What are the real concerns surrounding CRT?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I admit I know very little about this but from some reading I am not entirely sure why, suddenly, those on the Right have started to inveigh against this college level subject.

I would be interested in learning from individuals who post here [as a microcosm of US and predominantly Republican voters] why they consider this topic is undesirable and should not be taught.

The discipline and its origins are outlined here in the third edition of Delgado and Stefanic's Critical Race Theory: An Introduction:

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory
questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. After the first decade, critical race theory began to splinter and now includes a well developed Asian American jurisprudence, a forceful Latino-critical (LatCrit) contingent, a feisty LGBT interest group, and now a Muslim and Arab caucus. Although the groups continue to maintain good relations under the umbrella of critical race theory, each has developed its own body of literature and set of priorities.

For example, Latino and Asian scholars study immigration policy, as well as language rights and discrimination based on accent or national origin. A small group of American Indian scholars addresses indigenous people’s rights, sovereignty, and land claims. They also study historical trauma and its legacy and health consequences, as well as Indian mascots and co-optation of Indian culture. Scholars of Middle Eastern and South Asian background address discrimination against their groups, especially in the aftermath of 9/11.

Critical race theory sprang up in the 1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the country realized, more or less simultaneously, that the heady advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled and, in many respects, were being rolled back. Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler forms of racism that were gaining ground, early writers, such as Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado, put their minds to the task. They were soon joined by others, and the group held its first workshop at a convent outside Madison, Wisconsin, in the summer of 1989. Further conferences and meetings took place. Some were closed sessions at which the group threshed out internal problems and struggled to clarify central issues, while others were public, multiday affairs with panels, plenary sessions, keynote speakers, and a broad representation of scholars, students, and activists from a wide variety of disciplines.

[tabibito]

From the little that I have seen of CRT in its academic and original form, there isn't a whole lot to complain about. The academic and original form has been morphed for use in schools to a form that has racist undertones. When people complain that CRT is not taught in schools, they are I suppose technically correct - what is taught in schools is not in accord with the intent of the original concept.

[CivilDiscourse]

I admit I know very little about this but from some reading I am not entirely sure why, suddenly, those on the Right have started to inveigh against this college level subject.

I would be interested in learning from individuals who post here [as a microcosm of US and predominantly Republican voters] why they consider this topic is undesirable and should not be taught.

The discipline and its origins are outlined here in the third edition of Delgado and Stefanic's Critical Race Theory: An Introduction:

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory
questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. After the first decade, critical race theory began to splinter and now includes a well developed Asian American jurisprudence, a forceful Latino-critical (LatCrit) contingent, a feisty LGBT interest group, and now a Muslim and Arab caucus. Although the groups continue to maintain good relations under the umbrella of critical race theory, each has developed its own body of literature and set of priorities.

For example, Latino and Asian scholars study immigration policy, as well as language rights and discrimination based on accent or national origin. A small group of American Indian scholars addresses indigenous people’s rights, sovereignty, and land claims. They also study historical trauma and its legacy and health consequences, as well as Indian mascots and co-optation of Indian culture. Scholars of Middle Eastern and South Asian background address discrimination against their groups, especially in the aftermath of 9/11.

Critical race theory sprang up in the 1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the country realized, more or less simultaneously, that the heady advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled and, in many respects, were being rolled back. Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler forms of racism that were gaining ground, early writers, such as Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado, put their minds to the task. They were soon joined by others, and the group held its first workshop at a convent outside Madison, Wisconsin, in the summer of 1989. Further conferences and meetings took place. Some were closed sessions at which the group threshed out internal problems and struggled to clarify central issues, while others were public, multiday affairs with panels, plenary sessions, keynote speakers, and a broad representation of scholars, students, and activists from a wide variety of disciplines.

(Note, for simplified writing purposes, and to avoid the pedantry that will follow, I will likely be using the terms "the right," "the left," "liberals," and "conservatives." In accordance with normal conversational manner, these terms should not be construed as all-encompassing, but instead just short hand for "Many of". This should not have to be spelled out, but there it is).

Honestly, the issues around "CRT" are two fold.

The first is that the right has misapplied the term making it a catch-all for their grievances about how the "woke" mindset with regard to race has started to corrupt and pollute many things. Many of these things have a foundation in the thinking of CRT, but are not in and of themselves CRT. To use an analogy, It's like talking about handwashing, penicillin, anti-viral drugs, staph infections, etc. while not directly talking about the strictest definition of the Germ Theory of disease.
The second is that the left has decided to focus on the label that the right is using, and then declaring that the technical term doesn't exist, and therefore dismiss the grievances without actually addressing any of them.

This creates a situation where, for example, people are complaining about segregation of certain classes and events based on race, which is wrong, but justified using "safe space" style rationalization. Conservatives will call that CRT, then liberals will dismiss them because it isn't CRT, but the actual complaint itself is never addressed.

[rogue06]

The second is that the left has decided to focus on the label that the right is using, and then declaring that the technical term doesn't exist, and therefore dismiss the grievances without actually addressing any of them.

Hilarity ensues when the left solemnly proclaims that there is no such thing as CRT and then completely loses it when those on the right move to ban it. Why get upset over something you claim doesn't exist getting banned?

[Cow Poke]

It essentially tries to guilt white kids into believing they are responsible for the ills of society, particularly in regards to minorities, and can be quite militant and intolerant.

From Newsweek...

We think that these tenets are dubious at best. But in our opinion the most pernicious aspect of CRT instruction, from an educational perspective, is not its content, but the one-sided, dogmatic intolerance of any alternative point of view.

CRT banishes any classroom mention, let alone thoughtful discussion, of the full range of ideas about race currently articulated across the political spectrum. (The same thing is true in corporate America and at universities, where employees know better than to openly object to CRT's rigid dogmas.) The CRT-approved story, in a nutshell, is that white racism is pervasive and accounts for all racial deficits and disparities. What is not being taught—what students are not exposed to, and not even allowed to hear—is the contrary position that persistent racial inequalities are oftentimes rooted in cultural differences and behavioral tendencies that are not all traceable to slavery or Jim Crow, and cannot all be solved by purging the vague category of "structural racism."

One of the central elements of the "anti-racism" creed, which conveniently allows CRT to be presented as unvarnished, unquestionable truth, is that any critique, challenge or argument against it, however grounded in evidence, history or logic, is by definition a racist expression of an oppressive system of "whiteness." According to CRT proponents, that system must be wholly discredited, dismantled and expunged, both to achieve "racial justice" and to spare non-whites from trauma, exclusion and an "unsafe" environment.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From the little that I have seen of CRT in its academic and original form, there isn't a whole lot to complain about. The academic and original form has been morphed for use in schools to a form that has racist undertones. When people complain that CRT is not taught in schools, they are I suppose technically correct - what is taught in schools is not in accord with the intent of the original concept.

The question is what is taught in "schools" per se?

Are curricula on this topic devised by each school? Are they devised by the local [or state] education authority? Are there particular text books or other teaching aids that are state [or federally] recommended for use? Do all schools in a particular district teach the same thing?

Or is it an ad hoc approach undertaken by each faculty [or teacher] in each school?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

(Note, for simplified writing purposes, and to avoid the pedantry that will follow, I will likely be using the terms "the right," "the left," "liberals," and "conservatives." In accordance with normal conversational manner, these terms should not be construed as all-encompassing, but instead just short hand for "Many of". This should not have to be spelled out, but there it is).

Honestly, the issues around "CRT" are two fold.

The first is that the right has misapplied the term making it a catch-all for their grievances about how the "woke" mindset with regard to race has started to corrupt and pollute many things. Many of these things have a foundation in the thinking of CRT, but are not in and of themselves CRT. To use an analogy, It's like talking about handwashing, penicillin, anti-viral drugs, staph infections, etc. while not directly talking about the strictest definition of the Germ Theory of disease.
The second is that the left has decided to focus on the label that the right is using, and then declaring that the technical term doesn't exist, and therefore dismiss the grievances without actually addressing any of them.

This creates a situation where, for example, people are complaining about segregation of certain classes and events based on race, which is wrong, but justified using "safe space" style rationalization. Conservatives will call that CRT, then liberals will dismiss them because it isn't CRT, but the actual complaint itself is never addressed.

Thank you for that reply. Your comments on" the right" appear [judging from various articles] to be borne out and seem to be promoted by right-wing media outlets and politicians who do not really understand the topic. The latter possibly using CRT for their own political purposes.

However, I will also ask you the same questions that I put to tabibito.
Are curricula on this topic devised by each school? Are they devised by the local [or state] education authority? Are there particular text books or other teaching aids that are federally or state recommended for use? Do all schools in a particular district teach the same thing?

Or is it an ad hoc approach undertaken by each faculty [or teacher] in each school?

Finally. what exactly are the grievances and are they justified? Or has this topic become the proverbial political football?

[Cow Poke]

The question is what is taught in "schools" per se?

Are curricula on this topic devised by each school? Are they devised by the local [or state] education authority? Are there particular text books or other teaching aids that are state [or federally] recommended for use? Do all schools in a particular district teach the same thing?

Or is it an ad hoc approach undertaken by each faculty [or teacher] in each school?

OK, as politely as I can....

I don't think you realize the influence of the Teachers Unions on public education.
The Teachers Unions (under names like "National Teachers Association" and "National Education Association" are not education associations at all.
They are labor unions who represent the interests of their dues paying members - and ONLY their dues-paying members.

It is these UNIONS (disguised as "education agencies) that have a very "leftist" agenda.

That would be the source of the curriculum for the public schools.

It's one of the reasons I am so anti-union with regard to public sector unions.

[seer]

I admit I know very little about this but from some reading I am not entirely sure why, suddenly, those on the Right have started to inveigh against this college level subject.

From the horses' mouth...

Delgado, Richard. Critical Race Theory, Third Edition. NYU Press. Kindle Edition, p. 3.

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

…

Thompson, Sherwood. Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition, p. 65.

Critical race theory (CRT) is a scholarly and political approach to examining race that leads to a consequential analysis and profound understanding of racism. It argues, as a starting point, that the axis of American social life is fundamentally constructed in race. As a result, the economic, political, and historical relationships and arrangements that social actors have to institutions and social processes are all race based. CRT also argues that, as a whole, this idea has been purposefully ignored, subdued, and marginalized in both the dominant and public discourse and that there are serious repercussions that arise from this structural blindness (Mills, 1997, p. 153)…. One of the important tenets of CRT is the assertion that race is socially constructed, yet it denotes explicitly and implicitly how power is used and appropriated in society.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/

In the Thompson quote, we see that the whole state, the whole culture is at base racist. Which means they must all come down. In the first quote we see that the ideals of equality, the enlightenment, constitutional principals must also be questioned - because these largely come from the white European culture. You will need to enlarge the picture below, from the Smithsonian institution .

whiteculture_info_1.png

[CivilDiscourse]

Hilarity ensues when the left solemnly proclaims that there is no such thing as CRT and then completely loses it when those on the right move to ban it. Why get upset over something you claim doesn't exist getting banned?

Well, that's because at some level, they understand what's going on, as described above. They understand that the right is calling stuff CRT that isn't, but IS stuff that they are doing, and they don't want THAT banned. They also recognize that due to that mislabeling, and catch-all nature of the bills, you'll end up with some vaguely written stuff that could catch stuff that isn't even wrong.

[CivilDiscourse]

Thank you for that reply. Your comments on" the right" appear [judging from various articles] to be borne out and seem to be promoted by right-wing media outlets and politicians who do not really understand the topic. The latter possibly using CRT for their own political purposes.

However, I will also ask you the same questions that I put to tabibito.
Are curricula on this topic devised by each school? Are they devised by the local [or state] education authority? Are there particular text books or other teaching aids that are federally or state recommended for use? Do all schools in a particular district teach the same thing?

Or is it an ad hoc approach undertaken by each faculty [or teacher] in each school?

Finally. what exactly are the grievances and are they justified? Or has this topic become the proverbial political football?

What I see most often is stuff less "explicitly taught" (i.e. in the books, part of the curriculum, etc. and more often, ingrained through indirect methods. I.E. A teacher won't teach a class called "Why white people are racist." But they might teach American History with tangents and examples. The same way that a racist school isn't going to teach a class called "Black people are bad", they'll teach a class, and they'll let their opinions become part of the lecture itself.

Here's an example of what I mean. This was a philosophy class.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...lient=opera-gx

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It essentially tries to guilt white kids into believing they are responsible for the ills of society, particularly in regards to minorities, and can be quite militant and intolerant.

Is that actually borne out by evidence?

From Newsweek...

We think that these tenets are dubious at best. But in our opinion the most pernicious aspect of CRT instruction, from an educational perspective, is not its content, but the one-sided, dogmatic intolerance of any alternative point of view.

CRT banishes any classroom mention, let alone thoughtful discussion, of the full range of ideas about race currently articulated across the political spectrum. (The same thing is true in corporate America and at universities, where employees know better than to openly object to CRT's rigid dogmas.) The CRT-approved story, in a nutshell, is that white racism is pervasive and accounts for all racial deficits and disparities. What is not being taught—what students are not exposed to, and not even allowed to hear—is the contrary position that persistent racial inequalities are oftentimes rooted in cultural differences and behavioral tendencies that are not all traceable to slavery or Jim Crow, and cannot all be solved by purging the vague category of "structural racism."

One of the central elements of the "anti-racism" creed, which conveniently allows CRT to be presented as unvarnished, unquestionable truth, is that any critique, challenge or argument against it, however grounded in evidence, history or logic, is by definition a racist expression of an oppressive system of "whiteness." According to CRT proponents, that system must be wholly discredited, dismantled and expunged, both to achieve "racial justice" and to spare non-whites from trauma, exclusion and an "unsafe" environment.

The article was interesting and this particular paragraph struck me:

One of the central elements of the "anti-racism" creed, which conveniently allows CRT to be presented as unvarnished, unquestionable truth, is that any critique, challenge or argument against it, however grounded in evidence, history or logic, is by definition a racist expression of an oppressive system of "whiteness." According to CRT proponents, that system must be wholly discredited, dismantled and expunged, both to achieve "racial justice" and to spare non-whites from trauma, exclusion and an "unsafe" environment.

Who are these "CRT proponents" and who do they represent? Or has CRT [like gender issues] been hijacked by a vocal minority of zealots who have over-simplified it and decided to take an extremist and vastly over-simplified approach?

However, while there is no black and white approach to history [although such an approach might be what some who support CRT are challenging] the second sentence in this paragraph struck me as dubious:

The effort to present one ideology on race and to discredit other perspectives as racist, bigoted and baseless is a form of partisan propaganda that is contrary to sound educational practice. But it is also antithetical to principles on which our nation was founded—and represents a dangerous attack on the essence of the American way of life

What precisely is "the American way of life" and what exactly is its "essence"?

The notion that "all men are equal" only went so far as white property owners; and several of the FFs owned slaves and/or fathered children on their slaves. There was also indentured labour.

[seer]

The question is what is taught in "schools" per se?

Here are some examples, you can find the actual links in the article, USA Today.

In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced third-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

In Springfield, Missouri, a middle-school forced teachers in a diversity training session to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix.” The trainers told straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males that they are members of the oppressor class and handouts warned of “covert white supremacy.”

In New York, a public school principal sent parents literature including “tools for action” and touting “white traitors” and advocating for full “white abolition.”

And in Portland, Oregon, my investigation found that students are not only subjected to a critical race theory curriculum, but trained to develop their so-called “white identity” and are taught about racial justice in the terms of “revolution and/or resistance” – which sometimes culminates in students participating in violent protests.

Next, this framework teaches students to think that they bear responsibility for and are the beneficiaries of historical crimes committed by individuals who shared the same skin color; consequently, they must atone for their so-called “white privilege.” Critical race theorists in practice sometimes refer to this as “internalized racial superiority” within white people.

Finally, critical race theory ascribes a moral superiority to individuals based on their race – whites are deemed inherently racist and oppressive because, a Buffalo Public Schools lesson phrased it, “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism;” people of color, by contrast, are deemed by this theory inherently virtuous and liberatory.


https://christopherrufo.com/what-i-f...dnt-be-taught/

[rogue06]

It essentially tries to guilt white kids into believing they are responsible for the ills of society, particularly in regards to minorities, and can be quite militant and intolerant.

From Newsweek...

We think that these tenets are dubious at best. But in our opinion the most pernicious aspect of CRT instruction, from an educational perspective, is not its content, but the one-sided, dogmatic intolerance of any alternative point of view.

CRT banishes any classroom mention, let alone thoughtful discussion, of the full range of ideas about race currently articulated across the political spectrum. (The same thing is true in corporate America and at universities, where employees know better than to openly object to CRT's rigid dogmas.) The CRT-approved story, in a nutshell, is that white racism is pervasive and accounts for all racial deficits and disparities. What is not being taught—what students are not exposed to, and not even allowed to hear—is the contrary position that persistent racial inequalities are oftentimes rooted in cultural differences and behavioral tendencies that are not all traceable to slavery or Jim Crow, and cannot all be solved by purging the vague category of "structural racism."

One of the central elements of the "anti-racism" creed, which conveniently allows CRT to be presented as unvarnished, unquestionable truth, is that any critique, challenge or argument against it, however grounded in evidence, history or logic, is by definition a racist expression of an oppressive system of "whiteness." According to CRT proponents, that system must be wholly discredited, dismantled and expunged, both to achieve "racial justice" and to spare non-whites from trauma, exclusion and an "unsafe" environment.

It sounds like what the left so often means when they talk about the need for a dialogue about race. What they mean is that for the white people to sit down and shut up and hang their heads in shame while we harangue you with a verbal broadside about how everything is your fault. And you're racist too.

[Cow Poke]

Is that actually borne out by evidence?

From Newsweek...



The article was interesting and this particular paragraph struck me:

One of the central elements of the "anti-racism" creed, which conveniently allows CRT to be presented as unvarnished, unquestionable truth, is that any critique, challenge or argument against it, however grounded in evidence, history or logic, is by definition a racist expression of an oppressive system of "whiteness." According to CRT proponents, that system must be wholly discredited, dismantled and expunged, both to achieve "racial justice" and to spare non-whites from trauma, exclusion and an "unsafe" environment.

Who are these "CRT proponents" and who do they represent? Or has CRT [like gender issues] been hijacked by a vocal minority of zealots who have over-simplified it and decided to take an extremist and vastly over-simplified approach?

However, while there is no black and white approach to history [although such an approach might be what some who support CRT are challenging] the second sentence in this paragraph struck me as dubious:

The effort to present one ideology on race and to discredit other perspectives as racist, bigoted and baseless is a form of partisan propaganda that is contrary to sound educational practice. But it is also antithetical to principles on which our nation was founded—and represents a dangerous attack on the essence of the American way of life

What precisely is "the American way of life" and what exactly is its "essence"?

The notion that "all men are equal" only went so far as white property owners; and several of the FFs owned slaves and/or fathered children on their slaves. There was also indentured labour.

The bottom line is that this is being taught as that which must not be questioned, absolutely intolerant of any other view.

The fact that they (the public school system) first denied it was being taught, then got incredibly angry when it's exposed, should tell you it's not a good thing at all.

Truth is never afraid of discovery.