4 ms·

My constitutional law professor did some CRT scholarship in the 1980s and brought this perspective to our class* in an interesting way. The syllabus was pretty

My constitutional law professor did some CRT scholarship in the 1980s and brought this perspective to our class* in an interesting way. The syllabus was pretty traditional, but he would add color, giving what he called "the conventional view" (basically, that the Supreme Court has steadily and inevitably protected the rights of minorities) and then his own view challenging this. It was far from indoctrination. Rather, he encouraged us to think critically about each decision and what it did and didn't do, and the institutional capabilities of courts vs. legislatures, rather than just vaguely celebrating social progress won through landmark decisions. * circa 2009, when "CRT" was better known as a near-obsolete display technology than a boogeyman of the American political right.

rayiner 5y ago
> My constitutional law professor did some CRT scholarship in the 1980s and brought this perspective to our class* in an interesting way Exactly. Which is why it's bizarre to suggest that liberal professors at NYU and Northwestern are suddenly upset in 2022 about something that was routinely taught when they went to law school. It's more reasonable to assume that they're responding to something else that they're observing. > * circa 2009, when "CRT" was better known as a near-obsolete display technology than a boogeyman of the American political right. "CRT" is just a vernacular shorthand for a collection of ideas that have become prevalent in certain circles in the last few years, which share common threads such as abandoning the ideal of race neutrality in law and policy. It's similar to how "supply-side economics" being used to refer to Reaganite economic policies. Whether those ideas are technically CRT is beside the point. Opposition to that collection of ideas is not limited to the "American political right." Insofar as "CRT" encompasses, for example, Ibram Kendi's assertion that positive discrimination is required to overcome past discrimination, most Americans oppose that: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... (in college admission); https://www.insightintodiversity.com/majority-of-americans-believe-race-shouldnt-be-a-factor-in-hiring-pew-study-finds/ https://www.insightintodiversity.com/majority-of-americans-b... (in hiring decisions). Insofar as "CRT" is associated with various left-wing criminal justice ideas, most Americans, including so-called "people of color" oppose them: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha... The "American political right," moreover, is hardly the only one that has realized that these ideas and policies share common roots. Emmanuel Macron, of the French center, has come out against them too: https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-culture-thats-racializing-their-country-1634706 https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-... Insofar as more Democrats don't oppose CRT, I suspect it's because they haven't heard much about it or are skeptical that it's just a right-wing effort. But I sent this article to my dad--an immigrant from a Muslim country who has supported Democrats since Carter--and he expressed concerns about "critical race theory." Because he's a strong proponent of "color blindness" as a foundational principle of law and society. He was alarmed, as a public health expert, by proposals to prioritize non-whites for vaccinations. He was likewise alarmed by TJHSST, the high school I attended, recently abandoning its admissions test under the theory that it was "racist." I suspect there are a lot of Democrats like him who are skeptical that Republicans are acting in good faith, but don't actually agree with progressives that we need fundamental changes to our legal system.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ss108 5y ago
  I generally agree with you on this, esp the point about Dem voters actually disliking it.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The thing I find scary is what I call the "LatinX" phenomenon--(overwhelmingly white) progressives being able to dictate policies affecting minorities over the preferences of those minorities: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in... A sobering example: if Justice Thomas votes against race-based college admissions in the Harvard case, white progressives will call him "racist" for adopting a view shared by 62% of Black people.
    - ss108 5y ago
      Yeah the latinx thing is really dumb (REALLY dumb), but also harmless, esp since almost no actual Hispanic person says that shit. Luckily Dem voters reject far left candidates in broader elections; see Biden, Eric Adams. Dems currently seem to elect moderates at a higher rate, whereas Republican moderates tend to have to retire (Flake, Kinzinger) or suffer vicious attacks and get voted out (Liz Cheney)
      - rayiner 5y ago
        > Yeah the latinx thing is really dumb (REALLY dumb), but also harmless, esp since almost no actual Hispanic person says that shit. It's harmless if you consider it in isolation. But I think it reflects a troubling power dynamic. At Northwestern they renamed "Hispanic Heritage Month" to "Latinx Heritage Month" (https://www.northwestern.edu/msa/programs/heritage-months/latinx-heritage-month.html https://www.northwestern.edu/msa/programs/heritage-months/la...). Big deal, sure. But it shows that white progressives and their allies have tremendous power over issues relating to minorities--down to what to call a group of minorities--and minorities have very little power to assert their own preferences. I don't think that's harmless. > Luckily Dem voters reject far left candidates in broader elections; see Biden, Eric Adams. I think this illustrates my point, though. In the primary, Black and Latino New Yorkers overwhelmingly supported Adams, while Asians supported Yang. But the Black, Latino, and Asian progressive activists mostly opposed both and sided with the candidates preferred by white progressives. Matt Yglesias wrote an excellent article addressing the disconnect between Asian actvists and asian voters: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang?s=r https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang?s=r. But there's a whole lot of things--especially the things addressed in this article--that are not put to a popular vote. Do so-called "people of color" actually want the ABA to change well-worn principles of color-blind justice in favor of affirmative anti-racism? Do "people of color" want hospitals to send white people to the back of the vaccine line? Do they want hiring policies that expressly consider race? It doesn't matter because they don't get a vote.

rayiner 5y ago

> My constitutional law professor did some CRT scholarship in the 1980s and brought this perspective to our class* in an interesting way Exactly. Which is why it's bizarre to suggest that liberal professors at NYU and Northwestern are suddenly upset in 2022 about something that was routinely taught when they went to law school. It's more reasonable to assume that they're responding to something else that they're observing. > * circa 2009, when "CRT" was better known as a near-obsolete display technology than a boogeyman of the American political right. "CRT" is just a vernacular shorthand for a collection of ideas that have become prevalent in certain circles in the last few years, which share common threads such as abandoning the ideal of race neutrality in law and policy. It's similar to how "supply-side economics" being used to refer to Reaganite economic policies. Whether those ideas are technically CRT is beside the point. Opposition to that collection of ideas is not limited to the "American political right." Insofar as "CRT" encompasses, for example, Ibram Kendi's assertion that positive discrimination is required to overcome past discrimination, most Americans oppose that: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... (in college admission); https://www.insightintodiversity.com/majority-of-americans-believe-race-shouldnt-be-a-factor-in-hiring-pew-study-finds/ https://www.insightintodiversity.com/majority-of-americans-b... (in hiring decisions). Insofar as "CRT" is associated with various left-wing criminal justice ideas, most Americans, including so-called "people of color" oppose them: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha... The "American political right," moreover, is hardly the only one that has realized that these ideas and policies share common roots. Emmanuel Macron, of the French center, has come out against them too: https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-culture-thats-racializing-their-country-1634706 https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-... Insofar as more Democrats don't oppose CRT, I suspect it's because they haven't heard much about it or are skeptical that it's just a right-wing effort. But I sent this article to my dad--an immigrant from a Muslim country who has supported Democrats since Carter--and he expressed concerns about "critical race theory." Because he's a strong proponent of "color blindness" as a foundational principle of law and society. He was alarmed, as a public health expert, by proposals to prioritize non-whites for vaccinations. He was likewise alarmed by TJHSST, the high school I attended, recently abandoning its admissions test under the theory that it was "racist." I suspect there are a lot of Democrats like him who are skeptical that Republicans are acting in good faith, but don't actually agree with progressives that we need fundamental changes to our legal system.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ss108 5y ago
I generally agree with you on this, esp the point about Dem voters actually disliking it.
- rayiner 5y ago
  The thing I find scary is what I call the "LatinX" phenomenon--(overwhelmingly white) progressives being able to dictate policies affecting minorities over the preferences of those minorities: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in... A sobering example: if Justice Thomas votes against race-based college admissions in the Harvard case, white progressives will call him "racist" for adopting a view shared by 62% of Black people.
  - ss108 5y ago
    Yeah the latinx thing is really dumb (REALLY dumb), but also harmless, esp since almost no actual Hispanic person says that shit. Luckily Dem voters reject far left candidates in broader elections; see Biden, Eric Adams. Dems currently seem to elect moderates at a higher rate, whereas Republican moderates tend to have to retire (Flake, Kinzinger) or suffer vicious attacks and get voted out (Liz Cheney)
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > Yeah the latinx thing is really dumb (REALLY dumb), but also harmless, esp since almost no actual Hispanic person says that shit. It's harmless if you consider it in isolation. But I think it reflects a troubling power dynamic. At Northwestern they renamed "Hispanic Heritage Month" to "Latinx Heritage Month" (https://www.northwestern.edu/msa/programs/heritage-months/latinx-heritage-month.html https://www.northwestern.edu/msa/programs/heritage-months/la...). Big deal, sure. But it shows that white progressives and their allies have tremendous power over issues relating to minorities--down to what to call a group of minorities--and minorities have very little power to assert their own preferences. I don't think that's harmless. > Luckily Dem voters reject far left candidates in broader elections; see Biden, Eric Adams. I think this illustrates my point, though. In the primary, Black and Latino New Yorkers overwhelmingly supported Adams, while Asians supported Yang. But the Black, Latino, and Asian progressive activists mostly opposed both and sided with the candidates preferred by white progressives. Matt Yglesias wrote an excellent article addressing the disconnect between Asian actvists and asian voters: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang?s=r https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang?s=r. But there's a whole lot of things--especially the things addressed in this article--that are not put to a popular vote. Do so-called "people of color" actually want the ABA to change well-worn principles of color-blind justice in favor of affirmative anti-racism? Do "people of color" want hospitals to send white people to the back of the vaccine line? Do they want hiring policies that expressly consider race? It doesn't matter because they don't get a vote.