You mean the myth that White supremacy stokes and uses as a wedge issue to divide its opponents that otherwise would be natural comrades in adversity?
How is that not a pattern of oppression?
In your opinion, does CRT claim that all substantial disparities between groups are caused by external factors like white supremacism, and not by anything those groups might be doing differently?
Yeah, it’s totally straightforward to demand someone tell you what proof they’d accept for something, when they’d already said they weren’t sure what exactly it meant and needed clarification. 
How the fuck can anyone know what proof they’d want, or even if they’d want proof at all, if they aren’t sure of what a statement means?
Not to mention how you then went on to make shit up about my motives and bring up something I said in another thread completely out of context just to make me look bad. Totally straightforward, no agenda there!
My “opinion” is that CRT doesn’t “claim” anything. For a relatively agenda-free summary of what CRT is, I refer you to the link in my first post in this thread.
Okay, so where does all the equity stuff that has become popular in the last few years come from?
Depends on what you mean by “all the equity stuff”. And are you assuming that it all must come from some central source?
Perhaps the various conversations around systemic racism are simply emergent effects of a wider social change that allows us to have conversations around systemic racism (and sexism, homophobia, etc). Is that what you mean by “popular”?
Equity is the idea that it’s not enough to treat people equally, you have to ensure equality of outcome. (Eg by using lotteries instead of exams to decide who gets into accelerated schools, and cancelling gifted and talented programmes.) I’m not assuming it’s all coming from one central source, but the idea must have come from somewhere.
Where did you get that definition from? Equity can also mean “equity of opportunity”. Outcomes are certainly one metric by which equity of opportunity can be measured, but to characterize calls for equitable treatment as a drive toward some Harrison Bergeronesque dystopia is not a reasonable interpretation.
The idea that all people should be treated fairly and equitably? It’s been around for a while now.
You mean the clarification that was provided when you actually asked for it…
You’re the one all hung up on the scientific method and falsifiability. So it seemed a reasonable question to ask. But when you’re asked to actually put that devotion to Popper to the test, you just dodged.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to ask - what’s your science qualification?
The context is right there in my post. You say “another thread” like it’s an unrelated post. It’s not, it’s a post on the very same dumb “unconscious bias isn’t racism” topic you tried to slip into this thread. Do you think your posts in other threads no longer exist or matter?
Showing that your arguments look silly and exposing your evasiveness in dodging questions is not the same as a campaign just to make you look bad. It’s engaging with what you’ve actually typed here.
If your actual quoted posts are making you “look bad”, the fault doesn’t lie with me…
I don’t remember ever seeing the term “equity of opportunity”. If I have, it’s been swamped by other phrases such as “education equity” and “employment equity”.
Now granted, some people may use the term as a synonym for “equality”, but others try to avoid it. On the other hand, I think that “equality of outcome” is only part of why they prefer it. I think part of it is also a knee-jerk aversion to the word “equality” because of people in the past using it to mean that what we currently have is genuine equality of opportunity and thus there is no need for reform, and part of it is another avoidance of the term because people use it to mean an attempt at formal genuine equality without the need for justice.
Modhat: This thread will not be used to rehash the school lotteries. Do not continue.
I googled and looked at a couple of the links:
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Equity refers to fairness and equality in outcomes, not just in supports and opportunity.
Plus there’s the famous graphic with the people trying to see over the fence. Equity = everyone ends up the same height.
After reading your post I looked at a few more sites and some have a definition more similar to what you used, although @Ludovic is right that ‘equity of opportunity’ is not a thing.
People definitely used to talk about equality, and equal opportunities, which included extra support for those who need it, eg disabled people. Equity is a new thing, not sure exactly when it became common to talk about it - maybe in the last decade.
Did you ever try searching in quotes?
They are not unrelated concepts.
That famous graphic is all kinds of problematic, not least that the way it illustrates equity effectively uses inherent deficits (shortness) as a metaphor for systemic ones (racism).
That list of things can be so broadly interpreted as to ban almost any interpretation of history.
It also assumes equal outcomes are possible or desirable, which is not true in every situation.
How so?
I’m struggling to think of examples where equal outcomes would be undesirable.
When they are only achievable by holding some people back. The best outcome is everyone being able to realise their potential, not everyone getting the same score on each exam or running the race in the same time.
And I’m not claiming that is at all the state of the world now, but it should be the goal.
Well, look at some of the banned things (Consider for a moment what I just typed, but, anyway…)
What does “Fundamentally racist or sexist” mean? Are Black people more mistreated by the police (a government entity) than white people? Yes? “Wahhhh, you’re saying the USA is fundamentally racist!” Can’t say that in class now. Is the War on Drugs disproportionately aimed at Black people? Oh, a student complained that you mentioned that, you’re fired. That suggests the USA is fundamentally racist. Can’t say that. Literally any discussion of contemporary racial disparity can be interpreted as saying “the USA is fundamentally racist.”
Again, this can be stretched to mean almost anything. “You should be aware that it’s possible you have unconscious bias” strikes me as being almost a self-evident statement. Now it’s banned.
This bans literally any discussion of affirmative action that is not purely opposition to it.
Can’t discuss slavery reparations (banning discussion of reparations is the obvious intent here.)
This can be stretched to prohibit ANY discussion of any racist act in history. What, the history teacher mentioned Japanese internment camps? Wahhh! I’m white, I felt bad! Fire the teacher!
If you don’t believe this will happen, you’ve never been to a school board meeting. Parents WILL use this rule as a cudgel. There are many, many parents whose position on history instruction is like this.
They’re not banned anymore, that’s from Trump’s EO, which Biden repealed.
Yeah, I’ve never been to a school board meeting, so I’ll defer to your judgement. (Maybe the PTA is in my future now I have a kid 
.)
I guess you’re the wrong person to ask if any of this is constitutional. Isn’t it opposed to free speech?