24 ms·

They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle

by pentae 4y ago

They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle for hating white people, basically. Now I know this is super trendy right now but I don't want to get emails from your organization about how woke and bigoted you are. Just sell me the damn SaaS tool we signed up for and keep your politics to yourself. We moved all our business away.

howinteresting 4y ago
- csa 4y ago
  You refer to the original/early version of CRT. In the 90s and beyond, CRT has expanded substantially in scope. It has also changed focus in terms of how it is utilized.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    Could you recommend some texts responsible for the change in scope? My understanding of CRT is that race is entirely a social construction, and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction and not anything with real biological basis. When did that change?
    - claudiawerner 4y ago
      That's not really a good understanding - it may seem pedantic, but legal theorists and sociologists have very little to say about the 'real biological basis' of race; it's simply not within their purview. However, it may be used as an assumption or presupposition or not considered at all. You mentioned 'and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction' which correctly describes CRT, but it doesn't have anything to do with the biology (or lack thereof) of race.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        I appreciate the feedback... Can you recommend any texts on CRT? My view is that of a layperson, I've never interacted with scholarly theory beyond reading shitposts about Hegel on telegram. But this is actually an interesting topic to me and I'd love to learn more.
    - csa 4y ago
      The Wikipedia page is not bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Note that Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995) was the widespread introduction of CRT into the field of education, which I think is the bit of CRT that is creating a lot of the fuss these days. Here is an article by Ladson-Billings: https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/documents/critical%20race%20theory%20what%20it%20is%20not.ashx?la=en https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/docu... Short summary of how CRT is perceived these days: https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-being-weaponised-whats-the-fuss-about https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/... This is a decent short article that explains how crt is being attacked in ways that are not “core” crt: https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752 https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-... In general, you can search for “critical race theory in $FIELD” and find out how the ideas have expanded beyond law. In my personal experience, here is what I have seen and experienced that has gone far beyond what core CRT is about: 1. CRT and postmodernism in academia often go hand-in-hand. In a gross over-simplification, this means that everything is socially constructed and there is no absolute truth. These ideas have merit and a place in academic research, but the reductio ad absurdum cases (some listed below) are not a really good look for a solid theory. 2. There are groups of people who call themselves liberals who cry “that’s racist” at what seems like every opportunity they can. When you engage them on the topic, they will sometimes begrudgingly acknowledge that they are referring to structural racism (which is not a difficult case to make). When asked what they would like me (or people like me) to do about something that I cannot control (being white), they don’t really have an answer other than “don’t be racist”, which isn’t what structural racism is about. These folks completely debase a very valid argument by invoking it in (imho) inappropriate ways, seemingly just for the sake of protesting or getting under the skin of moderates and conservatives. They don’t seem to realize that their actions are sometimes (often?) alienating the types of folks whose support that they need/want (i.e., open-minded moderates who do not want to be overtly and loudly labeled as racists due to structural racism). 3. In academic work (my first career), anything that is CRT-related becomes almost unassailable in review. The academic rigor in most CRT topics is laughable because, as designed, any rigor is considered oppression of some sort. The sad thing is that there is a small amount of really well done research that gets thrown in with the less good stuff, but it is all fairly tainted due to overall lack of rigor. 3a. Note that CRT topics and researchers are embraced at universities and some journals because it makes it much easier for them to reach diversity targets and publication targets (getting published in some sort of a CRT-themed journal is super easy, much like getting published in some sort of a tech-themed journal is super easy). 4. I have seen white people told in elite university classrooms that they should only be validating what non-white people are saying in the classroom discussions. This is despite the professor openly encouraging exchanging a diversity of views. 5. I have seen half-white people openly denounce the white half of their heritage because… reasons? In one specific case, an Asian American female who looks very Asian denounced her “white privilege” when probably 90% or more of her privilege came from her Asian side (her Asian side is well known in the community and is relatively wealthy, while her white side contributed mostly hard-to-see genetic privilege). In another case, a half white half Puerto Rican male who looks very white and has a white name aggressively denounced his white side and did academic research about the Puerto Rican struggle against the white man — as though he had any idea what it was like. His personal narrative research (popular in CRT) revealed that he had issues with his white father, and that was pretty much the source of all of his rage. Of course, based on CRT tenets, his research that was more about father-son and/or familial relationships became about racism writ large (unreasonably and inappropriately imho, even though the topic is very worthy of study). There are many, many cases like these. 6. For academics who are white, straight, males in the US, it is extremely difficult to get tenure in non-STEM departments/fields at high tier universities unless you go all in with CRT and post-modernism. Even then, it is tough. On the one hand, I appreciate that there is a wider range of views and life experiences that are represented in these fields. On the other hand, I am sad that a large swath of the US pool of potential academics is almost a priori excluded from becoming researchers in these fields. Note that I had tenure, so this didn’t effect me personally, but I have seen the impact on others (mostly in terms of opting out of an academic career). Note that I have some personal opinions that jibe with the data but aren’t really popular (which is one reason I left academia): - Every society has one or more privileged groups. This will be forever true. - The vast majority of privilege is determined by socio-economic status (SES). In the US, the numbers that seem to keep popping up are that about 5-10% of differences in most measures can be accounted for by race, and most/all of the rest is SES. Note that the one/main area that this may not hold true is in criminal prosecution in the US (not a legal scholar, so I’m not sure). - Changing SES is very difficult across generations, and I think I t’s a topic worthy of study. I think affirmative action in the US has made some useful progress in this area, but not in the ways that are typically cited. Incremental changes in SES are something that are measurable and achievable. Most attempted at large-scale change in SES have failed and will fail, imho, largely because it’s easy to change the E part of SES, but it’s much harder to change the S part (the much more salient part, imho).
- anonym29 4y ago
  To imply there is absolutely no overlap between the group of people espousing CRT and the group of people who believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died is to be willfully ignorant of an unfortunate reality. We should be taking the opportunity to disavow the latter on behalf of the good intentions of the former.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
    Do you have any actual data on how many people "believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died"? I don't mean this to be combative but without some actual survey data or something proving their significance, it seems like this is one of those "it feels true to me" things
    - skrbjc 4y ago
      This guy seems to be making a splash with his book about white people disappearing. With the general idea seeming to be the world would be better off. He’s reviewed favorably in many newspapers. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-white-man-mohsin-hamid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-whi...
  - RSieger1 4y ago
    Yes, unfortunately you're right. Ibram X. Kendi has been biting his tongue.
- skyyler 4y ago
- nonethewiser 4y ago

by pentae 4y ago

howinteresting 4y ago

csa 4y ago
You refer to the original/early version of CRT. In the 90s and beyond, CRT has expanded substantially in scope. It has also changed focus in terms of how it is utilized.
- skyyler 4y ago
  Could you recommend some texts responsible for the change in scope? My understanding of CRT is that race is entirely a social construction, and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction and not anything with real biological basis. When did that change?
  - claudiawerner 4y ago
    That's not really a good understanding - it may seem pedantic, but legal theorists and sociologists have very little to say about the 'real biological basis' of race; it's simply not within their purview. However, it may be used as an assumption or presupposition or not considered at all. You mentioned 'and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction' which correctly describes CRT, but it doesn't have anything to do with the biology (or lack thereof) of race.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      I appreciate the feedback... Can you recommend any texts on CRT? My view is that of a layperson, I've never interacted with scholarly theory beyond reading shitposts about Hegel on telegram. But this is actually an interesting topic to me and I'd love to learn more.
  - csa 4y ago
    The Wikipedia page is not bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Note that Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995) was the widespread introduction of CRT into the field of education, which I think is the bit of CRT that is creating a lot of the fuss these days. Here is an article by Ladson-Billings: https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/documents/critical%20race%20theory%20what%20it%20is%20not.ashx?la=en https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/docu... Short summary of how CRT is perceived these days: https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-being-weaponised-whats-the-fuss-about https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/... This is a decent short article that explains how crt is being attacked in ways that are not “core” crt: https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752 https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-... In general, you can search for “critical race theory in $FIELD” and find out how the ideas have expanded beyond law. In my personal experience, here is what I have seen and experienced that has gone far beyond what core CRT is about: 1. CRT and postmodernism in academia often go hand-in-hand. In a gross over-simplification, this means that everything is socially constructed and there is no absolute truth. These ideas have merit and a place in academic research, but the reductio ad absurdum cases (some listed below) are not a really good look for a solid theory. 2. There are groups of people who call themselves liberals who cry “that’s racist” at what seems like every opportunity they can. When you engage them on the topic, they will sometimes begrudgingly acknowledge that they are referring to structural racism (which is not a difficult case to make). When asked what they would like me (or people like me) to do about something that I cannot control (being white), they don’t really have an answer other than “don’t be racist”, which isn’t what structural racism is about. These folks completely debase a very valid argument by invoking it in (imho) inappropriate ways, seemingly just for the sake of protesting or getting under the skin of moderates and conservatives. They don’t seem to realize that their actions are sometimes (often?) alienating the types of folks whose support that they need/want (i.e., open-minded moderates who do not want to be overtly and loudly labeled as racists due to structural racism). 3. In academic work (my first career), anything that is CRT-related becomes almost unassailable in review. The academic rigor in most CRT topics is laughable because, as designed, any rigor is considered oppression of some sort. The sad thing is that there is a small amount of really well done research that gets thrown in with the less good stuff, but it is all fairly tainted due to overall lack of rigor. 3a. Note that CRT topics and researchers are embraced at universities and some journals because it makes it much easier for them to reach diversity targets and publication targets (getting published in some sort of a CRT-themed journal is super easy, much like getting published in some sort of a tech-themed journal is super easy). 4. I have seen white people told in elite university classrooms that they should only be validating what non-white people are saying in the classroom discussions. This is despite the professor openly encouraging exchanging a diversity of views. 5. I have seen half-white people openly denounce the white half of their heritage because… reasons? In one specific case, an Asian American female who looks very Asian denounced her “white privilege” when probably 90% or more of her privilege came from her Asian side (her Asian side is well known in the community and is relatively wealthy, while her white side contributed mostly hard-to-see genetic privilege). In another case, a half white half Puerto Rican male who looks very white and has a white name aggressively denounced his white side and did academic research about the Puerto Rican struggle against the white man — as though he had any idea what it was like. His personal narrative research (popular in CRT) revealed that he had issues with his white father, and that was pretty much the source of all of his rage. Of course, based on CRT tenets, his research that was more about father-son and/or familial relationships became about racism writ large (unreasonably and inappropriately imho, even though the topic is very worthy of study). There are many, many cases like these. 6. For academics who are white, straight, males in the US, it is extremely difficult to get tenure in non-STEM departments/fields at high tier universities unless you go all in with CRT and post-modernism. Even then, it is tough. On the one hand, I appreciate that there is a wider range of views and life experiences that are represented in these fields. On the other hand, I am sad that a large swath of the US pool of potential academics is almost a priori excluded from becoming researchers in these fields. Note that I had tenure, so this didn’t effect me personally, but I have seen the impact on others (mostly in terms of opting out of an academic career). Note that I have some personal opinions that jibe with the data but aren’t really popular (which is one reason I left academia): - Every society has one or more privileged groups. This will be forever true. - The vast majority of privilege is determined by socio-economic status (SES). In the US, the numbers that seem to keep popping up are that about 5-10% of differences in most measures can be accounted for by race, and most/all of the rest is SES. Note that the one/main area that this may not hold true is in criminal prosecution in the US (not a legal scholar, so I’m not sure). - Changing SES is very difficult across generations, and I think I t’s a topic worthy of study. I think affirmative action in the US has made some useful progress in this area, but not in the ways that are typically cited. Incremental changes in SES are something that are measurable and achievable. Most attempted at large-scale change in SES have failed and will fail, imho, largely because it’s easy to change the E part of SES, but it’s much harder to change the S part (the much more salient part, imho).
anonym29 4y ago
To imply there is absolutely no overlap between the group of people espousing CRT and the group of people who believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died is to be willfully ignorant of an unfortunate reality. We should be taking the opportunity to disavow the latter on behalf of the good intentions of the former.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  [flagged]
- thedorkknight 4y ago
  Do you have any actual data on how many people "believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died"? I don't mean this to be combative but without some actual survey data or something proving their significance, it seems like this is one of those "it feels true to me" things
  - skrbjc 4y ago
    This guy seems to be making a splash with his book about white people disappearing. With the general idea seeming to be the world would be better off. He’s reviewed favorably in many newspapers. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-white-man-mohsin-hamid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-whi...
- RSieger1 4y ago
  Yes, unfortunately you're right. Ibram X. Kendi has been biting his tongue.
skyyler 4y ago
nonethewiser 4y ago