I agree with most of this, as long as we don’t make the false assumption that any disparity in outcomes between groups must necessarily be due to racism.
Was, and still is.
You do remember that old saying about “Those who ignore history…”?
It was made for cases like the war against drugs. Many of the racists from the past did set up systems that hit minorities in a hard way And yet even today one sees a glacial pace to correct that, as it is clear to me that they either do not want to give the same opportunities to the accused that are minorities, or they are ignorant about how the society’s conventions are set to benefit mostly them.
Your “necessary” point is one thing that would be noticeable on the research published. The point here is that on this one and many discussions about CRT there was not a direct counter to the evidence presented in a CRT paper, critics claim with no good reasons that CRT scholars are not showing evidence that racism was involved if that was the case in the issue the paper deals with. And, as it was noted before already, racism is not the only thing CRT looks at.
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. The fact that many disparities are due to racism doesn’t contradict what I said at all. And if CRT papers are providing evidence about individual cases, that suggests the authors agree evidence is required.
That was indeed the point, many critics are still not looking at the papers to check for the evidence that was peer reviewed also. As noted also before: it is easier to think (as you thought here) that the scholars were just publishing with no evidence, when all along they did so.
The other point stands too, it is still easier for critics to try to dismiss the framework rather than to deal with the published papers.
You have misunderstood what I said. I’m not accusing scholars of publishing with no evidence, but I have seen people explicitly say that the existence of a disparity is proof in itself of racism. That is what I disagree with.
It would be very helpful to this thread if someone could separate out the framework from the ideas based on it.
As mentioned also before, a framework is not the research. That is because the subjects can be varied, and it is clear that the critics have decided beforehand that CRT is a monolith just about race. They are wrong even before starting. Incidentally, the definition of the framework was posted before. But this abstract (the complete explanation is pay walled) fits what I have seen so far.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15313204.2018.1534223
Critical race theory (CRT) is a relevant theoretical framework for the field of social work, especially when investigating historically disenfranchised populations. CRT is unique in that it aspires to empower voices and perspectives that have been marginalized, and encourages a problem to be placed in social, political, and historical context while considering issues of power, privilege, racism, and other forms of oppression.
Of course, this can not be left just like that, do you have a cite from a CRT research paper or law publication declaring that?
The point here is that pointing at nutpicks is not really helpful when one notices that CRT is used in academia and the law. Anyone can have a very bad opinion, but that does not mean that the logical thing is to ban the framework just because someone out there posted a bad opinion outside a research paper.
Kendi says that. Are you calling him a nut?
And so far as I understand it, no one is trying to ban research using the framework, they are trying to ban diversity training aimed at children that teaches various concepts such as “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” and “the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist”. It’s easy to see why ordinary people would support such bans.
Yes. If he had that in a paper he published, what you have there is just an opinion.
Again, the new law does refer to Critical Race Theory, and it is pointed at universities too. BTW, you need to read again what I posted because it clearly showed that the congress critters that want to ban it are getting it grossly wrong, or they do know what they are doing, CRT is not doing that. Hence the point I made about the critics of CRT being Orwellian. They accuse the researchers (and again, most of them minorities **) of doing the opposite of what their published work actually shows.
.
.
.
.
** And again, it is worrisome that you totally ignore that most of the white Republican Governors and state Senators are not shy of trying to silence minorities that are in high places of learning.
If people who “support such bans” are trying to define CRT by those “concepts”, that just shows how little they understand about the entire issue of race and sex/gender in the US.
“One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex”: I’ve never seen any instance of such a declaration in CRT or in gender/queer theory. (With a possible exception among some self-described “radical feminists” who endorse misandry and/or transphobia.)
Such theories may acknowledge that historically, one race or sex has done more of the total racist or sexist oppressing than other races or sexes. But that’s just stating an obvious fact. It’s not at all the same thing as claiming that one race or sex is inherently, inevitably doomed to be intrinsically inferior to others.
In fact, that kind of bigoted essentialism is far more likely to be coming from white supremacist ideologies and misogynist "anti-woke’ “contrarians” on the right than from CRT advocates on the left. I hope all the “ordinary people” who claim to be opposed to such bigoted essentialism when they’re associating it with CRT will be equally staunch against it when it comes from the right wing.
"The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist”: Here you’ll have to clarify what you mean by this statement, or what you think the “ordinary people” who oppose it mean by it.
Because it can be interpreted in two very different ways. If it means “The US is irredeemably, inescapably racist or sexist and is permanently incapable of reforming its culture to reject racism or sexism”, then that’s another bigoted essentialist claim that I never heard any CRT supporter make.
But if it just means “The US has been fundamentally influenced in its culture and policies by systemic racism and sexism that have been officially endorsed in society throughout much of the country’s history”, again, that’s merely stating an obvious fact. It’s hard to believe that any reasonably intelligent person, however “ordinary”, seriously wants to ban any such rational acknowledgement of reality, whether in “diversity training aimed at children” or in any other context.
That would be like objecting to the statement “The use of language in North America has been fundamentally shaped by the fact that most of the initial European colonizers of the continent spoke English, French or Spanish”. I mean, duh, talk about your fragile snowflakes.
You speak of unequal outcomes as if we might still expect those (presumably along racial lines) even absent the influence of racism, systemic or otherwise, even where opportunities are equal. Personally, I know of no better way to measure equality of opportunity (which even the most virulent opponents of CRT will nevertheless will profess to be in favor of as they insist they are [scare quotes] “totally not racist” [/scare quotes]) than equality of outcome.
To the extent that race is a thing (as it is a social construct), the fact that certain races tend to see better outcomes on average than others suggests that either (a) some races truly are inferior (what the racists believe and hope to give effect to in our laws) or (b) that opportunities really are not equal based on race (a recognition that racism exists, as do its lingering effects, even if the racists are removed from the equation) and so policy makers should seek to provide a remedy.
My vote is for (b), which I guess means I think there’s something to this CRT.
Given that in some areas we see unequal outcomes despite the likely influence of systemic racism, eg percentage of Asian American students at Harvard, it’s reasonable to expect these differences would persist and even increase if the influences were removed.
And again (From previous discussions), that forgets that many Asians in those learning institutions do agree that the lack of diversity (fewer blacks and Hispanics) is not good, even if Asians are benefitting now.
IMHO this also forgets that CRT is about disenfranchised populations.
I see those as two very different statements. My interpretation is closer to your first version, it suggests that racism and sexism are an inherent part of US culture and/or institutions and that removing them is not possible without turning it into a substantially different country.
It is clear that you can’t imagine it as John Lennon would say.
Pico Rivera, California
Hot dogs, balloon animals, baseball, cotton candy, the Star-Spangled Banner. Sounds pretty American, right? It absolutely is, but it’s also Latino. Gracie Gallegos, the mayor, was born and raised in Pico Rivera and she called it the Brown Mayberry. For decades, a move to Pico was a move “up.” The PR agent for the city, an Australian, said that it was very hard to get a bookstore in the community.
The point is that it is not true that it has to become a different country, otherwise it is just riffing on the reprehensible “white replacement” conspiracy that by “coincidence” is also brandished by the likes of Tucker Carlson and several Republican political critters.
What’s the “white replacement” conspiracy?
That powerful Jews (and other liberals) are conspiring to replace white Americans with non-white Americans, through a combination of immigration, crime, and maybe space lasers or something.
Huh. America is predicted to soon be ‘majority minority’ anyway, so I’m confused where the Jews with space lasers come into it.
But that’s not enough. Us Jews want to get rid of 'em all, according to the rock dumb end of the Trumpers (like Tucker Carlson, for example).