Critical Race Theory - Much Ado About Nothing?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Charles Fout, Aug 27, 2021.

  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    If a black man being worth only 3/5 of a white man is not racism then I don't know what the heck it is.
  2. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Well, the Three-Fifths Compromise is probably one of the most misunderstood events in history. The Northern states didn't secure the abolishing of slavery they wanted in the drafting of the Constitution, so they wanted to limit the South's power by only counting free peoples in the allocation of representatives. That makes sense, right? The slaves couldn't vote, and their owners weren't going to represent their interests, so why count them?

    The South was, obviously, more rural, so they wanted their "property" counted as part of the population. See the hypocrisy. So, they settled on the 3/5 compromise when slaves shouldn't have been counted at all. This ended up giving the South disproportionate representation.
  3. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I completely understand all of that. (Which is why I carefully worded my disclaimer when I hypothesized the compromise discussion earlier in the thread.) It is still a racist part of our constitution.

    As I'm sure you are aware, there can be racist policies or racist outcomes to institutional policies without there being anyone that is racist. Which conveniently is a definition of what CRT is. ;)
  4. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    That's right! I missed that. I only looked for an opinion tag but it is instead tagged commentary! Am opinion article on a Mixed accuracy media source that is rated as extremely biased is worthless in this context.
  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Not necessary so, the content can be accurate. Mixed simply means needs verification. Most sites even if score high still require verification.
    What if news are accurate but media simply not reporting it for their own reasons?

    The parents of a Jesuit High School student have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the suburban Sacramento institution, alleging that their son’s objections to teaching critical race theory led to him being labeled a “bigot” and his forced withdrawal from school.

    The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Sacramento, identifies the student only as “A.P.,” a 17-year-old Mexican-American student with attention deficit hyperactivity syndrome and dyslexia who has been studying at Jesuit through an accommodation plan.
    The suit names as defendants the Roman Catholic school in Carmichael, President John P. McGarry and Principal Michael Wood, who were unavailable for comment."

    I don't know who is right or wrong in this incident, one of to many.

    The issues of CRT are disputed on education boards, parents are involved.
    And this is not about noting.
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    You are flat out wrong on your assertion as to what Mixed accuracy means. It means exactly what I said. The media source with a rating of Mixed makes statements in their articles that are a mixture of true, false and incomplete statements. Just to be clear here an incomplete statement means that it is likely a misleading statement.

    Your statement about "What if news are accurate but media simply not reporting it for their own reasons?" when taken in the context, that is getting into the bias factor, not accuracy. For example, we are discussing an OPINION piece on Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation is rated as EXTREME right bias. As far right as the scale goes. That means that they are likely to not report things that don't support the far right position. It has more to do with the bias rating not the accuracy rating. But in any case that opinion piece is totally useless in trying to prove your false assertions as to what CRT means. But in case, your point about a media source not reporting things is why I posted links to right biased sources that support my assertions that CRT is not the bogeyman that you say it is. I'll note here again that you have utterly failed in presenting any useful links supporting your bogus assertions as to what CRT is.

    Regarding the rest of your post, I don't get my news off of social media like this forum and so I'm not sure what you want me to say about it. It is irrelevant. I said to post a link to a high accuracy article that supported your incorrect statements about CRT. You have failed at that. This statement about a Jesuit HS in Sacramento is worthless for proving your point.

    Regarding your last point, just because other people have been told the same lies that you've been told and believe those lies the same as you, it does not make the lies true.
  7. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Lerner, you are being very amusing in your refusal to face reality that real CRT is not really taught in K-12. Despite your silly false assertion about how untrustworthy High accuracy news sources are and despite your apparent refusal to accept anything on this topic that doesn't already match your obvious bias even from High accuracy sources that are right biased, and despite your inability to find any "trustworthy" site that supports your false assertions, just for fun I'll up the game a bit and reference a Very High accuracy source that has Least political bias, the Associated Press.

    EXPLAINER: So much buzz, but what is critical race theory?
    There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students, though some ideas central to it, such as lingering consequences of slavery, have been.

  8. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Active Member

    If somebody really wanted to get the story straight from the horse's mouth, maybe they could watch unedited video of the various school board meetings.

    Or you can just trust your favorite unbiased and honest news sources to give it to you straight.
  9. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Yes! Like the Associated Press!
  10. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member


    CRT is APPLIED & Implemented not thought.
    There is a difference.

  11. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    You really have no idea what CRT actually is. Let me see if I can help you. (I know that I really can't but it is amusing to try.)

    From the AP article I linked to that you just responded to


    Critical race theory is a way of thinking about America’s history through the lens of racism. Scholars developed it during the 1970s and 1980s in response to what they viewed as a lack of racial progress following the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

    It centers on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation’s institutions and that they function to maintain the dominance of white people in society.

    The architects of the theory argue that the United States was founded on the theft of land and labor and that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race. Proponents also believe race is culturally invented, not biological.

    end quote

    It seems that your statement about what CRT is just flat out wrong. That is describing a thought. Something that would be called a theory. I suspect that is the reason that they call it Critical Race THEORY.

    Theory: A hypothesis or conjecture.

    I hasten to note that "applied" and "implemented" are two words that don't seem to make sense in this context.

    How does this AP article end in its discussion of the bogeyman made out of the 30 or 40 year old CRT over the past year by the far right?

    Some say the ways Republicans describe it are unrecognizable to them. Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law professor who teaches a course on the topic, said it’s a myth that critical race theory teaches hatred of white people and is designed to perpetuate divisions in American society. Instead, she said she believes the proposals have a clear political goal — “to ensure that Republicans can win in 2022.”
    end quote

    So a professor that teaches CRT at UCLA says that she doesn't recognize the stuff you are claiming as CRT to be CRT. Don't you think a professor that teaches CRT would know what CRT actually is?
  12. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    CRT and activism.
    CRT recognizes the role of the law in perpetuating racial inequality.
    Employing a CRT framework necessitates interrogation of systems and structures in which we function.
    For civil rights lawyers, this necessitates an examination of the legal system and the ways it reproduces racial injustice.
    Like any other approach, CRT can be misunderstood and misapplied. It has been distorted and attacked. And it continues to change and evolve.
    Since last years riots and BLM protests, schools across the country have been overhauling their curriculum to address systemic racism and seek to make classrooms more equitable.
    Among other efforts, districts are instituting anti-bias training for teachers and requiring that history lessons include the experiences of marginalized groups. At my workplace ( not a school) we all had such training and discussions. It was a positive well balanced activity.
    Conservative politicians have pushed back on these, say teachers are trying to “rewrite history” and should not abuse race when interacting with students.
    Proponents counter that discussing race creates more inclusive schools and helps students overcome systemic barriers restricting their achievement.
    Critics also state that Democrats are using this to win 2022 and 2024 elections by divisive indoctrination that creates hate toward republican party.
    The anti-critical race theory movement is now focused on classrooms, government agencies, workplace etc.
    Most efforts to stop the use of CRT have played out in state legislatures, at least a dozen of which have taken up the issue in recent months.

    A teacher at Oklahoma City Community College said that the CRT class she has taught for six years was canceled because of her state’s new law.
    A spokesman for the college confirmed that the class has been paused while administrators evaluate the legislation’s ramifications.
    The American Civil Liberties Union characterized the bans as an attempt to silence teachers and students and impose a version of American history “that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people.”
    The problem with CRT is that it became political tool, and like Trojan horse lead to attack from within, if it was at appropriate level it wouldn't be the issue, it became an issue for the critics as one group started using and abusing it to push other agendas so did the opponents on their part.

    Bill, I know what CRT is, you seem to missing my point of how is the CRT being abused by all sides.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Scholars would object to this lay definition.

    Theories are not hypotheses, nor are they conjecture. They're explanations of phenomena. Many theories are so well supported we come to refer to them as "facts." But facts are merely well-tested and proven theories.

    Gravity is a great example. Newton gave us the basics, and his theory served us well for hundreds of years. Then that pesky Einstein came along and the theory of gravity had to be adjusted. Newtonian physics didn't explain time and space all that well. It continues to be adjusted to this day to accommodate new observations at the sub-atomic level.

    Theories can be derived in two basic ways: deduction and induction. The former is, IMHO, the more prevalent. Deduction involves forming hypotheses and testing them by gathering and examining data. So, you start out with an idea and see if the data support it. Induction is the opposite, where you gather data and induce theory from it. (Grounded theory, case studies, ethnographies, and many other forms of research can be used inductively.)

    I've done both. In one doctoral dissertation, I deductively built an armchair theory about the acceptability of college degrees in the workplace, then tested hypotheses that helped support or reject the theory. In my second doctoral thesis, I inductively created a grounded theory from gathering and qualitatively analyzing reams of data gathered from live interviews.

    CRT seems to be a deductive theory. I do not know how well the data gathered over decades have done to support it (I only heard about it recently when Republicans decided to demagogue a theory they--and especially their voters--do not understand), but it isn't going away. So, I suspect the research is rather confirming.

    • Deductive: "Hey, I think there is systemic racism built into our social structures. Let's do some research to find out."
    • Inductive: "Hey, there seems to be something wrong with our social outcomes. Let's do some research and see if we can understand it."

    On a social level, Republicans have been typically short-sighted in their demonizing. Oh, sure, they'll succeed in scaring some people for a little bit. But then they'll have to deal with the fact that they took this dusty old theory and put it out into the public discourse. That will not go well for them. They did the same thing with the ACA by calling it "Obamacare." They've done the same thing with Hillary Clinton--elevating her from a has-been politician to a statesman and prescient seer.
  14. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    You would think so. I had similar thoughts when they demonized immigrants, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ. I thought this demonizing of minorities that they commonly partake in would catch up with them. In some ways it has, I guess. Something like 90% of blacks vote Democrat. That means there is a huge cross over of conservative blacks that vote Democrat because Republicans are perceived as the anti-minority party. It seemed that the Republicans had planned to abandon this basic strategy after the 2012 defeat of Romney. They decided to try to stop demonizing minorities. Then Trump won in 2016 by doubling down on that basic strategy of demonizing minorities. Instead of trying to build a more inclusive party he doubled down on exciting the base. I see this demonizing CRT is just a continuation of that basic strategy of demonizing minorities and exciting their base with bogeymen. I would think that their base would eventually wise up but that seems to be more wishful thinking on my part. :eek::oops::rolleyes:o_O
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Even though this is just an Internet forum I think that plagiarism is still not a pretty look. Especially on a higher education type forum.

    Of course, since it makes little sense. this part is your own words.
    "Critics also state that Democrats are using this to win 2022 and 2024 elections by divisive indoctrination that creates hate toward republican party.
    The anti-critical race theory movement is now focused on classrooms, government agencies, workplace etc.
    Most efforts to stop the use of CRT have played out in state legislatures, at least a dozen of which have taken up the issue in recent months."

    Democrats are not talking about CRT. Democrats are not using CRT. CRT is 30 or 40 years old! This is your illogical grasping at straws. You really should get your news from more reliable sources.

    Regarding the last stuff about a college CRT course, so what? Seems completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    What? There's an entire COURSE on CRT? At a highly regarded research university? Man, that says a lot about the quality and support for CRT.
    Yes, by one particular political party.
    Except they're not. So there's that.
    For one party, yes. The other isn't talking about it, isn't doing anything about it, and couldn't care less. Yes, if the one party wants to make CRT into some sort of bogeyman, the other party will have to respond.

    Why, pray tell, is the Republican Party so full of hate for Americans? Oh, that's right, because that's what its members demand of it. Because they're hateful, too.
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Ironically, CRT can actually benefit the people most scared of it: ignorant White supremacists. Let me explain.

    CRT examines the built-in racism of social structures. It says these structures can be racist even though the people in them are not. See? It let's White supremacists off the hook entirely! With CRT, racism isn't proactive, it's insidious. It isn't intended; it's circumstantial.

    It's not your fault. Now, take off the hood and go home.
  18. Ted Trowbridge

    Ted Trowbridge New Member

    Bill Huffman & Rich Douglas - I see you guys are still trolling this site.
    Speaking of CRT, I am sure you both would be interested in learning that back in the day if I remember correctly PWU offered a course on that very subject.
    I'm sure that you both will have reams of opinions on the matter - so have at it BOZOS !!
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    You have rightly pointed it out in the past when something I said was personal.
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    A more appropriate response for you would have been to post a link to your thesis in the PWU thread. I'll have to assume that probably would have been more embarrassing for you and so all you could do was to troll in this thread?

Share This Page