire conversation wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
    - david38 5y ago
      Except nobody is making the 12 year old German students get up in front of the class and admit they are oppressors simply by virtue of their race. Oh wait, race doesn’t really exist, except when we want to insult white people.
    - underseacables 5y ago
      For starters, not making children feel like they are oppressors or the oppressed. Teach civility, respect of each other, and respect for one another’s opinions and beliefs. Don’t start off by saying this side of the classroom are the oppressors because of their skin color, and this side of the classroom are the oppressed because of their skin color. Your skin color does not make you an oppressor or the oppressed, but CRT does.
    - paulddraper 5y ago
      No one takes issue with teaching about the Holocaust or slavery in North America. To cite Wikipedia: "the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals." This syllogism is the controversial matter of CRT: 1. Anything which has racially disparate outcomes is racist. 2. Modern society has racially disparate outcomes. 3. Therefore, modern society is racist.
- andreskytt 5y ago
  Schools should be based on the scientific method teaching things that can be found to be objectively true or skills that can be objectively acquired. Anything that declares any science including itself subjective in nature, should not be taught. Simply because there is nothing to teach, the entire teaching would be, by definition, the subjective opinion of the teacher. Which raises the question, why did we choose these particular opinions to be taught and not others.
  - jasonboyd 5y ago
    That's silly. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to teach _only_ objective truths (goodbye arts, literature, philosophy, social sciences, etc) how will the little robots produced by such an environment succeed in life? Few things encountered in daily life are objectively true.
  - xscott 5y ago
    > [...] the scientific method teaching things that can be found to be objectively true [...] The scientific method never proves things are objectively true. Instead, you subjectively fail to show your hypothesis is false, so you gain more justification in believing it. I wish more people understood this and quit trying to make a religion out of science. Proof is for mathematics.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  I agree. Definition is the same problem that has plagued other movements: feminism, gay rights, defund the police. The article cites "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement," which is pro-critical race theory. To cite Wikipedia: > While critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals. > CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities. In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways. > A key CRT concept is intersectionality, which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage. If you understood >90% of that, congrats; I'm still trying.
  - _nicelaris_ 5y ago
    Ultimately, it's just about assuming political power. Expect a similar level of intellectual and moral integrity from those propagating it that you would expect from an average politician.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    Can you explain which parts are making it difficult? The sentences run a little long in that academic fashion, but the pieces are relatively straightforward. Some of the key bits: * Ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways Example: Prosecutors, police, and judges all act on their discretion. Both unconscious bias and explicit racism can cause some people to be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced differently, regardless of the law. * race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage Example: White women campaigning for the right to vote had a choice: include black people to expand their base, or exclude them to avoid scaring off a large contingent of racist white men. The movement as a whole chose the latter, and arguably it was the most effective choice for them. Similar pressures today put divisions between groups who could in theory band together. The sheer number of groups, and the differences in strategies they choose, tends to reinforce the status quo. * white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people "White supremacy" here is a confusing term, in that people tend to associate it with white robes and hoods. The term is accurate: many white people implicitly believe that the average white person is superior to the average black person. That holds even for people willing to vote for an extraordinary black man, have black friends, etc. It shows up clearly only in its aggregate effect, making it easy to dismiss any individual's contribution to it, but it's very clear when you're exposed to it every day. In some ways it's worse than the robes-and-hoods version of racism, because the latter is easy to reject and most people do, but that allows them to believe that they've done their part without having to closely consider their own beliefs and actions. And it leads to a catch-22. The people most likely to outright reject it are the ones defending their own egos. It's easy to dismiss any individual behavior and treat the aggregate effect as the fault of black people themselves. You'd basically have to live the life of a black person to disprove it, and that creates a No True Scotsman situation. What's clearer, though, is the way this is weaponized by the robes-and-hoods type racists to portray people honestly trying to get this across as a conspiracy. That this kind of out-and-out racism is still so prevalent should make it really easy to see why this entire question is still coming up. Does any of that help?
- anm89 5y ago
  On most other topics I would agree with you but here I don't. Because one of the problems with critical race theory is that it is not at all rigorous and won't ever have one definition or set of concepts that everyone agrees with. So if you try to drill down and critique it, it is incredibly easy to shape shift the arguments and accuse the critiquer of not truly understanding the theory. Another piece of this is that CTR is packed to the brim with motte and bailey arguments where they'll make one claim and then defend another making any attempt at formal debate a total waste of time. Not every topic is worth debating on merit. If you tell me the earth is flat I'm not going to spend my time exhaustively critiquing your position which you almost certainly didn't arrive at logically anyway. I'm just going to understand that that viewpoint is indicative of some other underlying pathologies, tells you I disagree and try to distance myself from you. This is somewhat similar to how I treat CRT
  - zug_zug 5y ago
    I think if you're afraid of people shifting the theory, then you need to pin down what the theory ISN'T and lock that in. Just for example, you might want to lock in some ideas like - Don't teach that racism is only perpetuated by white-people. - Don't teach that people born today are morally/emotionally responsible for the behavior of their ancestors. - Don't teach that skin color is the most defining thing about you - Don't teach that any single trait means you have to see yourself as a victim, you can see yourself however you want to I'm sure if you come up with a reasonable set of these then reasonable people can agree.
    - anm89 5y ago
      You're missing that my main point is the one about flat earthers. I COULD do that. It's just a negative sume game and I don't want to. Id rather just interact with people who are thinking about more interesting things than debate non rigorous academic virtue signaling with people who have an axe to grind and don't care about what I have to say based on my race. It's literally the exact same scenario as why I'm not going sit around and debate a klan member. They are racists and I'm not bothering with them.
- _nicelaris_ 5y ago
  Attempting to concretely define a philosophy that explicitly denies objectivity is to deny said philosophy a priori. But really, it's not poorly understood or defined by its best critics, the issue is that normies are starting to learn about it and generally have a shallow understanding of the issues and objectives surrounding it, which muddies the whole conversation. Generally speaking though, these normie parents are accurately identifying it when they attack equity policies and other such curricula that focuses on historical revisionism, decolonization and/or any race-based concept such as whiteness. The purpose of CT is to expose and critique these concepts in order to overthrow the systems undergirded by them.
haspoken 5y ago
https://archive.is/lBKnq https://archive.is/lBKnq

24 points by jkuria 5y ago

Since this topic has always been such an unproductive hot-button, maybe a good way to achieve consensus (assuming that's the goal here) would be to concretely define exactly which particular statements/views people find too controversial for school. As it stands, there seems to be no consensus on the definition of the theory, nor does there seem to be consensus on whether said theory is being taught in schools.

underseacables 5y ago
I think spending time discussing how one race is oppressed, and another is the oppressor, it’s not the best use of time in the classroom. I think as children enter high school, there are better ways we can go about talking about race and culture, and having respect for one another, without making it about the oppressed and the oppressor. My core conflict with this methodology is that it divides people and pit them against one another, instead of focusing on how we can all be better, kinder, and more respectful of each other in general.
- 8note 5y ago
  The currently still is an opressed and plenty of opressors. If you don't recognize that the conflict is already there, you're going to have a harder time getting rid of it. The opressed have to learn about it to survive, so it's only the bystanders that don't learn about it if you leave it off the curriculum
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I am not from the US but I don't think that is correct. There are repercussions for some ethnicities because the civil rights movement is very recent history, but there is not an oppressor anymore. On the contrary, kids should be taught that there were oppressors, but they are gone now. Then concentrate on the after effects. As the poster said, you are just playing people against each other and the result is predictable and measurable.
- nemesis1637 5y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your logic. Every high school in the United States (and the rest of the Western world) teaches the history of WWII, with undoubtedly millions of both Jewish and students with German heritage and I don't think they're pitted against one another in the end. Further, "there are better ways we can go about talking about race and culture, and having respect for one another, without making it about the oppressed and the oppressor." - How so? Why do we need to teach students to have respect for one another if not for a long history, and complex present, of one group of people oppressing another? If there was no historical and current oppression, the entire conversation wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
  - david38 5y ago
    Except nobody is making the 12 year old German students get up in front of the class and admit they are oppressors simply by virtue of their race. Oh wait, race doesn’t really exist, except when we want to insult white people.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    For starters, not making children feel like they are oppressors or the oppressed. Teach civility, respect of each other, and respect for one another’s opinions and beliefs. Don’t start off by saying this side of the classroom are the oppressors because of their skin color, and this side of the classroom are the oppressed because of their skin color. Your skin color does not make you an oppressor or the oppressed, but CRT does.
  - paulddraper 5y ago
    No one takes issue with teaching about the Holocaust or slavery in North America. To cite Wikipedia: "the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals." This syllogism is the controversial matter of CRT: 1. Anything which has racially disparate outcomes is racist. 2. Modern society has racially disparate outcomes. 3. Therefore, modern society is racist.
andreskytt 5y ago
Schools should be based on the scientific method teaching things that can be found to be objectively true or skills that can be objectively acquired. Anything that declares any science including itself subjective in nature, should not be taught. Simply because there is nothing to teach, the entire teaching would be, by definition, the subjective opinion of the teacher. Which raises the question, why did we choose these particular opinions to be taught and not others.
- jasonboyd 5y ago
  That's silly. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to teach _only_ objective truths (goodbye arts, literature, philosophy, social sciences, etc) how will the little robots produced by such an environment succeed in life? Few things encountered in daily life are objectively true.
- xscott 5y ago
  > [...] the scientific method teaching things that can be found to be objectively true [...] The scientific method never proves things are objectively true. Instead, you subjectively fail to show your hypothesis is false, so you gain more justification in believing it. I wish more people understood this and quit trying to make a religion out of science. Proof is for mathematics.
paulddraper 5y ago
I agree. Definition is the same problem that has plagued other movements: feminism, gay rights, defund the police. The article cites "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement," which is pro-critical race theory. To cite Wikipedia: > While critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals. > CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities. In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways. > A key CRT concept is intersectionality, which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage. If you understood >90% of that, congrats; I'm still trying.
- _nicelaris_ 5y ago
  Ultimately, it's just about assuming political power. Expect a similar level of intellectual and moral integrity from those propagating it that you would expect from an average politician.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Can you explain which parts are making it difficult? The sentences run a little long in that academic fashion, but the pieces are relatively straightforward. Some of the key bits: * Ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways Example: Prosecutors, police, and judges all act on their discretion. Both unconscious bias and explicit racism can cause some people to be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced differently, regardless of the law. * race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage Example: White women campaigning for the right to vote had a choice: include black people to expand their base, or exclude them to avoid scaring off a large contingent of racist white men. The movement as a whole chose the latter, and arguably it was the most effective choice for them. Similar pressures today put divisions between groups who could in theory band together. The sheer number of groups, and the differences in strategies they choose, tends to reinforce the status quo. * white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people "White supremacy" here is a confusing term, in that people tend to associate it with white robes and hoods. The term is accurate: many white people implicitly believe that the average white person is superior to the average black person. That holds even for people willing to vote for an extraordinary black man, have black friends, etc. It shows up clearly only in its aggregate effect, making it easy to dismiss any individual's contribution to it, but it's very clear when you're exposed to it every day. In some ways it's worse than the robes-and-hoods version of racism, because the latter is easy to reject and most people do, but that allows them to believe that they've done their part without having to closely consider their own beliefs and actions. And it leads to a catch-22. The people most likely to outright reject it are the ones defending their own egos. It's easy to dismiss any individual behavior and treat the aggregate effect as the fault of black people themselves. You'd basically have to live the life of a black person to disprove it, and that creates a No True Scotsman situation. What's clearer, though, is the way this is weaponized by the robes-and-hoods type racists to portray people honestly trying to get this across as a conspiracy. That this kind of out-and-out racism is still so prevalent should make it really easy to see why this entire question is still coming up. Does any of that help?
anm89 5y ago
On most other topics I would agree with you but here I don't. Because one of the problems with critical race theory is that it is not at all rigorous and won't ever have one definition or set of concepts that everyone agrees with. So if you try to drill down and critique it, it is incredibly easy to shape shift the arguments and accuse the critiquer of not truly understanding the theory. Another piece of this is that CTR is packed to the brim with motte and bailey arguments where they'll make one claim and then defend another making any attempt at formal debate a total waste of time. Not every topic is worth debating on merit. If you tell me the earth is flat I'm not going to spend my time exhaustively critiquing your position which you almost certainly didn't arrive at logically anyway. I'm just going to understand that that viewpoint is indicative of some other underlying pathologies, tells you I disagree and try to distance myself from you. This is somewhat similar to how I treat CRT
- zug_zug 5y ago
  I think if you're afraid of people shifting the theory, then you need to pin down what the theory ISN'T and lock that in. Just for example, you might want to lock in some ideas like - Don't teach that racism is only perpetuated by white-people. - Don't teach that people born today are morally/emotionally responsible for the behavior of their ancestors. - Don't teach that skin color is the most defining thing about you - Don't teach that any single trait means you have to see yourself as a victim, you can see yourself however you want to I'm sure if you come up with a reasonable set of these then reasonable people can agree.
  - anm89 5y ago
    You're missing that my main point is the one about flat earthers. I COULD do that. It's just a negative sume game and I don't want to. Id rather just interact with people who are thinking about more interesting things than debate non rigorous academic virtue signaling with people who have an axe to grind and don't care about what I have to say based on my race. It's literally the exact same scenario as why I'm not going sit around and debate a klan member. They are racists and I'm not bothering with them.
_nicelaris_ 5y ago
Attempting to concretely define a philosophy that explicitly denies objectivity is to deny said philosophy a priori. But really, it's not poorly understood or defined by its best critics, the issue is that normies are starting to learn about it and generally have a shallow understanding of the issues and objectives surrounding it, which muddies the whole conversation. Generally speaking though, these normie parents are accurately identifying it when they attack equity policies and other such curricula that focuses on historical revisionism, decolonization and/or any race-based concept such as whiteness. The purpose of CT is to expose and critique these concepts in order to overthrow the systems undergirded by them.

haspoken 5y ago

https://archive.is/lBKnq https://archive.is/lBKnq