Way ahead of you, I already cited a Jewish researcher that uses CRT.
IMHO a lot of the “prominence” Trump gave it was because his minions looked for items that could hit the hardest against minorities that are in important positions in academia. Trump and other bigots then counted on the basic ignorance about CRT to dispose of the ‘horrible, bad’ strawman.
I’ve read that article before. It talks around the issue a lot but it never really addresses Sullivan’s point.
Not sure what that has to do with whether the experiences of Asian Americans support the theory, but okay.
What was your point in posting it?
This is some trifling shit, DemonTree. My point is that the experiences of Asian Americans support the theory. Come on.
To me, the key part of his definition is the “governing people” part. I don’t think a parking policy really falls under what I consider “governing”.
But even if you consider that it is, I don’t see where he says we need to analyze every policy under that lens. He’s making a statement of how he categorizes governance, not a call to action (in that paragraph).
Interesting: I interpreted “govern people” as “directing people’s behavior.” So a dress code at a restaurant, even though it’s 100% privately owned, would be a policy that governs people. Are you saying you’re interpreting it as specifically government? I’m not trying to gotcha or anything, just making sure I understand.
And he goes on to say “Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.” It does seem like he’s saying we can analyze every policy under that lens. Maybe he’d agree that sometimes that analysis is too trivial to worry about; but I don’t recall his ever making that allowance. Perhaps it’s too obvious to make?
No, not specifically government. But “governing” to me indicates some behavioural element. I suppose you could consider a parking policy that, but to me it’s more like a statement about which size screws go in the new Cashew-shelling widgets, it’s just custodial.
Can, and should, are not the same, though, is my point. Yes, I do think it’s too obvious.
This is one of those things that needs to be examined in context. You cannot just look at any policy and tell whether it is racist or anti-racist.
So, without context, I don’t think that such a determination could be made. But, let’s create a hypothetical context.
Staff needs to park in the side lot, while management and executives can park in the front. The front lot is visible from the lobby, has cameras, and has fences, while the side lot is not visible from inside the building, has no cameras, and has no fences.
The cars in the side lot get stolen from, vandalized, and occasionally the employees are assaulted on their way to or from their vehicles.
Additionally, as in the case of many companies, the staff is a much higher proportion of minorities than management and executives.
So, having staff park in the side lot is not by itself a racist policy. However, in context, it creates disproportionate outcomes that are racially biased, and exists as an extension of an already racially biased system.
I think that is what is needed when looking through the “lens” of CRT, is to use that lens to not narrowly focus on a particular policy, but instead to get a wide angle to see how that policy fits in context, how it builds off or exacerbates existing racial biases. Or, in the case of an anti-racist policy, how it ameliorates or fights against existing racial biases.
See, this is my problem with analogies/ypotheticals that make leading assumptions. They’re not a compelling way to make an argument stick.
What if the company had a proportionately representative leadership profile with respect to minorities and women? The crime stats would still represent a statistical bias for those using the rear parking. Is the parking policy viewed through a CRT lens still a racially biased policy? Does corporate leadership need to consider their parking policy as an extension of the greater racially biased system?
That makes sense–and even if it’s not what he intended, is a reasonable approach, and death of the author yada yada.
Way I think about it, there are certainly some policies that a CRT analysis doesn’t yield any useful results for. But there are a lot of policies that appear “race neutral” on the surface but actually aren’t, and so looking at every policy through this lens helps you catch some stuff that you wouldn’t otherwise catch.
Real-world example: our high school has a class on early childhood education, and the “lab” aspect of the class involves a small (10 kid) daycare at the school. It’s open to the community, and district staff get a discount on tuition, and low-income folks get a discount on tuition, and you can get on the waiting list as soon as you’re expecting a child.
All sounds race-neutral, right?
Except that in a district of ~750 staff, there are always more than 10 staff members with children in the appropriate age range. And staff talk, and know that if you want a slot, you have to sign up super-early. So they do, and staff kids comprise the overwhelming majority of slots, meaning that there are typically 3 or fewer slots available each year to low-income families.
Combine that with the fact that our staff is much Whiter than the community, and the community is economically stratified along racial lines, and the upshot is that tax dollars are going to subsidize daycare for middle-class White families instead of low-income Black families.
The district noticed this problem this year and changed policy so that staff kids could only take 2 of the 10 slots each year. But it took analyzing the policy through the sort of lens that CRT provides to notice the racial inequity inherent in a superficially race-neutral policy.
Here I would point out that as the Jewish scholar, the Tutsi vs Hutu Rwanda conflict and the treatment of the Uighur in China shows (both cited earlier and where the researchers used the CRT framework), CRT is not just about race, but it also can deal with the differences that also come from economic or cultural status inside social groups. Again, it depends on the evidence the research shows, you are still only looking at a part of the framework.
Same question @QuickSilver asked. What if the staff weren’t significantly whiter than the community? Would it be okay for tax dollars to subsidise daycare for middle class families of various races instead of low income families?
It seems that your question was already answered by him:
The district noticed this problem this year and changed policy so that staff kids could only take 2 of the 10 slots each year. But it took analyzing the policy through the sort of lens that CRT provides to notice the racial inequity inherent in a superficially race-neutral policy.
Of course there is another issue of fairness other than race alone. But that change would also take care of what you complain about it, it only needs to also add a preference to low income people.
No. Have you missed earlier posts where I’ve said that CRT isn’t the only lens through which to view the world? See, for example, the extended back-and-forth with Dangerosa.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. After reading most of this thread I thought this would be apt:
Then it’s a different hypothetical, and if things are proportional, it’s not a racially biased policy. Is that confusing?
Oh, sure, totally agree it’s a useful exercise to do for policies that one might dismiss as neutral. Just look at k9bff’s examination of a policy I dismissed as merely custodial (although I’ll admit, when the original hypothetical policy said “staff”, I assumed that was inclusive of all staff including management. My damn Commie roots betrayed me!)
The alternative is real world examples, which are generally going to be even messier. It was not an attempt to make “an argument stick”, it was an attempt to give an example to help to illustrate the concept under discussion.
The point of CRT isn’t to give you an answer, it is to give you a framework to look for the answer.
You can change variables and now it is a racist policy, and now it is an anti-racist policy, there’s nothing special about that.
The point was to give a policy that on the face of it, had no racial bias, but in context, had racially biased effects.
But yes, the point of viewing things through a CRT lens is to actually ask these questions about a policy, rather than assume that as long as the policy itself has no racial bias, it is neutral.
And I really don’t see how any policy can be neutral. The point of any policy is to change how people act, how they are compensated or rewarded, or how they are treated. There is no way that a policy is going to have the same effect on everyone, there will always be some who benefit more, or are diminished more. There is no such thing as perfect balance.
Now, you can certainly have policies that are “close enough”, that they don’t seem to have a disproportionate effect, or that effect is minor enough that it’s trivial, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there.
The point is that yes, anyone implementing any policies should consider it in the context of a racially biased system.
You seem to be thinking that CRT is some sort of formula or equation to apply to policies, when it is not. In its simplest form, all it is is to ask people to think about things in context, rather than in a vacuum.
Yes, if you change the hypothetical to remove the racist element, then the hypothetical no longer describes a racist situation.
I’m not sure what you two think you’re demonstrating by pointing that out.