What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Critical Race Theory - explain it to me and why do we need it (1 Viewer)

FairWarning

FairWarning

Footballguy
I must be missing something here, but Virginia is actually holding math and science classes for the more advanced students until 11th grade.  There has to be a way to raise the lower scores without affecting the smartest kids, no?  Educators, check in.  

 
FairWarning said:
Seems to be some new buzzword, not getting the context of it.  
Click to expand...
I skimmed the wiki link, and still not 100%.  

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]

Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[7]

 
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement made up of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] CRT examines social and cultural issues as they relate to race, law, and social and political power.[2][page needed][3]

CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] CRT emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a Marxist social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]

Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[7]

Critics of CRT argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[8][9][10]

 
Best I can tell it was the creation of someone who knew a lot of big words  but had no idea on to make a cohesive theory which made any logical sense. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement made up of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] CRT examines social and cultural issues as they relate to race, law, and social and political power.[2][page needed][3]

CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] CRT emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a Marxist social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]

Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[7]

Critics of CRT argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[8][9][10]
Click to expand...
Isn’t the gap going to be wider now, families will just send their kids out of state if they live in the DC Metro area?  How about families from abroad who move here because the schools are better?  It looks like you are trying to raise the floor at the expense of smarter kids.

 
jon_mx said:
Critics of CRT argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[8][9][10]
Click to expand...
I really know little about CRT other than what is in this thread as a description.  But this part sounds a lot like what I hear in everyday discussions about race and I would agree with.

jon_mx said:
CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]
Click to expand...
So white supremacy = societal racism?  I've been trying to understand better what white supremacy is...its simply racism?

 
djmich said:
I really know little about CRT other than what is in this thread as a description.  But this part sounds a lot like what I hear in everyday discussions about race and I would agree with.

So white supremacy = societal racism?  I've been trying to understand better what white supremacy is...its simply racism?
Click to expand...
when you click the link further: 

The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred

 
KarmaPolice said:
when you click the link further: 

The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I love these word salads, its usually a good sign that someone took a lot of time adding a lot of extra words to make sure that the definition was enduring and could never really be fully understood, was open to interpretation...and therefore would also always exist.

This would help ensure that the folks that rely on it to 1) Make money  2) Get elected 3) Fuel internal anger 4) Always have a source to blame for ones own failures

....it helps ensure they'll always have it.

Is there any white supremacy level?  Like slavery was a 10 and jim crow era a 7?  Is 2021 close to a 1?  Any way to measure it.

This feels like systemic racism so I'm not sure if the only added benefit is to clarify whiteness.

Is every white person by default a white supremacist, would seem to be the case base on the definition.

Lastly, I'm trying to reconcile structural or societal racism....without the presence of racial hatred.  Maybe the word racism in the definition needs to be replaced with bias.

 
djmich said:
Thanks.

I love these word salads, its usually a good sign that someone took a lot of time adding a lot of extra words to make sure that the definition was enduring and could never really be fully understood, was open to interpretation...and therefore would also always exist.

This would help ensure that the folks that rely on it to 1) Make money  2) Get elected 3) Fuel internal anger 4) Always have a source to blame for ones own failures

....it helps ensure they'll always have it.

Is there any white supremacy level?  Like slavery was a 10 and jim crow era a 7?  Is 2021 close to a 1?  Any way to measure it.

This feels like systemic racism so I'm not sure if the only added benefit is to clarify whiteness.

Is every white person by default a white supremacist, would seem to be the case base on the definition.

Lastly, I'm trying to reconcile structural or societal racism....without the presence of racial hatred.  Maybe the word racism in the definition needs to be replaced with bias.
Click to expand...
The bolded goes right back to our discussions, IMO.  Bias doesn't required hatred.  Reading through to me it feels like all ties into the same concepts, and like we talked about -the R word is a sticking point for many.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
when you click the link further: 

The term white supremacy is used in some academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred
Click to expand...
I love when they use some.  Always keeps you on the defense or guessing.  It deflects from the true agenda.  

 
CRT is becoming a bit of a buzzword on the right, in a way that's disconnected from its roots in legal theory.  I don't feel well-positioned to critique "real" CRT partly because I don't think I have a good handle on how the moving parts fit together.  But I would caution against "everything I dislike is CRT" because that's probably not true.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
CRT is becoming a bit of a buzzword on the right, in a way that's disconnected from its roots in legal theory.  I don't feel well-positioned to critique "real" CRT partly because I don't think I have a good handle on how the moving parts fit together.  But I would caution against "everything I dislike is CRT" because that's probably not true.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to see how this plays out in the education field.  

 
jon_mx said:
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement made up of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] CRT examines social and cultural issues as they relate to race, law, and social and political power.[2][page needed][3]

CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] CRT emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a Marxist social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5]

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:

First, that white supremacy (societal racism) exists and maintains power through the law.[6]

Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[7]

Critics of CRT argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[8][9][10]
Click to expand...
So, just as I thought: It's a Marxist/Communist front.  

 
FairWarning said:
No doubt that will happen also.  I’m concerned that we lose our edge (if we have one) in math and sciences.  
Click to expand...
No....thats part of it.....to be critical, at has to be looked at through different lenses. Thats where the critical part comes from. And i see no reason why one would think this is either/or. If done correctly, its not done in math/ science class

 
It happened because MLK said that he wanted his kids to live in a world where a man was judged by the content of his character....not the color of his skin.

The Left decided to go the other way with it ...expand the plantation, embrace segregation, and base absolutely EVERYTHING on the color of one's skin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to Time magazine, part of the mainstream media, Critical Race Theory is this. 

https://time.com/5891138/critical-race-theory-explained/

Time omits the fact that it is explicitly Marxist and anti-capitalist at its very essence, and that it is an offshoot of Critical Theory, which states that laws are in place to cement certain groups in power at the expense of the minority or oppressed, that truth is relative and never objective, and that all systems perpetuating Enlightenment and liberal thought are mere constructs upon us that must be dismantled to their core in order for the oppressed to be free and represented within a system of context-based laws. 

CRT threatens to do this through the lens of race. CRT heavily influenced the Black Lives Matter movement. The more I read about CRT and BLM, the more I become convinced that this is not in the name of diversity, but in the name of dismantling our entire economic, social, and justice systems under the pretext of "systemic racism," among other complaints. 

"Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces 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." - Richard Delgado, Critical Race Theory, An Introduction

Delgado is no critic. He's one of the people at the forefront of the movement, started namely by Derrick Bell of Harvard back around 1973. His seminal book Race, Racism, and American Law was one the first of its kind and was the first work credited with promulgating what would become to be CRT. 

Background on Bell. I'd skip to scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning said:
What countries are practicing CRT?  
Click to expand...
Us. That's it. Every European nation is practicing a form of Critical Theory, it seems, but CRT is an American hybrid and unique to us. One could look at the multiculturalists in Canada for a blueprint where the Quebecois is trying to separate and keep their cultural identity yet somewhat integrate with the rest of Canada, but I'm not an expert on that. Took a class on the concept of the general will and Rousseau, and was made to read a piece about how to keep a general will while allowing for cultural identities to be intact in a pluralistic society. The author used Canada as an example. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
If I'm being honest, I can't think of another country in the world with a make up of citizens that would allow for the study of CRT.  We are incredibly unique in that way.  
Click to expand...
France had twenty ex-generals and a thousand active soldiers threaten a military takeover of the government if they adopted the policies that are beholden to CRT and permissive multicultural theories as an ideological underpinning, or also if France continues, in their estimation, to "refuse" to enforce the existing laws against crime and other social matters. It was quite the shock to Europeans, hearing it so boldly stated. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56899765

No surprise that the first school boards to have adopted CRT to instruct students (the school board is where aspiring city officials cut their teeth) in the late nineties were Milwaukee, WI, and Minneapolis, MN. Seems like the riots and activists weren't too far away in physical proximity from the ideological trough that was feeding them. Sounds like the networking and coordination was out in full force. No accident, that. 

 
woodstock said:
France had twenty ex-generals and a thousand active soldiers threaten a military takeover of the government if they adopted the policies that are beholden to CRT and permissive multicultural theories as an ideological underpinning, or also if France continues, in their estimation, to "refuse" to enforce the existing laws against crime and other social matters. It was quite the shock to Europeans, hearing it so boldly stated. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56899765

No surprise that the first school boards to have adopted CRT to instruct students (the school board is where aspiring city officials cut their teeth) in the late nineties were Milwaukee, WI, and Minneapolis, MN. Seems like the riots and activists weren't too far away in physical proximity from the ideological trough that was feeding them. Sounds like the networking and coordination was out in full force. No accident, that. 
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with the comment you replied to as well as the study of CRT :mellow:  

 
All I can say is this co-opting and glorification of Marxist/Communist causes and tactics should be concerning for everyone.

We should be purging this country of these dangerous ideologies, not embracing them like the left is.  This is very scary indeed.

 
The Commish said:
I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with the comment you replied to as well as the study of CRT :mellow:  
Click to expand...
We were talking about other countries adopting CRT. I responded with a new development in Europe that responded to their own version of CRT and critical theory. 

Because the problems and disturbances caused by CRT and critical theory are affecting France and their new socialist establishment in Macron, and that's why they signed the letter. It was in response to their problems in the Muslim suburbs and in other areas where there had been longstanding flashpoints within French law treating Islamists differently than those who espouse French tradition. 

Not sure why the long face, Commish. Frankly, I'm not sure how on earth you missed the connection. 

 
woodstock said:
France had twenty ex-generals and a thousand active soldiers threaten a military takeover of the government if they adopted the policies that are beholden to CRT and permissive multicultural theories as an ideological underpinning, or also if France continues, in their estimation, to "refuse" to enforce the existing laws against crime and other social matters. It was quite the shock to Europeans, hearing it so boldly stated. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56899765

No surprise that the first school boards to have adopted CRT to instruct students (the school board is where aspiring city officials cut their teeth) in the late nineties were Milwaukee, WI, and Minneapolis, MN. Seems like the riots and activists weren't too far away in physical proximity from the ideological trough that was feeding them. Sounds like the networking and coordination was out in full force. No accident, that. 
Click to expand...
My multicultural experiences are when the Chicago people come out to vacation in the summer.  They like to tell us country folk how important they are.  

No need for CRT here.

 
woodstock said:
We were talking about other countries adopting CRT. I responded with a new development in Europe that responded to their own version of CRT and critical theory. 

Because the problems and disturbances caused by CRT and critical theory are affecting France and their new socialist establishment in Macron, and that's why they signed the letter. It was in response to their problems in the Muslim suburbs and in other areas where there had been longstanding flashpoints within French law treating Islamists differently than those who espouse French tradition. 

Not sure why the long face, Commish. Frankly, I'm not sure how on earth you missed the connection. 
Click to expand...
I think what's throwing me off is as you speak of CRT, you speak of it as an ideology or way of life.  And I don't believe that to be the case.  It's a study...a process of analysis...a way to look critically at the mechanisms in place and analyze impact of those mechanisms.  It really feels like those who are just learning of this process are now beginning to use "CRT" as a label simply for "things I don't like being said in terms of race and race relations".  I'm not saying YOU are doing that.  Don't think that's the case at all, but it seems like this forum is devolving the term down this path like they do with so many other terms.  Hope I'm wrong here.

Back to the comment though from before and what other countries are studying CRT and I stand by it.  Not sure there is another country in the world equipped to do this sort of analysis like the US.  Even this example from France is very much a "we don't like THOSE people" vibe, which is not what CRT is.

 
The Commish said:
I think what's throwing me off is as you speak of CRT, you speak of it as an ideology or way of life.  And I don't believe that to be the case.  It's a study...a process of analysis...a way to look critically at the mechanisms in place and analyze impact of those mechanisms.  It really feels like those who are just learning of this process are now beginning to use "CRT" as a label simply for "things I don't like being said in terms of race and race relations".  I'm not saying YOU are doing that.  Don't think that's the case at all, but it seems like this forum is devolving the term down this path like they do with so many other terms.  Hope I'm wrong here.

Back to the comment though from before and what other countries are studying CRT and I stand by it.  Not sure there is another country in the world equipped to do this sort of analysis like the US.  Even this example from France is very much a "we don't like THOSE people" vibe, which is not what CRT is.
Click to expand...
No, this isn't like the term "socialism" that you worry about getting muddied. (An aside, not too many people here muddy it. Most have a working definition that is correct, aside from a few that might say it the most.)

CRT isn't just a process of analysis. It started very specifically as a way to look at where law intersects with race. It was really formulated by Bell and proponents in law journals and asked the legal system to take a look at issues involving race and how laws might be interpreted or constructed to best mitigate the differences in the imbalances of power between the majority and the minority, only it looked at the terms "the majority" and "the minority" through a racial lens. It was the announcement of a new way of doing things that question the foundations of a particular liberal, Enlightenment way of governing. 

It is not necessarily a system of analysis that is a plug-and-play type thing. It is a way of looking at things especially regarding the fundamental nature of our laws as they implicate race, and thus, it is applied to our lives and behaviors. Everything we do is sanctioned or not sanctioned by law. CRT asks normative questions about how we should construct, extend, and retract laws so that life is more just. It absolutely bleeds into everything we do. It is an academic exercise, but its purview is everything, if you get what I'm saying.

As for France, France's generals' reaction and letter is a reaction to leftists in their own country using a form of CRT. They don't like it. I think you have my point reversed. It's not the Muslims criticizing CRT nor the generals promoting CRT. It's the other way around. Generals are upset that Muslim groups are using the foundations of CRT to critique the laws of France, and the French left is happy to oblige. 

 
woodstock said:
No, this isn't like the term "socialism" that you worry about getting muddied. (An aside, not too many people here muddy it. Most have a working definition that is correct, aside from a few that might say it the most.)

CRT isn't just a process of analysis. It started very specifically as a way to look at where law intersects with race. It was really formulated by Bell and proponents in law journals and asked the legal system to take a look at issues involving race and how laws might be interpreted or constructed to best mitigate the differences in the imbalances of power between the majority and the minority, only it looked at the terms "the majority" and "the minority" through a racial lens. It was the announcement of a new way of doing things that question the foundations of a particular liberal, Enlightenment way of governing. 

It is not necessarily a system of analysis that is a plug-and-play type thing. It is a way of looking at things especially regarding the fundamental nature of our laws as they implicate race, and thus, it is applied to our lives and behaviors. Everything we do is sanctioned or not sanctioned by law. CRT asks normative questions about how we should construct, extend, and retract laws so that life is more just. It absolutely bleeds into everything we do. It is an academic exercise, but its purview is everything, if you get what I'm saying.

As for France, France's generals' reaction and letter is a reaction to leftists in their own country using a form of CRT. They don't like it. I think you have my point reversed. It's not the Muslims criticizing CRT nor the generals promoting CRT. It's the other way around. Generals are upset that Muslim groups are using the foundations of CRT to critique the laws of France, and the French left is happy to oblige. 
Click to expand...
I'll be happy to be wrong about the forum as it pertains to the bold.  I've just seen it way too many times from all the same people.  I'm pretty much in agreement with this here.  Just wasn't getting it from the way you were presenting things initially, so thanks for clarifying.  I'm not super studied on it, but have been exposed to it while in school and then in the volunteer work I've done in the past.  My experience is more on the practical side than the academic side.  In my experience, my observation is those "opposed" to the practice are those that have the most to lose or those that want to maintain the status quo.  Anything to avoid that "look in the mirror" or "pull back the curtain" arena (if that makes sense).  Where I will quibble a bit with the French example is from everything you've posted, that is more culture than race.  That is a clash of cultural ideologies fighting for attention which I've always considered something different from racial conflict.  That's why I didn't really understand where you were headed with that, but I understand your POV now...thanks!  :hifive:

 
KarmaPolice said:
I will honest- not sure I could tell you what CRT is.  
Click to expand...
If you want a cheap and easy primer written by somebody who is pro-CRT, this is the book I have on my bookshelf: https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Introduction-America/dp/0814721354

This particular book has the virtues of being short, written for people who are not already experts on the topic, and jargon-free.  It's not the steelman I was hoping for when I ordered it -- it only really engages with criticism of CRT coming from the left, and it just barely even engages with that.  But at least I feel like I have a rough idea of what CRT is to the people who support it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
woodstock said:
Time omits the fact that it is explicitly Marxist and anti-capitalist at its very essence, and that it is an offshoot of Critical Theory, which states that laws are in place to cement certain groups in power at the expense of the minority or oppressed, that truth is relative and never objective, and that all systems perpetuating Enlightenment and liberal thought are mere constructs upon us that must be dismantled to their core in order for the oppressed to be free and represented within a system of context-based laws. 
Click to expand...
Whenever I think deeply on this kind of stuff ... I come to the internal conclusion that no human society can exist without some kind of underclass. Doesn't have to be based on skin color, religion, or any other "bright" dividing line.

So if you always have an underclass ... a society will always have a minority and/or an oppressed class, and whatever laws are in place will tend to disfavor them. What can mere humans really do about this? Amelioration efforts have taken place across the globe and have succeeded by their own contemporary measures (e.g. British Empire's abolition of slavery; world-wide sanctions of genocide in the 20th century, etc.). But how close can the gap between majority/minority or privileged/oppressed ultimately be made?

 
Doug B said:
But how close can the gap between majority/minority or privileged/oppressed ultimately be made?
Click to expand...
Let me say that I'm about to write things I disagree with, but I honestly don't see closing the gap without adherence to paragraph three because of the conditions outlined in paragraphs one and two. 

The answer that critical theory would give is that we could close the gap until we approach either a system of detente between the minority and majority, or, if one wants to get grandiose about it, an attempt at the amelioration of those huge gaps we see in law today. There's no doubt that the result of policies aimed at separating whites from blacks have caused such a disparity in economic and social status that even basic notions of fairness seem violated. I mean, when it's gotten to the point where there is such an underclass, and that underclass lags in every indicator possible that remedial efforts at equality seem so severe in implementation, it can be evidence of a majority having had beat up on a minority and leaving them really dispossessed, as American whites are argued to have done to American blacks. The proof is the result, as it were.

As conservative and Enlightenment and liberal rights-minded as I am, one cannot help but look at the disparities as something that doesn't bespeak to a true taking, almost, a taking of property and status from a minority group simply at its expense and seemingly for merely the continued ends of the majority. It is here were critical theory and critical race theory sort of jumps off. It asks for a stop to the "carceral" state, the condition under which so many minorities are in prison or jailed. It asks for economic measures to help remedy the inequality that is the result of policies enacted deliberately at the behest of the majority against the minority in question, policies that left them wanting for basics such as equal opportunities for shelter and education, not to mention basics like real food and clean and drinkable water.

The question, I guess, is what can we expect people to tolerate for generations? Can we expect a former dominion over body and spirit in the form of slavery, unequal treatment and abject lack of political representation under Jim Crow, radically unequal opportunities for social status and educational pursuits until Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to continue to manifest themselves without threat of systemic overthrow? I don't think we can. That leaves us with the unpleasant task of reintegration and the redress of prior wrongs in various forms, be it through social programs, educational outreach and achievement, and reparations on a grand scale. These things are difficult to imagine. Well-placed liberalism pays heed to equality and dignity as shibboleths, but it's really going to require some radical redistribution of property and the curtailing of the freedom of association and freedom from taxes most of us in the conservative/classical liberal tradition abhor. It will be a reevaluation of rights-based thinking, where rights to property and rights of association will have to be ceded to the state or the public for redistribution. In short, a real cluster. 

Or, we can proceed apace and see our lives come to grinding halts nightly at the hint of violence by any authority towards the mobilized minority who are currently dispossessed. The disruptions right now have really just begun, it seems, considering the adoption of these methods and arguments made against the majority. The adoption of CRT and critical theory as means of criticizing the system have borne fruit. I don't expect them to stop. That is what the focus should be. How to stop something so anathema to liberal, rights-based governance. It might require drastic measures, but the system seems untenable in its current form of incidents, protests, and reverberations and shock. Amelioration by intrusion, or separation and detente, most likely hold the keys to the future.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning said:
Isn’t the gap going to be wider now, families will just send their kids out of state if they live in the DC Metro area?  How about families from abroad who move here because the schools are better?  It looks like you are trying to raise the floor at the expense of smarter kids.
Click to expand...
That was my first reaction - it will widen the gap between the rich and the poor in education as the kids in private schools will be even more advanced than they are now. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
If you want a cheap and easy primer written by somebody who is pro-CRT, this is the book I have on my bookshelf: https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Introduction-America/dp/0814721354

This particular book has the virtues of being short, written for people who are not already experts on the topic, and jargon-free.  It's not the steelman I was hoping for when I ordered it -- it only really engages with criticism of CRT coming from the left, and it just barely even engages with that.  But at least I feel like I have a rough idea of what CRT is to the people who support it.
Click to expand...
I think there's even a version 3 of this that includes BLM factors.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe Current Democrats Have A "Messaging" Problem? (4/26/22 23:29 PST)
2
Replies
96
Views
2K
dickey moe
dickey moe
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
929
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
881
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top