I’m not seeing what decision was made RE order of the 4 groups.
ACIP is the committee mentioned in the article, by the way.
No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. (And just because one moron said it doesn’t mean that’s what Critical Race Theory is, unless by “Critical Race Theory” you mean “Things that I, ZoserSandstorm, think are ridiculous”).
Yes, but the things you object to all came from one of four professional groups which are ‘informing ACIP’s discussion’, not setting policy:
Peter Szilagyi is one of the 15 voting members.
AIUI it says all inequalities between races are due to racism.
Considering how minority and low income workers are more likely to die of the pandemic as well as spread it, why do you think he’s basing that on a desire to ensure white people die, rather than a desire to ensure less people die overall?
I think my interpretation is fair. It fits with the definition propounded by numerous actual Critical Race Theorists. For example, from Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice
Critical race theory (CRT) is a scholarly and political approach to examining race that leads to a consequential analysis and profound understanding of racism. It argues, as a starting point, that the axis of American social life is fundamentally constructed in race. As a result, the economic, political, and historical relationships and arrangements that social actors have to institutions and social processes are all race based. CRT also argues that, as a whole, this idea has been purposefully ignored, subdued, and marginalized in both the dominant and public discourse and that there are serious repercussions that arise from this structural blindness (Mills, 1997, p. 153)…. One of the important tenets of CRT is the assertion that race is socially constructed, yet it denotes explicitly and implicitly how power is used and appropriated in society.
And from Ibram X. Kendi’s How To Be An Antiracist
A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy.
From Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility
White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions. Regardless of whether a parent told you that everyone was equal, or the poster in the hall of your white suburban school proclaimed the value of diversity, or you have traveled abroad, or you have people of color in your workplace or family, the ubiquitous socializing power of white supremacy cannot be avoided. The messages circulate 24-7 and have little or nothing to do with intentions, awareness, or agreement. Entering the conversation with this understanding is freeing because it allows us to focus on how–rather than if–our racism is manifest. When we move beyond the good/bad binary, we can become eager to identify our racist patterns because interrupting those patterns becomes more important than managing how we think we look to others.
Emphasis mine in all cases. These prominent Critical Race scholars would seem to largely concur with my understanding. If you have an alternative definition of Critical Race Theory which doesn’t view all society’s ills through the prism of race I’d be interested to hear it.
I don’t think he’s basing it in a desire to ensure white people die, that’s ZS’s strawman. But he doesn’t claim that as his rationale and the other experts say prioritising the elderly will save more lives.
Do you have a cite that he is involved with Critical Race Theory?
A search of where this latest rabbit hole comes from points at right wing conspiracy theory outfits like The Blaze (Marked as unreliable by NewsGuard). They are “translating” the words and recommendations and using blogs and podcast opinions, as if they were reliable, to declare that Critical Race theory is involved.
One thing I see The Blaze and others in the right are missing in order to get a reckless conclusion, is that it can indeed be plausible that front line essential workers (that are mostly composed of minorities) also deserve shots is because, besides being also involved a lot in elderly care centers, those workers have also elderly parents living in their homes.
However, we digress, do you guys have a cite pointing directly at Critical Race Theory scholars, writers, etc. involved here from a reliable source?
Despite this, all the people I’ve seen, with many different views, will still throw a fit if someone calls them racist.
And are out and about spreading and being exposed to the virus, unlike people in nursing homes
No one is objecting to the idea of vaccinating essential workers or the more limited set of frontline workers first. They are objecting to the idea of making the decision on racial grounds. Whether that is due to CRT or not.
Only that the other poster did indeed blame CRT for this with no good evidence as it was shown.
The objections you are talking about once again are missing that the evidence points at racial differences as one big factor in this pandemic in the USA.
The issue of racial injustice has rightfully joined the pandemic at the top of the national agenda. Protests against the metronomic killing of Black people, especially at the hands of police, are taking place across the country. At the same time, race gaps in vulnerability to COVID-19 highlight the accumulated, intersecting inequities facing Americans of color (but especially Black people) in jobs, housing, education, criminal justice – and in health.
As our former colleague Dayna Bowen Matthew, author of Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care , puts it: “What we politely call a ‘health disparity’ is killing people of color daily. It is causing people of color to live sicker and die quicker, because of the color of their skin.” The data on COVID-19 provide the latest proof of this enduring fact.
This is much closer to what it really says. Walter’s quotes don’t suggest that there are no inequalities that aren’t race-based, and no CRT advocate I’ve ever met denies, for example, transphobic inequalities, or gender-based inequalities, or religion-based inequalities that aren’t traceable to race.
Do they believe all inequalities are due to some sort of prejudice, though?
This has come up in the UK as well, though at least here it is not complicated by radically unequal access to healthcare.
I would say that if one race is biologically more susceptible than others (but AFAIK no one is claiming this) then they should be prioritised. If the disparity is due to differences in various risk factors, then the more vulnerable races should be prioritised automatically by virtue of eg having chronic conditions or essential jobs. I’m not at all convinced we need to take race into account when planning the vaccination campaign.
Don’t worry guys, Tucker Carlson has your back.
Weasel words. You either do or don’t disagree with, for instance, this vile lie:
And I don’t think that was the recommendation anyhow, AFAICT the mentioning of race was just as a factor on why essential front line workers should get access to the vaccine early too. It is just an acknowledgement that many front line workers are minorities; however; many whites also fall into that category.
Point being: do you have a cite where the favorite bogeyman of the right is telling government that white or other races of the front line workers will be excluded?
So far as I know no one is claiming that.