# Another Critical Race Theory thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2021, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389 "2021-05-04T19:44:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/445 "2021-05-19T18:29:36Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I have a HUGE problem with calling it critical race theory. Do you have a similar problem with “feminism”? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/446 "2021-05-19T18:31:31Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I have a HUGE problem with calling it critical race theory. And what alternative would you suggest? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/447 "2021-05-19T20:17:48Z")
[Not replying on the admissions-testing tangent as per modnote] > [@DemonTree](#): > > As for the definition of theory, the key point is whether it makes claims that can be falsified. Are you saying CRT does not do this? Yes, that is what I’ve been saying all along. A scientific theory as defined by most fields in the physical sciences makes claims that can be falsified. But other fields are under no obligation to use the word “theory” in the same way. When literature scholars engage in what they call “literary theory”, they are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments. When Frankfurt School philosophers engage in what they call “critical theory”, they are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments. And CRT scholars are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments either. So your complaints that CRT does not meet your “definition of theory” are completely beside the point. > [@DemonTree](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > What, exactly and specifically and citedly, are the things that are being taught and “endorsed” that the outraged people are objecting to? I’ve seen a lot of outrage about strawman caricatures of supposed “CRT” ideas as retailed in right-wing media, but there’s generally a few degrees of separation between the outrage and the documented factual version of what’s actually happening. > > I’d have to go and dig out things I’ve seen and find references, which I will not be doing during the work day. Is it worth me spending the effort to do so? Whether it’s “worth it” or not is up to you. All I can say is that if you want any meaningful discussion of whether people who are “outraged” about “CRT” have any valid basis for their outrage, you’re going to have to come up with cites of actual specific people expressing outrage about actual specific things that they identify as “CRT”. We have seen all too frequently that the right-wing outrage machine is perfectly capable of making up alleged causes of outrage on no factual grounds whatsoever, and/or distorting perfectly reasonable policies and proposals in order to make them sound outrageous. Absent any specific documented examples, I’m defaulting to the position that anybody “outraged” over CRT has probably just been gulled by standard right-wing dishonest bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/448 "2021-05-19T20:23:50Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Good for them. But academia is HUGE. Going a bit meta: others have pointed at how peculiar it is that this framework, that is not the only one used when dealing with discriminated groups, did attract so much attention when it was just barely being noticed in the past. (It seems that one of Trump’s minions told him about the caricature of CRT, and he swallowed hook line and sinker) Since the origin and the bulk of the papers are in law college settings, when one sees critics putting CRT everywhere it becomes curiouser when other critics coming from another angle are claiming that CRT is not covering the earth like Sherwin Williams… ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/449 "2021-05-19T20:32:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, that is what I’ve been saying all along. A scientific theory as defined by most fields in the physical sciences makes claims that can be falsified. But other fields are under no obligation to use the word “theory” in the same way. > > When literature scholars engage in what they call “literary theory”, they are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments. When Frankfurt School philosophers engage in what they call “critical theory”, they are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments. And CRT scholars are not making scientific predictions about observed phenomena via a quantitative model that can be falsified when tested by controlled experiments either. I think the definition of theory you are using is way too narrow. You sound like creationists saying evolution isn’t a theory because there is no way to go back and see what happened. It’s nearly always the case in social sciences that you cannot do a proper controlled experiment, but that does not mean there is no way to get evidence or that we can throw our hands up and declare it all unknowable. Even in subjects like history we expect to see some kind of evidence for what is claimed. You don’t get to just make up whatever the hell you like. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Whether it’s “worth it” or not is up to you. All I can say is that if you want any meaningful discussion of whether people who are “outraged” about “CRT” have any valid basis for their outrage, you’re going to have to come up with cites of actual specific people expressing outrage about actual specific things that they identify as “CRT”. Judging by the quality of debate in the rest of this thread I don’t think there is much chance of meaningful discussion at all. Maybe another time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/450 "2021-05-19T20:48:08Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I think the definition of theory you are using is way too narrow. You sound like creationists saying evolution isn’t a theory because there is no way to go back and see what happened. That is not what Kimstu said. He explained that insisting on the definition you are using is the wrong thing to do. IOW: [You are not even wrong.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/451 "2021-05-19T20:51:26Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I think the definition of theory you are using is way too narrow. You sound like creationists saying evolution isn’t a theory because there is no way to go back and see what happened. I’m not the one complaining about something not meeting an excessively narrow definition of “theory” here. I’m saying that different fields can and do use the term “theory” in different ways, and that doesn’t make any of their definitions invalid. You seem to be trying to insist that CRT is in fact a “theory” in a strictly scientific sense, so you can then denounce it for not successfully meeting the criteria for a scientific theory. Which is merely setting up a strawman. As per my earlier simile, if I declare that a bicycle is a flotation device, then I can certainly create a pretty damning indictment of its failure to perform adequately as a flotation device. But only by ignoring the inconvenient fact that a bicycle isn’t actually meant to be a flotation device in the first place. > [@DemonTree](#): > > It’s nearly always the case in social sciences that you cannot do a proper controlled experiment, but that does not mean there is no way to get evidence or that we can throw our hands up and declare it all unknowable. Even in subjects like history we expect to see some kind of evidence for what is claimed. The absence of a scientific “theory”, in the sense of a predictive quantitative model that can be falsified by observed data, does not mean that there’s no evidence or that “it’s all unknowable”. As you note, we know plenty of things about history even in the absence of falsifiable theories about the subject. Knowing facts, having insightful perceptions, and making plausible arguments does not necessarily require a falsifiable theory in the scientific sense. So yes, CRT can be a useful and productive mode of discourse without being a “theory” in the scientific sense and without making falsifiable claims. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/452 "2021-05-19T21:10:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not the one complaining about something not meeting an excessively narrow definition of “theory” here. I’m saying that different fields can and do use the term “theory” in different ways, and that doesn’t make any of their definitions invalid. > > You seem to be trying to insist that CRT is in fact a “theory” in a strictly scientific sense, so you can then denounce it for not successfully meeting the criteria for a scientific theory. Which is merely setting up a strawman. No I’m not. You were the one trying to insist a theory has to make quantitative predictions or it’s not a theory. I’m saying a theory makes testable claims about reality, and some of the points listed above on CRT do seem to do this… and reading further, you mostly seem to agree with me, except for the fact that historical ideas can also be falsified with new evidence. For example, it used to be believed that Columbus was the first European to discover America, until we found evidence that Vikings had travelled there. And please could you lay off the patronising analogies? I’m not your student and they are really not helping. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/453 "2021-05-19T21:18:42Z")
Maybe it would help clarify that by ‘unfalsifiable’ I mean something like Freudian psychoanalysis, where any facts can be made to fit the theory. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/454 "2021-05-19T21:28:30Z")
Again it all depends on the papers where your complaints can be applied to. Now the problem here is that you need to do some homework as others like me have done, there is no reason why it would be impossible for you to check the previously linked research papers and find that there are ways to falsify what they found or find that there are no ways to falsify them. IOW, you need to bring the evidence and not second hand opinions from right wing bloglessors out there just about the framework. It is really not that hard. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/455 "2021-05-19T21:40:12Z")
One thing I’ve noticed is that in a lot of talk of systemic racism and disadvantaged communities, there seems to be an undercurrent that white people, specifically white men, don’t deserve what we’ve got, or that somehow any achievements we have are not valid because of this systemic racism. Maybe that’s just how I’m perceiving it, and that’s not what’s actually meant, but it sure seems to permeate a whole lot of discussion about systemic racism, especially by the more “woke” people I’ve run across. And I think there are a lot of other people who are perceiving it this way as well, otherwise the backlash wouldn’t be so strong- merely accusing the GOP of racism doesn’t raise their hackles in the same way that saying they and their constituents don’t deserve what they have worked for does. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/456 "2021-05-19T21:47:48Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > No I’m not. You were the one trying to insist a theory has to make quantitative predictions or it’s not a theory. ? Is it Opposite Day and nobody told me? I’m not the one making declarations about what qualifies or disqualifies the use of the term “theory” for a particular mode of discourse. I am saying that the term “theory” can be validly used about modes of discourse that don’t necessarily make falsifiable claims. It’s a different sense of the term from the usual definition of a scientific theory, which does necessarily make falsifiable claims which have to be tested in order to corroborate or disprove the theory. > [@DemonTree](#): > > historical ideas can also be falsified with new evidence. For example, it used to be believed that Columbus was the first European to discover America, until we found evidence that Vikings had travelled there. Sure, and some claims in CRT could be falsified in the same way. For example, the claim that the history of North American enslavement of Africans profoundly and persistently influenced US race relations would be falsified if it were discovered that North American enslavement of Africans had never happened at all. But that doesn’t mean that every claim that is made in historical research, or in a discipline like CRT, has to be falsifiable. Different historians may have different interpretations that aren’t factually testable, for example. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Maybe it would help clarify that by ‘unfalsifiable’ I mean something like Freudian psychoanalysis, where any facts can be made to fit the theory. I completely agree with you that Freudian psychoanalysis does not meet the standard definition of a scientific theory. And there’s nothing wrong with that, except when Freudians claim that it does constitute a scientific theory. It’s fine to call it “Freudian theory” in a different sense of the term “theory”, though. > [@DemonTree](#): > > And please could you lay off the patronising analogies? I’m not your student and they are really not helping. They’re not intended to be patronizing and they’re not intended specifically for you. They help me to see and articulate the inconsistencies in your arguments. Feel free to ignore them if you don’t like them, or report them if you think they violate forum rules. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/457 "2021-05-19T22:30:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I am saying that the term “theory” can be validly used about modes of discourse that don’t necessarily make falsifiable claims. It’s a different sense of the term from the usual definition of a scientific theory, which does necessarily make falsifiable claims which have to be tested in order to corroborate or disprove the theory. You can call anything a theory, that is obvious and not interesting. Have you really been quibbling over terminology this whole time? The question is whether CRT makes claims that are falsifiable, and you seem to be admitting it does, even if you gave a silly example. Or is it ‘falsifiable’ you object to? If I say it makes claims which we can find evidence for and against, would that make you happier? Re analogies, I’ve told you how I feel about them. If that’s the impression you want to give then go right on using them. I suppose it helps demonstrate when you have misunderstood what I’m saying yet again. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/458 "2021-05-19T22:44:45Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > You can call anything a theory, that is obvious and not interesting. […] The question is whether CRT makes claims that are falsifiable, and you seem to be admitting it does Well, I’m saying that it can, but only in the sense that any mode of discourse whatsoever can make claims that are falsifiable, sometimes. At the risk of annoying you with an analogy again, I have to point out that even, say, an astrologer or a psychic can make falsifiable claims sometimes, such as “the moon is now in the second house” or “you were born in Kentucky”. ISTM that that observation is, as you put it, “obvious and not interesting”. The important issue, AFAICT, is whether the claims made by CRT or any other non-science discipline have to be falsifiable in order for the discipline to be intellectually valid. And the answer is no, they don’t have to. So why have you been stressing so much over the question of whether CRT makes falsifiable claims? Sure it does, sometimes, but so does literally every other mode of discourse, sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/459 "2021-05-19T23:07:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And the answer is no, they don’t have to. So why have you been stressing so much over the question of whether CRT makes falsifiable claims? Sure it does, sometimes, but so does literally every other mode of discourse, sometimes. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. I am interested in whether CRT makes falsifiable claims because if it does I am interested in looking at evidence for those claims. As for astrology and supposed psychics, they can and do make falsifiable claims. That’s how we know they are false. For example, we could give personality tests to a large number of people and see if there is any correlation between personality traits and star sign. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2021, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/460 "2021-05-19T23:55:34Z")
Pointing out that you, as a white male, on average, tend to have a better chance at achieving middle class status or better isn’t the same as saying “You didn’t really earn it.” Yes, people perceive a lot of things. Apparently tens of millions of voters perceive that our last election was stolen and there’s a lot of outrage over it. But that perception isn’t necessarily objective reality. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2021, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/461 "2021-05-20T00:14:42Z")
Springboarding off the above, and further replying to @bump, as an illustrative example I might suggest something like front line service in the military during WWII. Many opportunities were closed to blacks by virtue of segregation. Closed or at best limited. This necessarily resulted in fewer opportunities for valor, fewer opportunities for distinguished combat service, and therefore an apparently “lesser” opportunity for African Americans to contribute to the war effort in ways likely to attract attention and praise. Which is not to say that Audie Murphy and the like didn’t earn their medals, or that no black man ever had the chance to earn high honors for service (indeed many did), only that opportunities were diminished for them, and so too were outcomes. As a second order effect, all the follow-on opportunities and benefits that come from distinguished wartime service such as a leg up in seeking a political career, job opportunities, and just overall notoriety were likewise diminished for African Americans as a group. Not because white servicemembers didn’t earn all their medals, but rather because black servicemembers were not afforded the same opportunities for service of equal quality. Similarly, a white man attending a top tier law school in the mid-20th century or earlier didn’t _not_ earn their degree. But they got opportunities that were often denied to people of color (and women too). Meritocracy is all well and good, but for so much of our history the opportunity to perform meritoriously was denied to PoC by law and, even now, due to circumstances that have nothing to do with relevant personal characteristics, and everything to do with the lingering effects of past discrimination, not the least of which is generational poverty. Oh, and of course ongoing present discrimination, as evidenced by the conduct of certain state and federal legislators. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2021, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/462 "2021-05-20T02:30:09Z")
> [@bump](#): > > One thing I’ve noticed is that in a lot of talk of systemic racism and disadvantaged communities, there seems to be an undercurrent that white people, specifically white men, don’t deserve what we’ve got, or that somehow any achievements we have are not valid because of this systemic racism. The way I see it, is that that is wrong. The reason why researchers talk about systemic racism is that those achievements you point at are good, like in the case of how many breaks white families get in a crisis; less of a chance that a family would be separated by child services or parents arrested, but that would be more likely if the parents are from a minority group. One should consider the differences of the opioid crisis compared to how black families got less help or compassion. The point here is that that same compassion and treatment instead of jail and no family separation should also have been offered to black families during the crack cocaine crisis. > **[The War on Drugs That Wasn't: Wasted Whiteness, “Dirty Doctors,” and Race in...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121004/)** > > The past decade in the U.S. has been marked by a media fascination with the white prescription opioid cum heroin user. In this paper, we contrast media coverage of white non-medical opioid users with that of black and brown heroin users to show how... BTW a quick search showed that the authors here did not use Critical Race Theory, and yet it is clear that the new laws in some states that claim to be just against CRT in reality are also banning subjects like this one from being taught in universities and schools. Also, I likely got wrong that scholars would be forbidden from continuing to do research, but IIRC teaching is a part of the life of a researcher and the white politicians banning the teaching of CRT and similar subjects, do so knowing that researchers will be more than just inconvenienced. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2021, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/463 "2021-05-20T02:34:23Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > But it far more complicated than that. And addressing a fraction of the problem is nice, but its really insufficient. Nobody complains about them teaching biology in school because it doesn’t explain everything about all the other sciences. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2021, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389/464 "2021-05-20T04:33:23Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I am interested in whether CRT makes falsifiable claims because if it does I am interested in looking at evidence for those claims. That doesn’t sound like a particularly useful way of understanding a discipline in which making falsifiable claims is not the primary aim. Again, it sounds as though you’re only interested in judging CRT on what you think it ought to be doing rather than what it’s trying to do. Plenty of illustrative analogies about the superficial and cherrypicking nature of such an approach suggest themselves, but I’ll spare you them for once in a way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-critical-race-theory-thread/941389.md?page=24)