BTW, in context what you said here is really an even bigger face plant. Making an effort to deal with the observed systemic racism is not really supposed to be just a liberal idea, conservatives that insist day in and day out that they are not supporting that systematic result are on record that while they can criticize things like CRT they are against racism, problem is that what they have offered so far is not doing better.
So how was abolition in the self interest of the abolitionists?
It seems like an adoption of the Ayn Rand denial of altruism. It sounds like an argument that people cannot come to moral conclusions based on principled rational thought. Not every decision is driven by game theory.
By that definition of self interest, Ayn Rand was correct.
So if I wrote a story about how blacks could achieve social and economic parity with whites by deporting all asians, they would do so. It would just be a thought experiment and noone should get offended?
Really? What other method is there to discovering the truth?
That doesn’t mean the political answer represents the truth. The political answer for centuries was the enslavement of black people.
Are you serious?!?!?
AKA accusing everyone else of racism.
The scientific method and rational analysis is not something that is exclusive to white people in america. It is used all over the world.
Almost everything good we have in this world is the result of science. Almost everything bad we have in this world is also the result of science. Science is no more good or evil than the gravity that powers hydro power plants but also makes your boobs sag.
Because there’s no such thing as “systemic racism” and therefore no effort is needed to fix something that doesn’t exist.
Science is part of institutional racism? Wow.
I agree, CRT has never really been as interested in the truth as it has been in racial results.
You think this discussion of racial justice is because of crt?
That the MLK and RBG types would not have been able to bring us this far without the Malcolm X types?
Traditional rights analysis is what got you gays in the military, gay marriage, lgbtq discrimination = sex discrimination.
Affirmative action is special rights.
Crt’s use in race precedes crt’s use in lgbtq. Traditional rights analysis is what got lgbtq where it is. The courts didn’t crt their way to gay marriage and lgbtq=sex for purposes of discrimination. It was traditional rights analysis.
Traditional rights analysis did much more to eradicate racism and slavery than crt can possibly accomplish. There simply isn’t enough racism left to compare with the amount of racism that has been eliminated.
Sure they use it when it is convenient and supports their conclusions and disregard it when it does not. That’s not actually using data and rationale debate, that’s called cherrypicking.
Because it is driving our nation into a frenzy and it is subverting rational debate, even
on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to fighting ignorance, not merely pushing an agenda.
CRT was just a fringe theory in law back in the day but when it got picked up by social disciplines outside of law that didn’t require rigorous analysis and logic, it took off. Here was a panacea that explained away all the stubborn racial disparities that people could not explain and laid it all at the feet of racism in an unfalsiifiable way. If you did everything they wanted and it still didn’t fix the problem, well there was more unseen undetectable racism that we didn’t eradicate so we’ll just have to try harder.
Wow!
When it comes to presenting a sound basis for policymaking, no, they fall far short of what we are used to.
In education departments, sociology departments, etc, yes.
It mostly only affects america. Most other countries believe in the concept of merit, we are doing our best to undermine it. More american exceptionalism I suppose.
I think he’s arguing that it is irrational and should not be the basis of policymaking. If it is useful in getting white people to understand how fucked up white people have been for so long, then fine, but policy should not be dictated by theories that defy logic and reason.
Apparently only white people say that data is not the plural of anecdote. Or perhaps anything that challenges crt is racism. What other motive could you have for challenging crt other than racism?
Data can be subjective. Objective anecdote is not much better than subjective anecdote. You can have subjective data and objective data. They are both data. You can have subjective anecdote and objective anecdote, neither are necessarily data.
I am reasonably familiar with crt at least the state in which it existed in the 1990s. It was widely criticized back then and was considered pretty fringe. It did not really improve after it was adopted by education and sociology departments. if anything it got even less rigorous and logical.
Or at least tolerance for racism in their government.
My impression is that these programs do less to change white people than they do to give minorities courage to stand up to racism. You spend enough time around white people and you start to wonder if everyone is being racist or if you’re just being oversensitive. These programs lay it out for you and show you that the stuff you that was racist frequently was racist and the next tie it happens, you can and should say something about it. I’ve never had one like that one, I can’t imagine who the fuck would pay for something like that.
How are these things “faceplants”? Or is anything you disagree with a faceplant?
“they didn’t do it right” is in fact a common excuse for why some liberal policy didn’t work. Sometimes it’s true, sometimes its not.
Conservatives do offer an alternative. I don’t particularly like it but they have alternatives. You don’t have to have a problem solution to criticize policies without empirical underpinnings that ignore alternative causes and generally just seems to gut-check its way through analysis.
Addressed already:
At no point unselfish moral altruism was denied. But the success of the campaign requires the greater society to be persuaded that it is best for all to do the right thing. We can stand on our moral enlightenment all day proclaiming the truth of what is good and that gets us nowhere if those with power and influence don’t see a problem with continuing the opression.
Y’know, there’s where I see the problem here. Sciense/the scientific method is indeed a tool. A tool that may be used for good and for evil. And one of many tools.
BUT I cannot deride science per se just because science by itself does not bring forth justice, while accepting that fact. That is not what it is for. It can be part of the toolset I use in establishing justice, for example to chart the effects of institutional racism and misguided economics on persons and communities. It is not enough by itself, but that does not mean I must presume it corrupt.
At the same time, CRT is itself just another tool. So neither can I presume it corrupt …or superior; or give it primacy in all cases. Using the whole toolkit effectively is important. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Yes. So you need wrenches, sockets, fasteners, cutting implements as well. But keep the damn hammer 'cause you’ll need it. Should users of science care more about the moral consequences and the externalities involved in their work, consider who gets hurt? Hell yes. But the method itself is not voided by that, when used for what it’s useful.
Actually that shows that the system for your say so’s come from not looking at the cites.
To be fair, nothing can prove something as invisible and intangible as “systemic racism” if you don’t already believe that racism still has dramatic effects on society today.
And for those of us that do believe that systemic racism exists, there is a wide range of opinions about the nature and quantity of the systemic racism.
That how it looks because to say what he did he has to ignore what the right says regarding how good an effort they are doing about racism in the system. /s
As a CRT would point out, we should be doing something rather than ponder about it. I would put that item about diversity training as doing more pondering than what needs to be done.
Seems this is just the typical issue with science having issues with the humanities. Human culture is so diverse that, if we wait until we can get to the base level and work out how consciousness works and build up from there, we lose a lot of information.
The scientific method is just a means to get accurate data, but not the only way to explore the world. Sometimes creating a narrative and seeing how well it fits is a valid choice. The difference is that you can’t say that narrative is inherently correct. But it’s still useful. You use things you didn’t learn from science all the time.
That’s how the humanities work. It’s why there are multiple correct readings of the same book. They aren’t about finding the one truth, but finding insight. Science is great, but it can’t currently handle a lot of things.
As for CRT having anything to do with how race is seen today? I can’t see how that’s true if it rejects liberalism. Because, look around. It’s not rejected at all. Despite it also not being scientific, it’s just accepted. No studies prove it the correct philosophy, either. And we can see some flaws, like how it permits racism and demagogues, things we know both create problems. Poverty hasn’t been fixed under liberalism, has it? It’s not perfect. It’s not “the one truth” either. Yet that is the prevailing wisdom of the US populace.
Something that challenges liberalism isn’t bad. It’s not perfect, therefore it should be challenged. I wish it were in ways other than by a minority of people.
Finally, I suspect that, given the way @damuriajashi is talking about it, CRT is one of those bugaboo words on the right that has been declared to be “the problem with the world.” You know, like “social justice” or “identity politics” or “Marxism”. The reality is that these concepts exist because the previous status quo was found insufficient.
To put it in scientific terms, the human race is experimenting with ways to understand things. And that is what these theories do. They’re not scientific theories–they’re more like hypotheses.
You want to show they’re wrong? Come up with a competing hypothesis that addresses the same issues. Not just act like they’re some sort of evil. You couldn’t do that with science, either.
If those putting forward a theory are intellectually honest they’ll be doing their utmost to to prove their own theories wrong. Be very suspicious of anyone who choses not to do so.
If for some specific reason your offense was that author was saying that the scientific method and rationality are suspect through said story, then yes, I’d consider your offense to be ridiculous.
So your viewpoint is that the focus on narratives that the LGBTQ+ movement adopted in the mid 2000s to 2010s had no effect? That would run counter to the experiences that many LGBTQ+ advocacy groups had in the 90s and 2000s. As those legal traditional rights analysis was in place well before 2015’s Obergfell decision. They were never taken seriously. It wasn’t until the narratives of LGBTQ+ became more common place did things began to shift.
Of course the rise of CRT was due to the fact that traditional rights analysis got black Americans so far - the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s, but it did not address the historical discrimination and ills. It simply ended any further legal discrimination. The issue of stolen wealth was, and still hasn’t been, properly addressed. And so when rights based analysis will only get you so far, and in a very slow protracted way - and even then required direct action to shame political leaders to the forefront.
(This is also where I note the famed decision Brown v. Board of Education isn’t based on traditional rights based analysis at all, but on narrative and psychology: “a sense of inferiority”)
I do wish the people that cited MLK would actually read his work. “Why We Can’t Wait” is a good starting point… where at one point he criticizes the NAACP for trying to tackle racism through litigation because even after a decade of these major case victories the country hadn’t implemented them and little to no desire to do so - that legal change had become “slow token change”, and that real mass change for African Americans had to come from direct non-violent action.
Here’s why you are hearing so much about CRT lately. There’s big money in it and it’s mostly white liberals peddling this racist nonsense. And there’s no way to define when “systemic racism” has been eradicated so corporations have to keep paying these con-artists consultants forever.
I’m not sure how your links to allegations of racism are proving anything.
And if the thing you do is unjust? Does it matter? What if you are mostly helping hispanic immigrants over asian immigrants?
This is not scientific method vs real life.
This is logic, analysis and empirical evidence vs parables and anecdote. There is a hostility to logic in crt when the logic leads to places that are not hospitable to crt’s agenda.
So which court case did Obergfell overturn?
I was there for the oral arguments and it didn’t seem to involve a lot of storytelling.
Now you are retelling history through a prism that didn’t exist at the time.
I was obviously not there for brown v board but I’m pretty sure thurgood marshall did not rely on crit race theory. Indeed the court never needed to mention how segregation inflicted black children with a sense of inferiority. The 14th amendment clearly prohibited the government from treating its citizens differently solely on the basis of race.
OK so make your argument, in what way did mlk eschew traditional rights based analysis in favor of crt?
Way to not answer the question. I’ll ask it again. Do you think narratives had no effect on the LGBTQ+ movement? Do you think it did not change the public narrative and discourse to which a legal remedy was possible… with the same legal arguments that were advanced in the 1990s which went no where.
The court DID mention how segregation inflicted black children with a sense of inferiority however. And it did so for a reason. Because plenty of people, including Justice Rehnquist who was a clerk for Justice Jackson at the time, thought Plessy was consistent with the 14th Amendment.
OK so make your argument, in what way did mlk eschew traditional rights based analysis in favor of crt?
[/quote]
King very much thought there was systemic racism and it required direct action to try to help fix. Not to mention that while he was grateful for the laws that were signed, he didn’t think they were nearly enough. Which is why he worked just as hard after the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act as he did before. Why he also thought it would be far more impactful for white Americans to see black Americans get beaten on the streets than to file court briefs. After all, he was assassinated while on a March.
He was definitely not a traditional rights based thinker. Maybe a proto-Critical Race thinker.
Mostly White Liberals?
https://race.unm.edu/events/archive/summer-school.html
The founders of the critical race theory movement include such legal scholars as Derrick Bell, Charles Lawrence, Lani Guinier, Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, Patricia Williams, and Kimberle Crenshaw. Topics addressed encompass affirmative action, race-conscious districting, campus speech codes, and disproportionate sentencing of racial minorities in the criminal justice system. These self-described outsider law teachers have sparked a growing movement, not only within legal circles, but they are now seeing their ideas extended into such areas as education, sociology, and women’s studies.
There are more than just allegations. The first article I posted links to reports like this one:
IMHO making an effort to stop discrimination to black farmers helps Hispanics and Asians too.
No, not in the way crt uses narratives. Almost by definition , crt narratives are not about overturning facially discriminatory laws. You don’t need narratives for that, the case in obergfell was entirely based on rational rights based arguments.
crt narratives are meant to create arguments where no rational arguments exist.
What narrative is it that you think the crt folks advanced that made the difference? What stories did they tell that was not based on traditional analysis, logic and empirical evidence that made SCOTUS legalize gay marriage?
That is in not even close to the argument that is being made about the Derrick Bell story.
If I told that story with absolutely no evidence that blacks would deport asians to get stuff from white people and presented it as the truth in parable form as Derrick Bell did in his story and then built an entire school of thought around the practice of just making up stories to prove things that i cannot prove…
[quote=“damuriajashi, post:94, topic:921629”]
OK so make your argument, in what way did mlk eschew traditional rights based analysis in favor of crt (which didn’t exist at the time, just like it didn’t exist when brown v board was decided).
I am open to the notion that the USDA is institutionally sexist and racist but so far all this article seems to be saying is that the USDA under Trump is sexist and racist. The article even points out that under prior administrations there wasn’t a problem with getting loans.
I am even open to the notion of systemic racism generally but the definition of systemic racism pretty much covers the entire waterfront. There are no limiting principles.
So you think CRT narratives aren’t in the service of change at all?
You think the advocacy of LGBTQ+ narratives by groups like the HRC was based on service of “traditional analysis, logic and empirical evidence”? Or rather did they think the more people they knew who were gay, the more likely people would care about them as people. If you don’t think they had a massive influence in changing the national narrative, which changed judicial rulings, then you weren’t paying attention. If it was just based on rational argument gay marriage would have been decided in the 1990s. But it wasn’t. Narrative was essential in changing that.
So you did miss where the discussion about the short story in this thread wasn’t about advancing a fictional story as parable (where we both agreed that the narrative part of CRT is important) but because it advanced an anti scientific method and rationality.
As for the rest. A science fiction story generally doesn’t have “evidence” unless you have a time machine. There are plenty of sci fi which is presented as truth in parable form (Hell Star Trek: TOS is full of that). It’s what a lot of sci fi does. It presents an argument about the present day in a different setting to make a point about the present. Do you not read science fiction?
Sure there are, once the data shows that what Vox reports is no longer showing up in the charts, or that systemic bias is no longer there.
One example of an encounter denominator approach is a 2019 study by Roland Fryer, an economist at Harvard. He found that police shoot white, Black and Hispanic Americans whom they’ve stopped at equal rates.3 At first blush, that would seem like evidence that the police are not racially biased — every demographic is being treated equally, after all.
But we know that police officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic people than white ones — and that more of those stops are unfounded. Researchers measure this with something called the “hit rate,” or the rate at which contraband is actually found on the people who were stopped. A lower hit rate implies bias because it means that the decision to search someone was made with less evidence. White people stopped in New York City, for example, were more likely to be carrying a weapon than Black and Hispanic people who were stopped. White drivers stopped by the police were more likely to have contraband than Black and Hispanic drivers nationally.
As political scientists Knox, Will Lowe and Jonathan Mummolo, among others, have pointed out, that complicates Fryer’s findings. All of a sudden, what at first appeared to be equal treatment actually suggests unequal treatment. Because of the initial discrimination in who gets stopped, the sample of stopped people isn’t the same across races. The different hit rate indicates that stopped white people are actually more likely to have contraband, on average, than stopped Black people. In other words, in a world without discrimination in who was stopped — if the Black and white people who were stopped were equally likely to be engaged in criminal activity — you’d see an even bigger disparity in outcomes.