Isn't CRT the idea that minorities are not responsible for their actions but the fault of white people? This shows how out of touch I am with all this woke nonsense from both sides. Personally I feel like the hard left hijacked the CRT and Defund the Police narrative and turned it into something completely nonsensical.
As best as I can tell, putting it simply critical race theory is about systemic racism. It puts forward the idea that racial inequalities can manifest and be sustained even under a system of laws that purport to be "race neutral".
Its funny how people think DeSantis has a chance in hell against Trump. Trump is going to eat him for dessert and spit him out. If DeSantis goes up against Trump it'll be the end of his career.
There is a thread on it. I never heard of the term until it was made a cultural issue. I read about it and while that is a subset of it, it seems much more complex and complicated. This doesn't look like some simple idea (why they call it both *critical* and *theory*) that anyone would be learning in primary school. Probably not even in undergrad. I think it's more of a law study or post-grad. After all, it was initially an obscure legal concept. Republicans have weaponized CRT into a cultural issue, grouping anything they don't like about racial (in particular black) diversity and history under CRT and in cases like what we are seeing in Florida and elsewhere, fundamentally remove them from education or restrict discussion about them. A black author talking about her experience of racism is too taboo for education and must be banned. Just for the heck of it - one of the basic tenets of CRT is race is a social construct. Conservatives on this board often make this same point. Critical race theory | Definition, Principles, & Facts | Britannica First, race is socially constructed, not biologically natural. The biogenetic notion of race—the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences—was finally refuted by genetic studies in the late 20th century. Social scientists, historians, and other scholars now agree that the notion of race is a social construction (though there is no consensus regarding what exactly a social construction is or what the process of social construction consists of)
My thoughts on CRT is that it tries to explain institutional racism along with individual racism from lynch mobs, a "few bad leaders", or groups like the Klan. Stuff like redlining, neighborhood charters explicitly forbidding black ownership in that community, or straight up corporate fraud (higher rates or unfair provision) that's harder to discuss in finer detail at public schools without having a general context. I might know fragments or factoids, but I don't collectively know the curriculum to debate why it would or wouldn't be offensive or inoffensive to the poor cute widdle white younglings that might have their future souls snuffed out over it. I mean for cold self-interested "moderate libertarians", it might be uncharacteristically human to give some **** over a minority with lesser rights... their precious innocent children. Whether it really is a big deal or not, I don't know first or second hand. Whether it's a "postmodernist rewrite" like what Tuck or Federalist folks claim NYT's one-off black history series claims to be, I genuinely don't know. They cry wolf too much for me to entertain their man tears seriously. Otoh, partisans on the other side are definitely hiding in that nebulous ambiguity. Maybe they do it to push boundaries even further. They know that people like me would reject them if there were a defined list with flaws or untruths, so they're letting this all sink in our social discourse. That's not cool either.
The opposition to “CRT” isn’t really an opposition to some legal theory taught to grad students. It’s an opposition to the idea that American institutions are fundamentally “racist” and teaching that perspective to young students. I don’t see a credible argument against teaching about historical facts. But if the goal is to convince students that present day institutions are racist and need to be overturned then that’s seen as a major threat to conservatives. They consider it leftist indoctrination.
Except it's likely only taught in law or grad schools. Yep, I get that. That is the phrasing from Republicans. For any controversial theory (or maybe even not controversial), you can find a group of people claiming the goal is a threat against them. The goal of showing Islamic art is to damage Islam. The goal of evolution is to weaken Christianity. CRT has been around since the 70s (or maybe even earlier in a different form). It was an obscure academic theory that almost no one cared about or pay attention to. It was not a threat for 50 years but became one overnight when it was made a cultural issue and turned into a perceived threat. And now we have seen that it's being weaponized to ban books from school, restrict what teachers can say, and now ban AP history classes.
We had a very long thread about CRT and apparently there still is no good definition of what it actually measn. But it is a historical fact that many US institutions were racist and there still is a legacy of those. Redlining existed, Exclusion Acts existed, unequal treatment by law enforcement existted. To bring it back to another recent discussion not teaching those because it makes white people uncomfortable is pretty much the same as not teaching that there were historical depictions of Muhammed in Art History class.
I heard this mentioned on Late Night shows but had to check to see how true this was. Yes Ron DeSantis is taking on the NHL for being woke.. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/20/ron-desantis-nhl-florida-governor-anti-woke-crusade DeSantis v NHL: Florida governor taps unlikely foe in ‘anti-woke’ crusade What does the Florida governor and Republican presidential hopeful look to gain from attacking North America’s whitest sports league as ‘woke’? As part of its forthcoming All-Star game weekend in Sunrise, Florida, the National Hockey League planned to host a special event called the Pathway to Hockey Summit. Part of the league’s Hockey is For Everyone initiative, the summit was described in a now-deleted LinkedIn post as a “career event for diverse job seekers who are pursuing careers in hockey”. In addition to be over 18 and a US resident, participants had to “identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability”. Also welcome: veterans. Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, didn’t like the sound of it. The Republican’s office issued a terse statement suggesting that the inclusive event had been too exclusive. “We do not abide by the woke notion that discrimination should be overlooked if applied in a politically popular manner or against an unpopular demographic,” DeSantis’s press secretary, Bryan Griffin, said. He demanded that the NHL “remove and denounce” the “prohibitions it has imposed” on the event’s attendees. The NHL quickly replaced the original post, deleting the self-identification criteria. As far as conservative political targets go, the NHL is a strange one. The league’s own data shows it’s brimming with this so-called “unpopular demographic”: white guys. In October, the league’s inclusion and diversity report noted that its full-time workforce is 62% male and nearly 84% white. But that’s not the point, of course. The well of the US culture wars is deep, as is the capacity Americans seem to have for fighting them – especially when they involve sports. Former US president Donald Trump tapped a seam with the NFL, taunting the league about (what else) its TV ratings and upbraiding it for becoming too soft. At a Colorado rally in the final weeks of his 2016 presidential run, Trump said that the “number one” reason people weren’t watching as much football is because politics “is a much rougher game”. The other reason: Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback who protested police shootings by taking a knee during the national anthem. A year later, Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, made a show of walking out of a football game in Indianapolis after members of Kaepernick’s San Francisco 49ers also took a knee. Trump immediately sent out a fundraising email. “Your Vice President REFUSED to dignify their disrespect,” it shouted. DeSantis is no doubt hoping to leverage the same angry anti-woke dollars now, as he warms up for a bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. And while that anti-woke cash supply isn’t bottomless, it has apparently yet to be fully exhausted: DeSantis has already raised more than $200m. But making the NHL the target of that ire is a surprising move. Not only are NHL team owners overwhelmingly white, male and rich – they also mostly donate to Republicans. Between 2016 and 2020, NHL owners donated around $7m to Republican politicians versus just $1.7m to Democrats, according to an analysis at FiveThirtyEight of publicly available contribution data. To put that into perspective, the same analysis found that NFL owners donated just over $5m to Republicans during the same period. It’s fair to wonder just how far the NHL thought it could take its inclusivity message before it naturally ran aground against the political ideology held by the majority of team owners – not to mention, in the case of Jeff Vinik, owner of the Tampa Bay Lighting and part of DeSantis’s economic advisory committee in 2018, their political friends. But when it comes to accusations of ‘woke-ness’, DeSantis is an equal opportunity deployer. Last year, he vetoed $35m in funding for a future Tampa Bay Rays spring training site, partly due to the team’s outspoken support of gun violence prevention in the wake of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. DeSantis called it “inappropriate to subsidize political activism of a private corporation”. He also threatened to fine the Special Olympics $27.5m if it imposed a Covid-19 vaccine requirement for its event in Orlando last summer – and only dropped the threat when the Special Olympics acquiesced. This week, the NHL had to respond to yet another attack on its inclusivity efforts, when Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov refused to wear a Pride-themed jersey for the team’s warm-up on Tuesday night. “I respect everyone’s choices. My choice to stay true to myself and my religion,” Provorov said, incorrectly suggesting that being LGBTQIA+ is a choice. The league responded by waffling: “Players are free to decide which initiatives to support, and we continue to encourage their voices and perspectives on social and cultural issues.” While hockey fans are now left to wonder whether the NHL’s stated support for inclusivity is just a cynical marketing ploy dropped at the first sign of pressure, they can be assured that DeSantis’s efforts certainly are. One unnamed Republican strategist told the Daily Beast that the attack on the NHL was “a great play to make”. The average Republican voter, the strategist argued, “more than likely wasn’t even aware this was an issue – and to be fair the left probably had no idea this was happening – until DeSantis came out with his statement.” Something new to fuel the partisan fury – and open their wallets. During his second inaugural address as governor in January, DeSantis said Florida “is where woke goes to die”. In his cynical pursuit of reactionary cash, DeSantis might also ensure Florida is where sports – or at least its spirit of fair play – goes to die, too.
I think it's entirely appropriate to teach different perspectives relating race and the history of race relations in the country. That seems pretty important to a full social studies education. Where it becomes somewhat questionable is when the presentation is skewed heavily to portraying one side as right or wrong. So a class on the history of affirmative action and the arguments for and against it is appropriate. A class that is intended to convince the student why affirmative action was necessary and continues to be necessary, on the other hand, will understandably be opposed by parents who don't what their kids to be indoctrinated. We should oppose bans on teaching historical arguments and perspectives that ideologues think will give students "wrong ideas". But if those lessons are conducted in a manner that does not leave room for open discussion of alternative perspectives, that is problematic.
I think most people will agree that discrimination in the form of redlining is wrong. This gets into the "even handed" problems that we see with arguing that maybe we should teach the German POV when teaching the Holocaust. The issue of Affirmative action I think comes down to whether one thinks that the problems addressed by affirmative action still exist or not. I think you can certainly address that in a straight forward manner by looking at where historically disadvantaged groups are in positions of employment and academia as compared to their proportion of the population. What are wrong ideas? That Hamline student and CAIR are arguing that it is wrong to teach that were historical depictions of Muhammed.
...participants had to “identify as female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability”. Also welcome: veterans. _____ That's pretty cringe.
Yet you have some people utterly confused as to why black people don't vote red. I mean this makes it pretty clear that this is a racist policy and should be read as such. If there was any consistency they'd ban all those other classes as well.
We all know Florida "is where Boomers goes to die." Sounds pleasant for Boomers and woke to find common ground. To die. If you're a white guy who really wants to get in, you could identify yourself as doubly curious.
