Critical race theory (5 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Frankly, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Critical Race Theory curriculum. What is it, where does it come from, and is it legitimate? Has anyone here read it and maybe give a quick summary?

If this has been covered in another thread, then I missed it.

 

[samiam5211]

All of us are members of a collective whether we acknowledge it or not.

Individualists imagine a utopia that does not exist in reality.

 

[brandon]

So let's start with freedom and contrast what @Paul offered as his personal definition to what the actual definition is.

FREEDOM: Freedom is individualism and self reliance. However, some may see freedom as been a member of the collective where the government takes care of the citizens (a tradeoff).

Definition of freedom​

1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous freedom from care
d: unrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home
e: EASE, FACILITY spoke the language with freedom
f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom
g: improper familiarity
h: boldness of conception or execution
2a: a political right
b: FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE

So you'll see that @Paul probably personally finds freedom in individualism and self-reliance, but in reality, those aren't in any way defining characteristics of freedom. You can absolutely be free while working as part of a social fabric that betters society. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that definition c: "the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous" could meet the criteria, but only if you consider helping others to be onerous, in which case, well, ok then.

@Paul also suggests that freedom could be being a member of a collective where the government takes care of the citizens. I would assume Paul believes this to be an incorrect assessment of "true" freedom, and in that sense, he's right. There's no real definition of freedom that can be construed to involve being a member of a collective. However, freedom could potentially be increased in a society where the government does assist in taking care of its citizens via definition a: "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action," as government assistance in certain aspects does provide more choices to citizens (for example - the government builds roads from a rural town to a big city and now the people living in the rural town have fewer constraints in their choice of action, as they now have the opportunity to find work in the big city, rather than remaining in the small town, if they choose. Without the roads, their is constraint in their choice of action).

 

[brandon]

Next up, the ultimate boogeyman - equity. Here's @Paul's take:

EQUITY: I assume this means equal outcome. This is terrible because there is no equality. To try to achieve equity would be a catastrophe of major proportions because humans naturally exist in a hierarchy of talent and competency.

Here's reality:

Definition of equity​

1a: justice according to natural law or right specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b: something that is equitable
2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
3a: a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b: trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c: a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law

I believe there are probably a few of the m-w definitions that are explicity applicable here: 1a "justice according to natural law or right specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism," and 3c "a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law," and tangentially, 3a: "a system of law...comprising settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that...are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law."

Now at this point, @Paul would suggest that the way liberals use the word equity is not the dictionary definition of the word, and he's right about that. But his personal definition is lacking context. Equality of outcomes ARE, in fact, a goal of equity, but they are not guarantees of equity. Equity seeks to level the opportunity playing field so that equal outcomes are achievable, not that they are guaranteed.

Equity and equality are two strategies that are often used in an attempt to produce fairness, but the desired outcomes for the two are very different.

Equality suggests that everyone is at a particular starting point and should be treated the same. It seeks to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same level of support.

Equity, by way of contrast, aims to give everyone what they need to be successful. It focuses on ‘equality of outcomes’. This involves taking into account structures which might put particular groups at a disadvantage.

Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same aid. Equity, on the face of it, appears unfair, but it actively moves everyone closer to success by ‘leveling the playing field’. It is important to recognise that not everyone starts at the same place, and not everyone has the same needs – eg, a classroom made up of students with different learning styles.

As @Paul notes, people are different. I would agree with the sense that people do have different talents, work ethic, etc. However, the goal of equity is not to remove peoples' individualism, but rather, to equalize the obstacles (or lack thereof) that they have at the beginning of their journey that allows for the opportunity of an equal outcome. This does not imply a guarantee of equal outcome, as that would necessarily require putting limits on high achievers. But it does attempt to create a level playing field and a truly equal starting point, even if that means necessarily providing supports to one individual that another may not get.

Once there's a truly equal starting point, either devoid of structural and systematic advantages, or with supports provided to make up for structural and systematic advantages, we can finally see if the individualized "heirarchy of talent and competency" we see is real, or if it is artificially created due to societal systems that provide one set of individuals with advantages, or places another set of individuals at a disadvantage.

And in the case of rugged individualism, it stands to reason that you wouldn't want your wins to be dependent on inherent advantages you received from society, but by standing on your own two feet. So equity should be a natural desire of individualism, if only to prove that you're as good as you think you are.

 

[Paul]

So let's start with freedom and contrast what @Paul offered as his personal definition to what the actual definition is.




So you'll see that @Paul probably personally finds freedom in individualism and self-reliance, but in reality, those aren't in any way defining characteristics of freedom. You can absolutely be free while working as part of a social fabric that betters society. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that definition c: "the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous" could meet the criteria, but only if you consider helping others to be onerous, in which case, well, ok then.

@Paul also suggests that freedom could be being a member of a collective where the government takes care of the citizens. I would assume Paul believes this to be an incorrect assessment of "true" freedom, and in that sense, he's right. There's no real definition of freedom that can be construed to involve being a member of a collective. However, freedom could potentially be increased in a society where the government does assist in taking care of its citizens via definition a: "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action," as government assistance in certain aspects does provide more choices to citizens (for example - the government builds roads from a rural town to a big city and now the people living in the rural town have fewer constraints in their choice of action, as they now have the opportunity to find work in the big city, rather than remaining in the small town, if they choose. Without the roads, their is constraint in their choice of action).

I did not use the dictionary on purpose. As I said for some freedom is being part of the collective and to leave individualism behind. I am fully aware than in some circles individualism is a dirty word.

The question is: Are you really free if you have to take care of your neighbors (the collective)?

 

[Paul]

Next up, the ultimate boogeyman - equity. Here's @Paul's take:

Here's reality:


I believe there are probably a few of the m-w definitions that are explicity applicable here: 1a "justice according to natural law or right specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism," and 3c "a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law," and tangentially, 3a: "a system of law...comprising settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that...are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law."

Now at this point, @Paul would suggest that the way liberals use the word equity is not the dictionary definition of the word, and he's right about that. But his personal definition is lacking context. Equality of outcomes ARE, in fact, a goal of equity, but they are not guarantees of equity. Equity seeks to level the opportunity playing field so that equal outcomes are achievable, not that they are guaranteed.



As @Paul notes, people are different. I would agree with the sense that people do have different talents, work ethic, etc. However, the goal of equity is not to remove peoples' individualism, but rather, to equalize the obstacles (or lack thereof) that they have at the beginning of their journey that allows for the opportunity of an equal outcome. This does not imply a guarantee of equal outcome, as that would necessarily require putting limits on high achievers. But it does attempt to create a level playing field and a truly equal starting point, even if that means necessarily providing supports to one individual that another may not get.

Once there's a truly equal starting point, either devoid of structural and systematic advantages, or with supports provided to make up for structural and systematic advantages, we can finally see if the individualized "heirarchy of talent and competency" we see is real, or if it is artificially created due to societal systems that provide one set of individuals with advantages, or places another set of individuals at a disadvantage.

And in the case of rugged individualism, it stands to reason that you wouldn't want your wins to be dependent on inherent advantages you received from society, but by standing on your own two feet. So equity should be a natural desire of individualism, if only to prove that you're as good as you think you are.

I am glad you accept that equal outcomes are not possible.

Your write up assumes that individual achievement is due to societal advantages. How about biology and personality? You seem to doubt the natural hierarchy of competence among humans. That is interesting.

 

[bird]

FREEDOM: Freedom is individualism and self reliance. However, some may see freedom as been a member of the collective where the government takes care of the citizens (a tradeoff).

EQUALITY: There is no equality. Even siblings are not equal.

OPPORTUNITY: This is relative. Some see opportunities everywhere and others see barriers.

EQUITY: I assume this means equal outcome. This is terrible because there is no equality. To try to achieve equity would be a catastrophe of major proportions because humans naturally exist in a hierarchy of talent and competency.

THE LEFT: This speaks for itself, however, there is something interesting about the left. There are no limits on how far the left can go. The farther left, the greater the virtue.
CONSERVATIVE is to preserve the old traditions.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: That is a common with government programs that assume a univariate cause for a societal problem. The student loan fiasco comes to mind.

POLICE: I suggest you read Leviathan by Hobbes.

OK.

Your first definition as noted by Brandon is your philosophy. Individualism in this country is a part of theomythology. As for government taking care of the citizens this is RW-speak. You simply didn’t use the words “nanny state”.

Equality is, imo and thus my philosophy, value. Jefferson’s rhetoric applies here. His rhetoric on God-given rights does not. There are no God-given rights. Rights only exist in the context of the body politic. See Hannah Arendt in “On Revolution”.

Opportunity issues derive from real to artificial constraints. Real constraints are things like physical barriers. These impede opportunity for those with physical issues. Artificial constraints are legal, social and economic in nature. Jim Crow is an obvious one.

Equity does not mean equal outcome. And humans do not live in a hierarchy of talent and competency. We only need look at the previous holder of the highest office in the land to lay that to rest. Humans live in a society wherein groupism is the primary method of determining who is friend or foe. The combination of money talks, I’ll scratch your back/you’ll scratch mine, having a “rabbi”, ”legacy”, quid pro quo etc ad nauseum results in people being praised and glorified for talent they lack simply due to circumstances, mostly accumulation of money. Expertise and especially the lack thereof is overlooked because the wealthy person must have knowledge, wisdom and talent to solve any problem when the reality is they may be no more competent than the next person.

Your response regarding the left is empty and not well thought out. Pinochet, death squads, fascism (which started as a reaction against capitalism and came to power when conservatives thought they could control them and so made common cause with them) are examples of the right having no limits on how far they will go. The RW stormed the capital on January 6 egged on by the incompetent and untalented hack who held the presidency previously.

Unintended consequences applies to any bureaucracy. Your personal philosophy claims it applies particularly to government. A few things give lie to that. We can start with financial engineering. This almost crashed the world’s economy. Hyman Minsky knew this would happen and, in fact, many referred to the crash as a ”Minsky moment”.

The key issue of the police function is that they are alleged to be part of the community while exercising power over the community due to the nature of the state having control over the levers of violence. What is interesting to notice is the concept of law and order. The second word is of greater importance. It harkens to “keeping them in their place.”

if conservative is to preserve old traditions then conservative is to oppose change and the advancement of man. Women voting was opposed. Blacks voting was opposed. Women working in any field deemed ”a man’s job” was opposed. Women or minorities holding office was opposed. The list is endless.

 

[brandon]

I did not use the dictionary on purpose.

I understand that, but by using your own definition, you're allowing your biases to cloud the definition of these words and thereby allowing you to project your biases onto what you think liberals believe these words to mean.

See below:

I am fully aware than in some circles individualism is a dirty word.

As a pretty lefty liberal, I'm here to tell you that we don't believe individualism is a dirty word. I fully believe that I am successful because I am individually better than a lot of my peers. That doesn't mean that I didn't also have an inherent societal advantage of being a white heterosexual male in a society that favors white heterosexual males. Ergo, I recognize that my individual successes are not entirely, completely tied to my individual desire, work ethic, etc. See the equity discussion above.

The question is: Are you really free if you have to take care of your neighbors (the collective)?

You keep using the word "collective," which obviously has Communist undertones, which is another example of your subconscious projection of what you believe liberals think freedom means.

Let me go out on a limb for a second and ask you a religious question: are you a Christian? Evangelical, perhaps?

The reason I ask is that there is a very clear mandate in the Bible to "love thy neighbor as thyself (Matthew 22:39)" and yet also, II Corinthians 3:17 (that's Second Corinthians for all the Trumpists) says "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

So the Bible seems to indicate that there can absolutely be freedom while taking care of your neighbors. But that's all a side note, especially if you're not one who believes the Bible.

So to answer you on a personal level, I think it goes back to the definition of freedom. This one from m-w seems to align with what you're saying:

a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

e.g. if you're coerced into paying taxes to take care of your neighbor, you have been constrained in choice (as in, with what you can do with your money), and ergo, you are not free.

But I would argue that you are still very much "free" in an overall sense - there are just limits on your freedom. And society has always placed limits on your freedom. For example, a counter-question would be "are you truly free if you cannot murder anyone you choose for any reason? Are you truly free if you cannot have sex with any and every woman you wish?"

Of course you're still, on the whole, very much a free person. There's just limits placed on your freedom by society based on what society has deemed necessary and appropriate for the overall good of society rather than the good of each individual. Thus, society has determined that putting a limit on your freedom (taxes/laws against murder and rape) is overall in the best interest of the greatest number of individuals, and therefore is a necessary limit to your individual, personal freedom.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Direct question for you @Paul because your responses previously....well, you haven't really responded to what I've asked about your premise that white people will move to support trumpism if others say things that aggravate them.

Let's talk about the rest of white people in America that want things to improve. If they are perennially put down they may eventually become disinterested or even adopt the so-called white identity. Do not drive this people to the far right with incendiary rhetoric.

It is your belief, as expressed in the post above, that more and more white folks will become turned off by people "putting them down". If this is the case, then those folks never really had any convictions of their beliefs that they could/would allow rhetoric to make them believe and support something that they currently claim to not believe in or support?

As an example, do you believe that if you are not a rapist, you can be turned into a rapist if enough people call you a rapist? That's essentially what you are saying. Can you answer that question?

I ask because black folks have been put down both literally and figuratively since they arrived in the country and still they rise. Are you saying that white people don't possess the qualities necessary to overcome in the face of "incendiary rhetoric?"

 

[brandon]

Your write up assumes that individual achievement is due to societal advantages. How about biology and personality? You seem to doubt the natural hierarchy of competence among humans. That is interesting.

If that is what you understood from my post, then I failed to communicate clearly.

I do absolutely believe there are differences in competency from person to person. I struggle to use the word 'heirarchy' as you do, as that seems to imply a more rigid structure that does not allow for upward mobility, which I believe is obviously an important part of this freedom/equity discussion.

But I also recognize that many times, the heirarchy (and in this case, I do think the word is appropriate) we see may not be the full picture. My argument is that the heirarchy we see is not determined only by the competency of the people competing in the system, but rather that the system itself provides inherent advantages and disadvantages to some of the competitors that must be either removed or compensated for to allow for a truly fair playing field for the competitors.

Only then can we truly allow individual competency to be the determining factor on overall winners and losers. I am not arguing that certain competitors are not more competent than others. I am arguing that the system in which we operate is not allowing all competitors to have an equal opportunity to win due to structural issues that must be addressed to allow individualism to shine.

 

[Paul]

If that is what you understood from my post, then I failed to communicate clearly.

I do absolutely believe there are differences in competency from person to person. I struggle to use the word 'heirarchy' as you do, as that seems to imply a more rigid structure that does not allow for upward mobility, which I believe is obviously an important part of this freedom/equity discussion.

But I also recognize that many times, the heirarchy (and in this case, I do think the word is appropriate) we see may not be the full picture. My argument is that the heirarchy we see is not determined only by the competency of the people competing in the system, but rather that the system itself provides inherent advantages and disadvantages to some of the competitors that must be either removed or compensated for to allow for a truly fair playing field for the competitors.

Only then can we truly allow individual competency to be the determining factor on overall winners and losers. I am not arguing that certain competitors are not more competent than others. I am arguing that the system in which we operate is not allowing all competitors to have an equal opportunity to win due to structural issues that must be addressed to allow individualism to shine.

You are correct! There is such a thing as privilege. It is no surprise that all the kids of Al Gore went to Harvard. Obama's daughter was also admitted Harvard. By the same token the children of highly affluent Hollywood elites with money to pay for the best tutoring in the world had to cheat to try to get their children admitted to a prestigious university. Despite all the money in the world their kids were not smart enough and they hired other kids to take the ASAT exams for them.

Nevertheless, in many instances privilege generates more privilege. The so-called Matthew effect.

 

[brandon]

You are correct! There is such a thing as privilege. It is no surprise that all the kids of Al Gore went to Harvard. Obama's daughter was also admitted Harvard. By the same token the children of highly affluent Hollywood elites with money to pay for the best tutoring in the world had to cheat to try to get their children admitted to a prestigious university. Despite all the money in the world their kids were not smart enough and they hired other kids to take the ASAT exams for them.

Nevertheless, in many instances privilege generates more privilege. The so-called Matthew effect.

I'm not sure if your post is complete or if you're in the process of editing to add more information, but I'll address what I see right now.

First of all, thank you for acknowledging that I'm correct. Of course I am, that's how these conversations always go.

But it was a deft turn to shift the discussion from equity to privilege. But if you acknowledge that privilege exists, then you should hopefully also acknowledge the need for equity to correct the fairness problems that privilege injects into the system.

Now, the next question is, should we punish those who have been given the societal advantages they enjoy? Or would it be better to instead provide the same advantages to the ones who don't have them? Either way will look like unfairness to the ones who already enjoy privilege.

In the case of the achievement gap that you posted, I'm not sure what your argument is. I recognize that the gap begins early. The equity question is, "what do we do about it?" Do we just shrug our shoulders and say "that's just the way it is!" or do we try to provide some supports to those families on welfare/in the working class (like free, universal Pre-K classes, for instance) that could help narrow the gap so that those children stand a better chance at an equal opportunity by the time they get to school?

 

[DaveXA]

Direct question for you @Paul because your responses previously....well, you haven't really responded to what I've asked about your premise that white people will move to support trumpism if others say things that aggravate them.



It is your belief, as expressed in the post above, that more and more white folks will become turned off by people "putting them down". If this is the case, then those folks never really had any convictions of their beliefs that they could/would allow rhetoric to make them believe and support something that they currently claim to not believe in or support?

As an example, do you believe that if you are not a rapist, you can be turned into a rapist if enough people call you a rapist? That's essentially what you are saying. Can you answer that question?

I ask because black folks have been put down both literally and figuratively since they arrived in the country and still they rise. Are you saying that white people don't possess the qualities necessary to overcome in the face of "incendiary rhetoric?"

I would just say that "incendiary rhetoric" can make people defensive, even if the rhetoric is indirect. So maybe not push people to Trumpers, but it could possibly alienate them.

I try to steer clear of that rhetoric because it doesn't give much room for people to actually consider that their position might be problematic. I know cynicism is strong with a lot of us, but we're better off when we don't let our cynicism get the best of us.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A couple shirts in the video ( I would also hardly call this an insane rant)

 

[Paul]

A couple shirts in the video ( I would also hardly call this an insane rant)

She is correct, however, I would hate to be a 12 year old non-white student and listen to the teachers say that I have no chance of success because the system is against me. If the kid hears this everyday he or she will a sense of hopelessness. There must be a way to teach this and at the same time give the children a sense of hope and pride.

 

[Paul]

First of all, thank you for acknowledging that I'm correct. Of course I am, that's how these conversations always go.

Socrates said: "I only know I know nothing".

Now, the next question is, should we punish those who have been given the societal advantages they enjoy? Or would it be better to instead provide the same advantages to the ones who don't have them? Either way will look like unfairness to the ones who already enjoy privilege.

In the case of the achievement gap that you posted, I'm not sure what your argument is. I recognize that the gap begins early. The equity question is, "what do we do about it?" Do we just shrug our shoulders and say "that's just the way it is!" or do we try to provide some supports to those families on welfare/in the working class (like free, universal Pre-K classes, for instance) that could help narrow the gap so that those children stand a better chance at an equal opportunity by the time they get to school?

The family a child is born to is a lottery. It is no accident that the children from a competent educated two parent household outperform those children that are born into a one parent dysfunctional home. This is the root of privilege. This is the system that decides who is a winner and who is a loser.

Head start failed. It provided some minimal gains that were lost by the time the kid reached the teen years. We need to fix the homes, that explains why the children of Indians, East Asian, and Nigerian immigrants do well. They have a solid home environment. How come no one talks about that?

 

[Optimus Prime]

She is correct, however, I would hate to be a 12 year old non-white student and listen to the teachers say that I have no chance of success because the system is against me. If the kid hears this everyday he or she will a sense of hopelessness. There must be a way to teach this and at the same time give the children a sense of hope and pride.

I disagree with this take. I think that's what too many people think what CRT is all about

I would hate to be a 12 year old non-white student and listen to the teachers say that I have no chance of success because the system is against me

I would hate to be a 12 year old white student and listen to the teachers say that I am racist, the country is racist and I have a greater chance of success because the system is rigged in my favor

And this take makes it easy to rail against

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"

Don't we love to throw that old chestnut around all the time?

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, expect for racial issues, then it's best to let sleeping dogs lie"

 

[Paul]

I'm here to tell you that we don't believe individualism is a dirty word. I fully believe that I am successful because I am individually better than a lot of my peers. That doesn't mean that I didn't also have an inherent societal advantage of being a white heterosexual male in a society that favors white heterosexual males. Ergo, I recognize that my individual successes are not entirely, completely tied to my individual desire, work ethic, etc. See the equity discussion above.

I am glad you recognize individualism. I am not in love with the concept of judging a person negatively because of gender or skin color. We can seek equal opportunity without demonizing other groups.

You keep using the word "collective," which obviously has Communist undertones.

Let me go out on a limb for a second and ask you a religious question: are you a Christian? Evangelical, perhaps?

I am an agnostic. If there is such a thing as God it has no place in government unless the God thing has become a cultural value. The collective has no communism meaning to me.

The reason I ask is that there is a very clear mandate in the Bible to "love thy neighbor as thyself (Matthew 22:39)" and yet also, II Corinthians 3:17 (that's Second Corinthians for all the Trumpists) says "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

So the Bible seems to indicate that there can absolutely be freedom while taking care of your neighbors. But that's all a side note, especially if you're not one who believes the Bible.

There is some value in Christianity if one removes the mythological stories. The Sermon on The Mount by Jesus is one of the first writings that advocates social justice.

So to answer you on a personal level, I think it goes back to the definition of freedom. This one from m-w seems to align with what you're saying:

e.g. if you're coerced into paying taxes to take care of your neighbor, you have been constrained in choice (as in, with what you can do with your money), and ergo, you are not free.

You are quite correct, there is no absolute freedom. However, I would want to be as free as possible. But, I understand why others see freedom in a different manner and they would gladly joint the collective as they give up individualism

But I would argue that you are still very much "free" in an overall sense - there are just limits on your freedom. And society has always placed limits on your freedom. For example, a counter-question would be "are you truly free if you cannot murder anyone you choose for any reason? Are you truly free if you cannot have sex with any and every woman you wish?"

That is an argument commonly used by socialists when they want to justify the coercion that is needed to have a society that is based on socialism.

Of course you're still, on the whole, very much a free person. There's just limits placed on your freedom by society based on what society has deemed necessary and appropriate for the overall good of society rather than the good of each individual. Thus, society has determined that putting a limit on your freedom (taxes/laws against murder and rape) is overall in the best interest of the greatest number of individuals, and therefore is a necessary limit to your individual, personal freedom.

Sure, no disagreement. Read Leviathan
By the way I am truly in the middle and favor National Medicare as well as free college for those that are qualified. I also have zero issues with LGBTQIA++ and abortion.

 

[Paul]

I disagree with this take. I think that's what too many people think what CRT is all about

I would hate to be a 12 year old non-white student and listen to the teachers say that I have no chance of success because the system is against me

I would hate to be a 12 year old white student and listen to the teachers say that I am racist, the country is racist and I have a greater chance of success because the system is rigged in my favor

And this take makes it easy to rail against

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"

Don't we love to throw that old chestnut around all the time?

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, expect for racial issues, then it's best to let sleeping dogs lie"

Schools have been teaching some form of CRT without incendiary language for years. There is nothing wrong with that. CRT became an issue when the language was deemed to be divisive.