It's probably worth me going through Seer's quoted list of 11 ideas of 'CRT' and noting whether university-level CRT would agree, and whether I would personally agree and whether I think the ideas should be/could be taught in schools.
University CRT: Teaches the opposite of this. It teaches that "race is.. a socially constructed category" and "not biologically grounded and natural" (wiki).
Starlight: I think racial categories are both biological and socially constructed. I generally reject attributing positive or negative traits to particular races. To the extent any school could be shown to be teaching a race was good or bad I would strongly oppose that.
University CRT: Does not teach this
Starlight: Disagree strongly with this, and would object to it being taught.
University CRT: Partially teaches this - it studies topics of how racial inequalities affect America in the present day, and how America's history of slavery impacts the present.
Starlight: Partially agree with this. Slavery hugely impacted the early US, with the civil war, etc. Jim Crow, racist housing laws, and the fight for black civil rights have hugely impacted the US. People from other countries who visit the US in the present day are often shocked by continuing racial inequalities and the level of racism they observe. Obviously schools need to cover in some way the civil war, and the racial controversies of US history.
University CRT: Does not teach this.
Starlight: No. See my comment to Machinist. I would not support any schools teaching this.
University CRT: Yes. As I explained in a post above to CP, one of the major tenets of university CRT is to look at how colorblind laws can have unintentional outcomes that hurt some racial groups. CRT argues you need to study these cases carefully and bear them in mind when formulating laws, and that for this reason it's not enough to just have colorblind laws and more thoughtfulness is required.
Starlight: I agree with university CRT here. This seems to me to be a too-advanced topic for a school to ever cover. I would not expect to see this content in schools as a result.
This one is a bit complicated.
University CRT: Varies. Makes a number of points. Firstly, that our society is not actually meritocratic in the present day for a number of reasons. e.g if not everyone starts from the same starting-line due to social and racial inequalities, are the winners actually meritocratic? No. e.g. if the social systems in place affect some racial groups more negatively or positive than others, are the outcomes actually meritocratic or are the scales weighted? As a result, the idea that society is currently meritocratic when it isn't, is a potentially dangerous idea that can affect a number of groups in negative way, and perpetuate bad social systems, morally defending them as 'meritocratic' when they aren't meritocratic. CRT scholars seem to disagree among themselves about whether a truly meritocratic system would be actually desirable. But their main concern is that current claims of meritocracy are often used to falsely defend a non-meritocratic system.
Starlight: I would generally tend to agree with university CRT on this. People are often inclined to assume that the current system is more meritocratic than it actually is, especially those who have achieved success in the current system who biasedly want to pat themselves on the back for their success. This cartoon explains well the problem, and I would encourage everyone here to read it and think about it. However as someone who has personally succeed very well in the current system (A+ grades, high-paying scientist job etc) I am of course inclined to saying it's because I'm awesome. But I do try to remember that I had a great childhood, supportive parents, a good education etc, and that a lot of other people didn't have the same support network and opportunities afforded to me, so a lot of people who could have likewise succeeded weren't able to due to social factors and inequalities. What do I think about schools covering this, and how meritocratic do I think schools should be during schooling? I'm not sure I have strong opinions. I think it's difficult for schools to teach anything much about this because it's conceptually-hard content that I don't imagine they would want to try to cover. Obviously schools are always going to have some tests of ability, so you're always going to have some sort of grading system and never actually going to have a "everyone passes everything we don't even need any exams".
I'll cover the rest of Seer's quoted points in another post.
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Starlight: I think racial categories are both biological and socially constructed. I generally reject attributing positive or negative traits to particular races. To the extent any school could be shown to be teaching a race was good or bad I would strongly oppose that.
All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism.
Starlight: Disagree strongly with this, and would object to it being taught.
America is a fundamentally racist nation: Critical race theorists argue that America was founded on racism, slavery, and white supremacy—and remains a fundamentally racist nation to this day.
Starlight: Partially agree with this. Slavery hugely impacted the early US, with the civil war, etc. Jim Crow, racist housing laws, and the fight for black civil rights have hugely impacted the US. People from other countries who visit the US in the present day are often shocked by continuing racial inequalities and the level of racism they observe. Obviously schools need to cover in some way the civil war, and the racial controversies of US history.
Collective guilt: Critical race theory claims that individuals categorized as “White” are inherently responsible for injustice and oppression committed by white populations in the past. This concept is sometimes framed as “white guilt,” “white shame,” and “white complicity,” which are psychological manifestations of collective guilt.
Starlight: No. See my comment to Machinist. I would not support any schools teaching this.
Opposition to equality under the law: Critical race theorists explicitly reject the principle of equality under the law, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argue that legal equality, nondiscrimination, and colorblindness are mere “camouflages” (Tate, 1997) used to uphold white supremacist structures.
Starlight: I agree with university CRT here. This seems to me to be a too-advanced topic for a school to ever cover. I would not expect to see this content in schools as a result.
Opposition to meritocracy: Critical race theorists oppose meritocracy, especially standardized testing and competitive admissions in the education system. They claim that meritocracy is a mechanism to uphold racist structures and is derived from “racism, nativism, and eugenics” (Au, 2013).
University CRT: Varies. Makes a number of points. Firstly, that our society is not actually meritocratic in the present day for a number of reasons. e.g if not everyone starts from the same starting-line due to social and racial inequalities, are the winners actually meritocratic? No. e.g. if the social systems in place affect some racial groups more negatively or positive than others, are the outcomes actually meritocratic or are the scales weighted? As a result, the idea that society is currently meritocratic when it isn't, is a potentially dangerous idea that can affect a number of groups in negative way, and perpetuate bad social systems, morally defending them as 'meritocratic' when they aren't meritocratic. CRT scholars seem to disagree among themselves about whether a truly meritocratic system would be actually desirable. But their main concern is that current claims of meritocracy are often used to falsely defend a non-meritocratic system.
Starlight: I would generally tend to agree with university CRT on this. People are often inclined to assume that the current system is more meritocratic than it actually is, especially those who have achieved success in the current system who biasedly want to pat themselves on the back for their success. This cartoon explains well the problem, and I would encourage everyone here to read it and think about it. However as someone who has personally succeed very well in the current system (A+ grades, high-paying scientist job etc) I am of course inclined to saying it's because I'm awesome. But I do try to remember that I had a great childhood, supportive parents, a good education etc, and that a lot of other people didn't have the same support network and opportunities afforded to me, so a lot of people who could have likewise succeeded weren't able to due to social factors and inequalities. What do I think about schools covering this, and how meritocratic do I think schools should be during schooling? I'm not sure I have strong opinions. I think it's difficult for schools to teach anything much about this because it's conceptually-hard content that I don't imagine they would want to try to cover. Obviously schools are always going to have some tests of ability, so you're always going to have some sort of grading system and never actually going to have a "everyone passes everything we don't even need any exams".
I'll cover the rest of Seer's quoted points in another post.
Comment