Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[RDCanecutter 26893]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

And doggone it, NYC was right outside Hitler's reach.....   wut

[UpperWestside 6278]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

I am on some level somewhat thankful that some of the people I saw on TV growing up did not make it to the social media age. Someone should probably unplug Chuck’s Twitter machine and put him on a fishing boat and just leave him there to ponder these random thoughts by himself.

[Guest Lobo]

And do you know what those Marxist professors said to Germany on their way to New York, Chuck?

That's right.  "We'll be back...in world war II & II"  

[Satchel 6982]

38 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I am on some level somewhat thankful that some of the people I saw on TV growing up did not make it to the social media age. Someone should probably unplug Chuck’s Twitter machine and put him on a fishing boat and just leave him there to ponder these random thoughts by himself.

Everything before the first comma is correct. The rest is bs.

[jimmyjazz 47203]

I'm shocked Chuck got something wrong.  He always seemed so bright.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

26 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Everything before the first comma is correct. The rest is bs.

Actually, other than the spelling of Frankfurt, and whether they voluntarily left or were forced to leave (they were almost all Jews), it's pretty accurate.  I suppose you can also quibble with whether they were all Marxists or not, but a lot of their academic work followed Marxist ideas.

Oh, and no one of the Frankfurt school is still alive and critical theory is taught and studied everywhere.  So that last bit is pretty much totally wrong.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/horkheimer/

Sad to say that I learned something from ol two-and-two Chuck today.

Edited June 1, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34751]

Another safe space getting cancelled:

"
VMI has tolerated ‘racist and sexist culture’ and must change, investigation finds
By Ian Shapira

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vmi-report-investigation-racism/2021/06/01/380c08c4-c2cb-11eb-93f5-ee9558eecf4b_story.html

"

[RomaVicta 30591]

The Frankfort School has unmade my educational instititution! Do they even have a football team? The Frankfort School Woffords, maybe?

How can this be?

It's such a remarkable coincidence that at the moment the Trumpist right is drumming up the good ol' Red Scare that they can lump your nigras in with the socialists trying to destroy our society. There can't be a strategy to this. It's just an amazing coincidence that it resembles the hate campaigns of the Rush Limbaugh Era.

The usual suspects show up to hail each other on this. Pretty revolting, actually. The irony that you largely prove the foundations of something you condemn is, as usual, lost on you. 

Critical Race Theory is the new immigrant problem. We don't want to study it, solve it, or even really talk about it. We just want to dehumanize them and scare the fuck out of the hoopleheads. 

We need a real rain.

Edited June 1, 2021 by RomaVicta

[Pancho 46311]

On 5/31/2021 at 3:52 AM, washparkhorn said:

 

Some of you may be confusing confused corporate policy messaging for some embodiment of CRT. 

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I've read a lot of primers on CRT and still don't have a great grasp on how valuable it is as a theory. 

On the one hand, I think it's important to acknowledge and study the ways in which the reverberations of slavery and racist law and policy continue to shape our world today. 

What I'm not really clear on is: does CRT hold that everything that tends to advantage whites more than blacks = systemic racism? Or do its proponents methodically trace the disparate results to their patently discriminatory origins? 

Some of the criticism of it that I've seen would have someone believe that, if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, the logic of CRT would hold that the game of basketball is systemically racist because its rules disproportionately advantage black players. And that CRT would advocate changing the rules in an attempt to eliminate or at least diminish the unfair advantage enjoyed by black players. 

 

[washparkhorn 9973]

40 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I've read a lot of primers on CRT and still don't have a great grasp on how valuable it is as a theory. 

On the one hand, I think it's important to acknowledge and study the ways in which the reverberations of slavery and racist law and policy continue to shape our world today. 

What I'm not really clear on is: does CRT hold that everything that tends to advantage whites more than blacks = systemic racism? Or do its proponents methodically trace the disparate results to their patently discriminatory origins? 

Some of the criticism of it that I've seen would have someone believe that, if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, the logic of CRT would hold that the game of basketball is systemically racist because its rules disproportionately advantage black players. And that CRT would advocate changing the rules in an attempt to eliminate or at least diminish the unfair advantage enjoyed by black players. 

 

This law review article (critical of some aspects of CRT) might help @Willfully Horn - it is from 1999. Among other things, the author discusses the intersection between CRT and CLS (critical legal studies). 

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1844&context=ndlr

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

This law review article (critical of some aspects of CRT) might help @Willfully Horn - it is from 1999. Among other things, the author discusses the intersection between CRT and CLS (critical legal studies). 

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1844&context=ndlr

 

Definitely going to give this a closer reading, but in perusal I noticed the author mentions something I intended to mention in my previous post: that CRT seems overly fatalistic. Pounding on the notion that the game of life is permanently rigged against you isn't, I imagine, terribly inspirational or motivating. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

On 5/31/2021 at 9:05 AM, Underdog said:

Damn good movie. 

Indeed, and it includes possibly my all-time favorite scene. 

 

[washparkhorn 9973]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

Definitely going to give this a closer reading, but in perusal I noticed the author mentions something I intended to mention in my previous post: that CRT seems overly fatalistic. Pounding on the notion that the game of life is permanently rigged against you isn't, I imagine, terribly inspirational or motivating. 

I tagged @Willfully Horn and meant to tag you.  My apologies to you both.

As to your point - and I should be clear - the author is giving an opinion critical of some aspects of CRT and his views are those of one in 1999. CRT has evolved and fleshed out the approach since that time. 

And to your specific point, I do think some in the affected groups never had hope and CRT helps examine that phenomenon, offers affirmation, and provides a glimmer of hope. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I tagged @Willfully Horn and meant to tag you.  My apologies to you both.

As to your point - and I should be clear - the author is giving an opinion critical of some aspects of CRT and his views are those of one in 1999. CRT has evolved and fleshed out the approach since that time. 

And to your specific point, I do think some in the affected groups never had hope and CRT helps examine that phenomenon, offers affirmation, and provides a glimmer of hope. 

What is the hope, though? Sincere question. I'm not clear on what implements it proposes to bring about change. 

From the article you linked and some other things I've read, it seems at least some CRT proponents dismiss legal reforms or anything incremental. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

23 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

What is the hope, though? Sincere question. I'm not clear on what implements it proposes to bring about change. 

From the article you linked and some other things I've read, it seems at least some CRT proponents dismiss legal reforms or anything incremental. 

In the legal field, at least, we gain perspective and narratives to better reach the ideals of justice. 

[mchookem 16768]

so this discussion made me do some research and recognize that i am a Critical Theorist, at least insofar as i think ideologues of all persuasions are a danger to the greater good of society. 

so thanks, Chuck! 😄

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Pancho 46311]

3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

 

Some of the criticism of it that I've seen would have someone believe that, if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, the logic of CRT would hold that the game of basketball is systemically racist because its rules disproportionately advantage black players. And that CRT would advocate changing the rules in an attempt to eliminate or at least diminish the unfair advantage enjoyed by black players. 

 

[BrickHorn 18447]

I’m starting to think Critical Race Theory is not as crucially important as its name would imply. Just like so-called “essential” oils which, as it turns out, are entirely optional.

[Bama Chick 28596]

GQP - “We must not destroy confederate statues! They are a reminder of our history we must never forget!”

Also GQP - “We can’t teach about racism and slavery in actual textbooks and lectures!!! That’s what the statues are for!”

[jimmyjazz 47203]

Well, it's a whole lot less effort to take the kids on a half-day field trip to bow down to see the confederate statues.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Not sure what this reply is about. Did you not get my question about whether CRT deems anything producing racially inequitable outcomes to be systemic racism? The basketball rules analogy is admittedly (and intended to be) ridiculous. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

By "assumes" I think he means "proves."

[washparkhorn 9973]

4 hours ago, mchookem said:

so this discussion made me do some research and recognize that i am a Critical Theorist, at least insofar as i think ideologues of all persuasions are a danger to the greater good of society. 

so thanks, Chuck! 😄

Nice use of postmodern analysis using critical thinking skills. A skillset fully encouraged by Western Canon. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Modern media is dumb. This whole CRT scare is a cover for the crude trade of anti-intellectualism inherent in right populism.

Right populism is a scourge. Nihilism. And aggy to its core. alien

Edited June 2, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

5 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

In the legal field, at least, we gain perspective and narratives to better reach the ideals of justice. 

True, to an extent, anecdotes and narratives can help shape court decisions and public policy. But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump so-called objective facts gleaned from science, reason, and evidence when they conflict (because those things have been corrupted or are corruptible by systemic racism). If that's an accurate description of CRT, I find it difficult to envision its application making much headway within our legal system. 

Also, wouldn't CRT say that the ideal of justice for POC can only be better reached when doing so is also in the best interest of whites? 

I know I need to study this theory more before making any judgments, but so far I'm not seeing a whole lot of hope in this perspective. It seems like the only real hope is for completely overhauling the entire "system" of our society. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

38 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

1. True, to an extent, anecdotes and narratives can help shape court decisions and public policy.
2. But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump

On number one, fairness dominates the legal landscape. Finding the truth is paramount if one is to ever achieve justice - or just have a deal enforced. 

One your second point - one way I look at CRT is as a lens for focusing on structural issues and the negative externalities produced by them.  In economic terms, the negative externalities are inefficient and limit greater efficiency. In human terms, there is unnecessary suffering caused by these inefficiencies. 

If CRT helps define these blind spots in our thinking, that works for me.

On a broader level, these are age old questions of humankind. We have always searched for the knowledge. That is an absolute positive in my opinion. It is important work.

The rest of you points were well taken, but I see CRT as a perspective to view evidence - meaning we should turn the lights on if there is light available.

Edited June 2, 2021 by washparkhorn

[bad_teammate 13524]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump so-called objective facts gleaned from science, reason, and evidence when they conflict (because those things have been corrupted or are corruptible by systemic racism).

Where did you get this understanding?

[Pancho 46311]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

True, to an extent, anecdotes and narratives can help shape court decisions and public policy. But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump so-called objective facts gleaned from science, reason, and evidence when they conflict (because those things have been corrupted or are corruptible by systemic racism). If that's an accurate description of CRT, I find it difficult to envision its application making much headway within our legal system. 

No.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Where did you get this understanding?

Here and some other places. The law review article washpark posted is the only other source I have handy, and here's how it puts it:

"First, the storytellers view narratives as central to scholarship, while de-emphasizing conventional analytic methods."

[Hookah Horns 3089]

20 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No.

Not a CRT source per se, but here's a graphic where the African American History Museum says the emphasis on the scientific method, quant reasoning, objective and rational linear thinking, and cause/effect relationships are white people stuff. Saw this recently and its absurdity has stuck with me. At the very least it jibes with the criticism of CRT you reject with "no."

 

 

[Dahobbs 18324]

27 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Here and some other places. The law review article washpark posted is the only other source I have handy, and here's how it puts it:

"First, the storytellers view narratives as central to scholarship, while de-emphasizing conventional analytic methods."

I mean, I don't know that I would trust that as your primary source for an unbiased view of the theory:

Quote

Welcome to New Discourses! We like to think of this place as a home for the politically homeless, especially for those who feel like they’ve been displaced from their political homes because of the movement sometimes called “Critical Social Justice” and the myriad negative effects it has had on our political environments, both on the left and on the right. If that’s you, welcome, and make yourself at home.

https://newdiscourses.com/about/

I'm not saying it is wrong, but it definitely has a built in negative perspective. 

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not a CRT source per se, but here's a graphic where the African American History Museum says the emphasis on the scientific method, quant reasoning, objective and rational linear thinking, and cause/effect relationships are white people stuff. Saw this recently and its absurdity has stuck with me. At the very least it jibes with the criticism of CRT you reject with "no."

 

 

The key word being "emphasis."

"Emphasis" gives us things like eugenics and The Bell Curve.

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I mean, I don't know that I would trust that as your primary source for an unbiased view of the theory:

https://newdiscourses.com/about/

I'm not saying it is wrong, but it definitely has a built in negative perspective. 

Yeah I know it's a polemic, but it has citations so I gave it a little more cred than I would've otherwise. I've also read similar things elsewhere. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not a CRT source per se, but here's a graphic where the African American History Museum says the emphasis on the scientific method, quant reasoning, objective and rational linear thinking, and cause/effect relationships are white people stuff. Saw this recently and its absurdity has stuck with me. At the very least it jibes with the criticism of CRT you reject with "no."

 

 

None of that seems inherently wrong to me. Those are definitely cultural norms that largely come from our "white" history. I don't take that as an indictment of the scientific method, but rather a recognition that there are other ways of doing things and seeing the world, but in the US our cultural has largely adopted this one view. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

None of that seems inherently wrong to me. Those are definitely cultural norms that largely come from our "white" history. I don't take that as an indictment of the scientific method, but rather a recognition that there are other ways of doing things and seeing the world, but in the US our cultural has largely adopted this one view. 

And then turns right around and believes whole-heartedly in fairy tales of immortality.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The key word being "emphasis."

"Emphasis" gives us things like eugenics and The Bell Curve.

 

I wouldn't say either of those things are the product of an emphasis on the scientific method. And again I think it's pretty insane to say an emphasis on the scientific method, objective/rational thinking, and cause/effect analysis have been foisted on the world by the white folks. That'd piss me off if I wasn't white. Hell, it pisses me off even though I am. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

I wouldn't say either of those things are the product of an emphasis on the scientific method. And again I think it's pretty insane to say an emphasis on the scientific method, objective/rational thinking, and cause/effect analysis have been foisted on the world by the white folks. That'd piss me off if I wasn't white. Hell, it pisses me off even though I am. 

I read it as wypipo emphasizing the scientific method to give them cover for racism. Hitler was very big on this.

[Dahobbs 18324]

4 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I wouldn't say either of those things are the product of an emphasis on the scientific method. And again I think it's pretty insane to say an emphasis on the scientific method, objective/rational thinking, and cause/effect analysis have been foisted on the world by the white folks. That'd piss me off if I wasn't white. Hell, it pisses me off even though I am. 

Those are definitely aspects of white culture in the United States. It doesn't say anything about those being sourced solely from white culture. And, for whatever reason, you are viewing the only option besides "objection, rational, linear thinking" to be non objective and irrational thinking. I don't think that is what the pamphlet is suggesting, but rather that some other cultures embrace less linear thinking.  

[Hookah Horns 3089]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I read it as wypipo emphasizing the scientific method to give them cover for racism. Hitler was very big on this.

I'd agree that those were fraudulent uses of the scientific method. But the emphasis didn't produce those things. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those are definitely aspects of white culture in the United States. It doesn't say anything about those being sourced solely from white culture. And, for whatever reason, you are viewing the only option besides "objection, rational, linear thinking" to be non objective and irrational thinking. I don't think that is what the pamphlet is suggesting, but rather that some other cultures embrace less linear thinking.  

I didn't say that. I guess you're referring to my omission of linearity from the post you quoted, which wasn't intentional. But yeah, it seems like they'd have just said "emphasis on linear thinking" if that's the distinction they wanted to make. 

Anyway, I think it's a ludicrous and offensive view and probably won't be changing my mind about that, so we can agree to disagree. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Quote

A Smithsonian museum apologized for a chart listing hard work and rational thought as traits of white culture.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture said in a statement Friday that it was wrong to include the graphic in an online portal about race and racism in America.

“It is important for us as a country to talk about race. We thank those who shared concerns about our ‘Talking About Race” online portal. We need these types of frank and respectful interchanges as we as a country grapple with how we talk about race and its impact on our lives,” the statement said. “We erred in including the chart. We have removed it, and we apologize.”

The educational resource released by the Washington D.C. museum is intended to serve as a guideline for discussing race.

The museum says it is reviewing policies to ensure quality of digital materials.

Sort of interesting. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[Dahobbs 18324]

21 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Anyway, I think it's a ludicrous and offensive view and probably won't be changing my mind about that, so we can agree to disagree. 

Oh, ok. I apologize. I thought we were having a dialogue. Continue your quest. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

32 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Anyway, I think it's a ludicrous and offensive view and probably won't be changing my mind about that, so we can agree to disagree. 

This is extremely honest.

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, ok. I apologize. I thought we were having a dialogue. Continue your quest. 

I make this mistake all the fucking time

[Hookah Horns 3089]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, ok. I apologize. I thought we were having a dialogue. Continue your quest. 

We were. I'm not sure how saying we'll have to agree to disagree means it wasn't. 

What do you perceive to be my "quest"? 

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

We were. I'm not sure how saying we'll have to agree to disagree means it wasn't. 

What do you perceive to be my "quest"? 

In my experience, conversations rarely go well when one party unilaterally decides the conversation is over. I have no idea what objective you have. But you've made clear it isn't discussion. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In my experience, conversations rarely go well when one party unilaterally decides the conversation is over. I have no idea what objective you have. But you've made clear it isn't discussion. 

I'm open to more discussion. I'm just saying I haven't found your arguments about the chart to be persuasive, and that my opinion that their claims are ludicrous and offensive is unlikely to be changed. Kind of similar to how nobody is going to persuade me, e.g., that it isn't ludicrous and offensive to call an elementary school a superior academic institution to UT.

At some point in any discourse you have sufficient information and arguments and have a different opinion. It doesn't mean I'm closed minded or on some kind of quest. 

No need for a facetious apology. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[Brisketexan 106899]

 

9 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

True, to an extent, anecdotes and narratives can help shape court decisions and public policy. But my understanding is that CRT argues that the subjective experiences of POC must trump so-called objective facts gleaned from science, reason, and evidence when they conflict (because those things have been corrupted or are corruptible by systemic racism). If that's an accurate description of CRT, I find it difficult to envision its application making much headway within our legal system. 

Also, wouldn't CRT say that the ideal of justice for POC can only be better reached when doing so is also in the best interest of whites? 

I know I need to study this theory more before making any judgments, but so far I'm not seeing a whole lot of hope in this perspective. It seems like the only real hope is for completely overhauling the entire "system" of our society. 

Nope.  Discussed further below.

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not a CRT source per se, but here's a graphic where the African American History Museum says the emphasis on the scientific method, quant reasoning, objective and rational linear thinking, and cause/effect relationships are white people stuff. Saw this recently and its absurdity has stuck with me. At the very least it jibes with the criticism of CRT you reject with "no."

 

 

The problem is that evidence-based reasoning (which we SHOULD favor) is skewed by......excluding necessary evidence and overemphasizing and/or falsifying OTHER evidence.

How many people knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre -- and DOZENS of others -- until very recently?  Evidence of facts, things that actually happened, was not just systematically repressed, but actually ERASED (microfilms of the newspaper accounts of the day were destroyed in the Tulsa libraries, for example).  Repression and destruction of relevant evidence means that the evidentiary record is so incomplete and inaccurate as to be FALSE.

On top of that, the evidence we DO get is often...bullshit.  For decades (a century?  longer?), much of the historical narrative has been of the great Lost Cause, how the civil war wasn't about slavery but state's rights, how slaves were actually treated well and were happy, and about 500,000 other buckets of utter bullshit.  Seriously, I was taught a FALSE narrative of Texas' role in the war.  It wasn't until I was an adult, with internet access, that I actually read the Texas Articles of Secession...and was appalled, mortified, ashamed, and more.

When the evidentiary record is SO skewed that we omit or falsify actual facts, that we purposefully omit material voices (those voices are what we call "testimony" in a courtroom, and they are absolutely, 100%, EVIDENCE), then understand that what we supposedly take pride in as a society -- our objective history, analyzed with rational thinking -- is a LIE.  That's what it is.  It's a lie.  That's a tough thing to swallow.  Because, again, we were taught that the exact OPPOSITE is true -- we are the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism," and we know this, because our means of evaluating that is honest and trustworthy.

There are hundreds of people buried in unmarked graves in Tulsa who tell us that is false.  There are thousands of families who had their hard-earned wealth wiped out, never to recover, who tell us that is false.  And stories like theirs are repeated, thousands upon thousands of times, throughout this country.  Right up to today, where a 16 year old white kid busted with weed gets taken home to his parents to get a lecture, and a 16 year old black kid busted with the same amount of weed gets put into the system, and has his life completely derailed, never to fully recover (he's now a "thug" with a criminal history).

We say we prize objective, evidence-based reasoning.  And then we control the evidence admitted/excluded to serve the ends of our desired conclusion.  That's not evidence-based reasoning.  That's a show-trial, and a lie.  Once you accept that, then you can start to evaluate the actual evidentiary record with an open mind.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Truly great post @Brisketexan

[Dahobbs 18324]

14 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I'm open to more discussion. I'm just saying I haven't found your arguments about the chart to be persuasive, and that my opinion that their claims are ludicrous and offensive is unlikely to be changed. Kind of similar to how nobody is going to persuade me, e.g., that it isn't ludicrous and offensive to call an elementary school a superior academic institution to UT.

At some point in any discourse you have sufficient information and arguments and have a different opinion. It doesn't mean I'm closed minded or on some kind of quest. 

No need for a facetious apology. 

Saying you're open for discussion, while also shutting down discussion a mere two posts in seems ludicrous and rude. I wasn't trying to convince of you anything, but rather exploring a perspective that you may not have considered. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Dahobbs