Critical race theory (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[SaintForLife]

Unrelated to CRT except it’s a fascinating example of how the way things were set up in the past can have an impact today in unexpected and unrealized ways

Remind me what government office Hunter Biden holds? He's irrelevant. I'd care just as much about Tiffany Trump's laptop.


This thread started 5/20/2021 - Still waiting for someone to show me where CRT was in education, or even well known, in May of 2020. You keep posting CRT events that are recent and trying to use that as some gotcha that the original statement was wrong.

Hunter is the President’s son and it’s quite obvious that people are buying influence with Joe through Hunter. Hunter isn’t in government is a weak deflection. Do you think people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars because they think Hunter is an excellent artist?

 

[SaintForLife]

John McWhorter in a New York Times Newsletter:​

​

Let’s not kid ourselves. Some schools teach critical race theory lite.​

...A common justification for this view is the observation that critical race theory is in fact not being taught in Virginia’s schools or anywhere other than law schools and university seminars and that political opposition to it is cover for something smaller and meaner. That a critical mass of white people doesn’t want schools to teach about the realities of slavery or America’s past racist injustices at all, favoring instead a glossed-over, triumphalist apple-pie-and-Chevrolet narrative.

The pessimism in this take on America’s racial progress can seem almost fantastical considering clear advances in attitudes about race in recent years: A 2020 Monmouth University poll found that 76 percent — including 71 percent of white respondents — considered racial and ethnic discrimination in this country a “big problem,” compared with just 51 percent who said the same in 2015. Gallup found that from 1958 to 2021, approval of marriage between white and Black people has gone from 4 percent to 94 percent. A July Reuters-Ipsos poll found that 78 percent “support teaching high school students about the impacts of slavery” and 73 percent support teaching high school students about the impacts of racism.​

It’s reasonable, yes, to note the partisan divide on some of these questions, but less reasonable to suggest that there’s a consensus against any discussion of slavery and racism in schools. Let’s give that suggestion its weight, however: If critical race theory isn’t being taught to children — and in a technical sense, it isn’t — then it’s hardly illogical to suppose that some other concern may be afoot.​

The problem lies in the name “critical race theory.” It’s a no-brainer that the legal doctrine developed decades ago by scholars such as the Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell and the Columbia University and U.C.L.A. law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw is not being taught to tots. (Even one of critical race theory’s principal critics, the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo, has acknowledged that he’s tried to make “critical race theory” a catchall term.) But today, this isn’t what most voters mean when they object to critical race theory, and to participate in this debate as if otherwise is quibbling at best, and a smoke screen at worst. ...However, this “critical” approach has trickled down, in broad outline, into the philosophy of education-school pedagogy and administration — call it C.R.T.-lite or, if you prefer, C.R.T. Jr. — and from there migrated into the methods used by graduates of those education programs into the way they wind up running schools.​ Under this approach, what alarms many parents and other observers is that kids will absorb the idea that it is enlightened to see white people as potential oppressors and Black people as perpetual victims of an inherently oppressive system. That it is therefore appropriate to ascribe certain traits to races, rather than individuals, and that education must “center” the battle against power differentials between groups and the subtle perceptions that they condition.​ An implication some educators draw from these tenets is that various expectations of some of their students, based on what are generally thought to be ordinary mainstream assumptions, are instead onerous stipulations from an oppressive white-centric view. Hence an idea that it is white to be on time, arrive at precise answers and reason from A to B, rather than holistically, etc. Again, this is not what decades-old critical race theory scholarship proposed, but yes, the idea is descended from original C.R.T.’s fundamental propositions about white supremacy. In Virginia itself, the Department of Education’s website has a page devoted to “Anti-racism in Education,” and at the end of a long list of “Terms and Definitions” it reads, “Drawing from critical race theory, the term ‘white supremacy’ also refers to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy structural advantage and rights that other racial and ethnic groups do not, both at a collective and an individual level.”​ In the 2022 draft revision of the California Department of Education’s “Mathematics Framework,” the chapter on “Teaching for Equity and Engagement” includes this language: “Empowering students with mathematics also includes removing the high stakes of errors and sending the message that learning is always unfinished and that it is safe to take mathematical risks. This mind-set creates the conditions for students to develop a sense of ownership over their mathematical thinking and their right to belong to the discipline of mathematics” — a truly artful way of saying that “diverse” kids should not be saddled with the onerous task of having to get the actual answers.​ In February, the Oregon Department of Education sent an update to math educators that linked to a document titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction/Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.” It contains a section on “Deconstructing Racism in Mathematics Instruction” positing that “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom can show up” in a variety of ways, including when “Preconceived expectations are steeped in the dominant culture,” “Superficial curriculum changes are offered in place of culturally relevant pedagogy and practice” and “Students are required to ‘show their work’ in standardized, prescribed ways." In some cases, evidence of C.R.T.-lite is easier to spot at various private schools. Granted, governors can’t “ban” private school curriculums, but the experience at some tony New York prep schools, for instance, demonstrates how C.R.T.-lite isn’t simply found in teacher trainings but can make its way into the classroom and schools’ educational philosophy. As The Times reported earlier this year:​ The Brearley School declared itself an antiracist school with mandatory antiracism training for parents, faculty and trustees, and affirmed the importance of meeting regularly in groups that bring together people who share a common race or gender. Kindergarten students at Riverdale Country School in the Bronx are taught to identify their skin color by mixing paint colors. The lower-school chief in an email last year instructed parents to avoid talk of colorblindness and “acknowledge racial differences.”​

If it’s not C.R.T., it’s C.R.T.-lite

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[MT15]

Christopher Rufo is the architect of the lies about CRT. He admitted it in writing! He said he was going to “rebrand” CRT so that it meant whatever he wanted it to mean. He further said that whenever a conservative sees something he didn’t like going on in the schools they were going to think it was CRT because of his efforts.

And you somehow think this is the guy who is telling the truth about this matter?

Come on, man!

And he is pointing to an Opinion column. That doesn’t reflect the Washington Post admitting anything about its actual reporting. An opinion column from a Fox News contributor, American Enterprise Institute fellow, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

You sure do pick and choose who you believe according to whether they say something you like or not.

 

[Farb]

I think the term the grifter X kendi coined is racial essentialism. Pair that with gender theory and no wonder our children are a complete mess at this point. But racism.

 

[MT15]

Hunter is the President’s son and it’s quite obvious that people are buying influence with Joe through Hunter. Hunter isn’t in government is a weak deflection. Do you think people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars because they think Hunter is an excellent artist?

If it is obvious you can surely back up that accusation, right?

Yes, it is possible that people are trying to buy influence, or they think buying some art may help, but that happens everywhere. Remember Billy Beer? In order to make that charge stick, you need to prove that influence was actually accomplished.

I don’t think you have a shred of evidence of that. But if you do, let’s see it.

 

[MT15]

John McWhorter in a New York Times Newsletter:​

​

Let’s not kid ourselves. Some schools teach critical race theory lite.​

...A common justification for this view is the observation that critical race theory is in fact not being taught in Virginia’s schools or anywhere other than law schools and university seminars and that political opposition to it is cover for something smaller and meaner. That a critical mass of white people doesn’t want schools to teach about the realities of slavery or America’s past racist injustices at all, favoring instead a glossed-over, triumphalist apple-pie-and-Chevrolet narrative.

The pessimism in this take on America’s racial progress can seem almost fantastical considering clear advances in attitudes about race in recent years: A 2020 Monmouth University poll found that 76 percent — including 71 percent of white respondents — considered racial and ethnic discrimination in this country a “big problem,” compared with just 51 percent who said the same in 2015. Gallup found that from 1958 to 2021, approval of marriage between white and Black people has gone from 4 percent to 94 percent. A July Reuters-Ipsos poll found that 78 percent “support teaching high school students about the impacts of slavery” and 73 percent support teaching high school students about the impacts of racism.​

It’s reasonable, yes, to note the partisan divide on some of these questions, but less reasonable to suggest that there’s a consensus against any discussion of slavery and racism in schools. Let’s give that suggestion its weight, however: If critical race theory isn’t being taught to children — and in a technical sense, it isn’t — then it’s hardly illogical to suppose that some other concern may be afoot.​

The problem lies in the name “critical race theory.” It’s a no-brainer that the legal doctrine developed decades ago by scholars such as the Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell and the Columbia University and U.C.L.A. law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw is not being taught to tots. (Even one of critical race theory’s principal critics, the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo, has acknowledged that he’s tried to make “critical race theory” a catchall term.) But today, this isn’t what most voters mean when they object to critical race theory, and to participate in this debate as if otherwise is quibbling at best, and a smoke screen at worst. ​ ...However, this “critical” approach has trickled down, in broad outline, into the philosophy of education-school pedagogy and administration — call it C.R.T.-lite or, if you prefer, C.R.T. Jr. — and from there migrated into the methods used by graduates of those education programs into the way they wind up running schools.​ Under this approach, what alarms many parents and other observers is that kids will absorb the idea that it is enlightened to see white people as potential oppressors and Black people as perpetual victims of an inherently oppressive system. That it is therefore appropriate to ascribe certain traits to races, rather than individuals, and that education must “center” the battle against power differentials between groups and the subtle perceptions that they condition.​ An implication some educators draw from these tenets is that various expectations of some of their students, based on what are generally thought to be ordinary mainstream assumptions, are instead onerous stipulations from an oppressive white-centric view. Hence an idea that it is white to be on time, arrive at precise answers and reason from A to B, rather than holistically, etc. Again, this is not what decades-old critical race theory scholarship proposed, but yes, the idea is descended from original C.R.T.’s fundamental propositions about white supremacy. ​ In Virginia itself, the Department of Education’s website has a page devoted to “Anti-racism in Education,” and at the end of a long list of “Terms and Definitions” it reads, “Drawing from critical race theory, the term ‘white supremacy’ also refers to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy structural advantage and rights that other racial and ethnic groups do not, both at a collective and an individual level.”​ In the 2022 draft revision of the California Department of Education’s “Mathematics Framework,” the chapter on “Teaching for Equity and Engagement” includes this language: “Empowering students with mathematics also includes removing the high stakes of errors and sending the message that learning is always unfinished and that it is safe to take mathematical risks. This mind-set creates the conditions for students to develop a sense of ownership over their mathematical thinking and their right to belong to the discipline of mathematics” — a truly artful way of saying that “diverse” kids should not be saddled with the onerous task of having to get the actual answers.​ In February, the Oregon Department of Education sent an update to math educators that linked to a document titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction/Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.” It contains a section on “Deconstructing Racism in Mathematics Instruction” positing that “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom can show up” in a variety of ways, including when “Preconceived expectations are steeped in the dominant culture,” “Superficial curriculum changes are offered in place of culturally relevant pedagogy and practice” and “Students are required to ‘show their work’ in standardized, prescribed ways." ​ In some cases, evidence of C.R.T.-lite is easier to spot at various private schools. Granted, governors can’t “ban” private school curriculums, but the experience at some tony New York prep schools, for instance, demonstrates how C.R.T.-lite isn’t simply found in teacher trainings but can make its way into the classroom and schools’ educational philosophy. As The Times reported earlier this year:​ The Brearley School declared itself an antiracist school with mandatory antiracism training for parents, faculty and trustees, and affirmed the importance of meeting regularly in groups that bring together people who share a common race or gender. Kindergarten students at Riverdale Country School in the Bronx are taught to identify their skin color by mixing paint colors. The lower-school chief in an email last year instructed parents to avoid talk of colorblindness and “acknowledge racial differences.”​

If it’s not C.R.T., it’s C.R.T.-lite

Look at this paragraph:

“The problem lies in the name “critical race theory.” It’s a no-brainer that the legal doctrine developed decades ago by scholars such as the Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell and the Columbia University and U.C.L.A. law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw is not being taught to tots. (Even one of critical race theory’s principal critics, the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo, has acknowledged that he’s tried to make “critical race theory” a catchall term.) But today, this isn’t what most voters mean when they object to critical race theory, and to participate in this debate as if otherwise is quibbling at best, and a smoke screen at worst.”

He is saying that it’s a “no-brainer” that CRT is not being “taught to tots”. He goes on to mention that Rufo has “rebranded” CRT as a catch-all term. Then he takes people to task who just don’t go along with the rebranding, saying it’s “quibbling at best and a smoke screen at worst” to actually object to a Republican activist changing the meaning of the term.

So, he knows CRT isn’t being taught to kids, and that Rs have changed the meaning to whatever they want it to mean, and he’s fine with that. But people who think words have meanings and you can‘t just make them mean something new because you want to advance a political agenda are the ones being dishonest here?

I have a hard time taking him as an objective person after that logical sleight of hand.

 

[Farb]

If it is obvious you can surely back up that accusation, right?

Yes, it is possible that people are trying to buy influence, or they think buying some art may help, but that happens everywhere. Remember Billy Beer? In order to make that charge stick, you need to prove that influence was actually accomplished.

I don’t think you have a shred of evidence of that. But if you do, let’s see it.

Nothing rings a bell about Trump's kids the last 5 years? Nothing? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[MT15]

Look at this paragraph:

“In the 2022 draft revision of the California Department of Education’s “Mathematics Framework,” the chapter on “Teaching for Equity and Engagement” includes this language: “Empowering students with mathematics also includes removing the high stakes of errors and sending the message that learning is always unfinished and that it is safe to take mathematical risks. This mind-set creates the conditions for students to develop a sense of ownership over their mathematical thinking and their right to belong to the discipline of mathematics” — a truly artful way of saying that “diverse” kids should not be saddled with the onerous task of having to get the actual answers.”

His conclusion is not at all what the paragraph he quotes says. Like you have to be truly cynical and willfully read into what was said and assume it is saying that students don’t need to know the correct answers.

 

[MT15]

Nothing rings a bell about Trump's kids the last 5 years? Nothing? Bueller? Bueller?

Trump’s term was all about buying influence. There was plenty of evidence, multiple violations of the Hatch Act, by his kids and his other flacks, like his press secretary. Nice try, though.

His daughter posed in the WH with a can of beans to promote one of their big political donors.

 

[MT15]

SFL, I wonder why you left this paragraph out? You posted most of the opinion column.

“To be sure, voices on the political right, including Youngkin, must do better when it comes to specifying what they oppose. They, and we, would be better off if they explained that they oppose philosophies influenced by critical race theory, rather than claiming C.R.T. itself is being taught. Bills intended to ban the teaching of C.R.T.-lite shouldn’t be worded as if the intent was to ban the teaching of anything about race at all. And if that’s what any of these bills do mean, they should spell it out in clear language in order to expose that intent to debate — one within which I would be vociferously opposed, I should note. The horror of slavery, the hypocrisy of Jim Crow, the terror of lynching, the devastating loss of life and property in Tulsa and in other massacres — no student should get through, roughly, middle school ignorant of these things, and anyone who thinks that is “politics” needs to join the rest of us in the 21st century.”

 

[JRad]

Hunter is the President’s son and it’s quite obvious that people are buying influence with Joe through Hunter. Hunter isn’t in government is a weak deflection. Do you think people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars because they think Hunter is an excellent artist?

Prove it if it's so obvious. What's happening, right now, that backs this up?

 

[insidejob]

Prove it if it's so obvious. What's happening, right now, that backs this up?

Come on, man. Are you really asking for a wall of other peoples' tweets that specifically aren't what you're asking for?

 

[JRad]

Come on, man. Are you really asking for a wall of other peoples' tweets that specifically aren't what you're asking for?

Well, we know we aren't going to get an original thought on it.

 

[samiam5211]

Hunter is the President’s son and it’s quite obvious that people are buying influence with Joe through Hunter. Hunter isn’t in government is a weak deflection. Do you think people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars because they think Hunter is an excellent artist?

Do you think that maybe crackheads say things they can't follow through on?

I have no doubt that Hunter's art sales are shady, but there isn't really anything Joe can do to stop Hunter from participating in Capitalism.

 

[insidejob]

Do you think that maybe crackheads say things they can't follow through on?

I have no doubt that Hunter's art sales are shady, but there isn't really anything Joe can do to stop Hunter from participating in Capitalism.

And it isn't like Joe has him working in the White House, a la the Trump mob.

 

[JRad]

Prove it if it's so obvious. What's happening, right now, that backs this up?

Well, we know we aren't going to get an original thought on it.

I’m gonna expand on this a bit more…

I don’t watch cable news. I don’t really do social media. My opinions on matters are based on the available evidence. If I see an article stating “President Smith was taking bribes”, I’m going to read it, and I‘m going to want to see it at least one other place. If I see loaded language, I’m not going to consider that a good source. And that goes both ways - facts are not partisan.
My opinions aren’t set in stone, so when I ask “what’s your opinion on this” “show me the evidence” etc, I really want to see it. I can’t understand your viewpoint if you can’t express it.

I asked tigerfan to explain CRT and defund, and got non-answers
I ask SFL to prove these “easily provable” things, and I just get a wall of tweets with loaded language, or some other blow off nonsense
I’ve been asking for anyone to show CRT was widely taught/known about before it became a talking point, and no one has been able to
I was told I should be blaming Pete for supply chain issues, and I initially agreed until I did some research. I got no/non-answers when I asked what the solution was.
I was told Biden was at fault for the Afghan pull out mess - and I agreed

Conversely, the ”other side of the argument“ posts are generally, you know, actual posts with opinions and other cool stuff like that.

If you want someone to sway their opinion and see things your way, a little effort goes a long way. Give an opinion. Convince me. Drive-by “it’s obvious” or some drop in tweet aren‘t really a compelling reason to change my mind. I’m left assuming you don’t really even know why you think a certain way if you can’t express it.

Thank you for attending my ted talk

 

[Optimus Prime]

this could have gone in a number of threads

I've known about redlining for a long time but just read about the highways about a year or so ago
=============================

Another day, another manufactured right-wing outrage about America’s history of systemic racism. On Monday, White House correspondent for The Grio April Ryan asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg how the infrastructure bill will “deconstruct the racism that was built into the roadways.” Secretary Buttigieg, who has talked about this issue before, delivered a response that would set right-wing Twitter on fire with white-hot rage.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sarcastically tweeted, “The roads are racist. We must get rid of roads.” Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, who has himself sparked backlash over the past year for echoing the white supremacist Great Replacement theory, tweeted a video segment mocking Secretary Buttigieg’s remarks, adding: “Inanimate objects, like roads, can’t be racist. That seems obvious, though apparently Pete Buttigieg doesn’t know this.”

Actually, Buttigieg does know this, and so does everyone else who has rightfully pointed out the history of systemic racism in America’s infrastructure. It’s a typical strategy of right-wing figures to drastically underestimate the intelligence of their base and push the most simple-minded explanation of a given topic. Obviously, inanimate objects like roads can’t be racist, but the intent and strategy that goes into how some roads are constructed can be, and were, absolutely racist..........

Not only was Buttigieg’s anecdote backed by evidence, but the extent of this problem also goes far beyond Robert Moses. The issue of systemic racism in America’s highways is well-known. Deborah N. Archer, a professor at the NYU School of Law, has written extensively about this issue.

In a lengthy paper outlining how racial equity can be advanced through highway reconstruction, Professor Archer delivered an in-depth look at how many highways across the country were built with racist intent, writing: “In states around the country, highway construction displaced Black households and cut the heart and soul out of thriving Black communities as homes, churches, schools, and businesses were destroyed.

In other communities, the highway system was a tool of a segregationist agenda, erecting a wall that separated white and Black communities and protected white people from Black migration.”........

How is all that relevant, and how can infrastructure have racist impacts? These racist practices impacted where Black people lived, where they were able to work, the way they commuted to work, the accessibility of services, where they were able to shop, how they could travel, and the overall quality of their lives. “I’m still surprised that some people were surprised when I pointed to the fact that if a highway was built for the purpose of dividing a white and a Black neighborhood, or if an underpass was constructed such that a bus carrying mostly Black and Puerto Rican kids to a beach — or that would have been — in New York was designed too low for it to pass by, that obviously reflects racism that went into those design choices,” Secretary Buttigieg said........

MSN