Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[Hookah Horns 3,073]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

I'm sorry if I was rude. Definitely wasn't my intent. I appreciated that was what you were doing. I thought I was being polite, so maybe I'm just an asshole. 

[Captainant 27,442]

12 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

maybe I'm just an asshole

Or just a little surly, perhaps? 

[David Dennison 18,651]

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Nope.  Discussed further below.

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.

It's no coincidence that my conservative politics began to change shortly after I became a history major.

Edited June 2, 2021 by David Dennison

[Pancho 44,454]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Nope.  Discussed further below.

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.

Someone get this man a chicken sammich and a beer!

[mchookem 16,194]

sooo...anybody brought up the institutionalized racism in the NFL yet?

The NFL on Wednesday pledged to halt the use of “race-norming” — which assumed Black players started out with lower cognitive function — in the $1 billion settlement of brain injury claims and review past scores for any potential race bias.

The practice made it harder for Black retirees to show a deficit and qualify for an award. The standards were created in the 1990s in hopes of offering more appropriate treatment to dementia patients, but critics faulted the way they were used to determine payouts in the NFL concussion case.

...

“If it wasn’t for the wives, who were infuriated by all the red tape involved, it never would have come to be,” Jenkins said of the attention being paid to the issue, three years after lawyers for former Pittsburgh Steelers Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport say they first raised it.

The binary race norms, when they are used in the testing, assumes that Black patients start with worse cognitive function than whites and other non-Blacks. That makes it harder for them to show a deficit and qualify for an award.

https://apnews.com/article/pa-state-wire-race-and-ethnicity-health-nfl-sports-205b304c0c3724532d74fc54e58b4d1d?fbclid=IwAR2CNNeuzrWVu93EEAuH4JuRYn4GC48h_b_Mrbf9MG4Efu6447BBxRSorgk

holy shit. what is something i had no idea even existed 😳

 

[Pancho 44,454]

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Wait, seriously???

I thought the assholes combined it with MLK day a couple of decades ago for cover.

I legitimately had no idea that mess was still a state holiday here. What a state.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

Like dominos, academic institutions will have a choice knuckle under to the fascists or stand up to them. Professors in the McCarthy era had to sign loyalty oaths. Small schools first, but like most fascist enterprises, they will attempt to scale this program up.

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

https://nypost.com/2021/06/09/columbia-professor-says-parents-should-pull-kids-out-of-nj-school/

A prominent black Columbia University professor has called on New Jersey parents to pull their kids out of a prestigious Bergen County, NJ, prep school after an English teacher resigned over what she called a “hostile culture of conformity and fear” created by critical race theory.

“All hail Dana Stangel-Plowe, who has resigned from the Dwight-Englewood school, which teaches students ‘antiracism’ that sees life as nothing but abuse of power, and teaches that cringing, hostile group identity against oppression is the essence of a self,” John McWhorter, who is also a contributor to The Atlantic magazine, tweeted Tuesday.

“Truly antiracist parents, in the name of love of their kids, should pull them from the Dwight-Englewood school as of next fall,” McWhorter continued. “Only this will arrest these misguided Elect parishioners from their quest to forge a new reality for us all.”

In a resignation letter posted Tuesday on the website of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, English teacher Stangel-Plowe accused Dwight-Englewood administrators of “failing our students” by embracing critical race theory.

“[S]tudents arrive in my classroom accepting this theory as fact: People born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed,” she wrote. “Men are oppressors, women are oppressed, and so on. This is the dominant and divisive ideology that is guiding our adolescent students.”

[Mole 4,320]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Like dominos, academic institutions will have a choice knuckle under to the fascists or stand up to them. Professors in the McCarthy era had to sign loyalty oaths. Small schools first, but like most fascist enterprises, they will attempt to scale this program up.

 

All this discussion of Critical Race Theory in schools, and I’m still stuck on the definition of “is being taught.”

[bad_teammate 13,132]

I read that article about the English teacher and I absolutely do not believe that the head of school said he wanted to fire all the white people and hire people of color. It's hilarious that John McWhorter has become so obsessed with tilting at this windmilll that he actually believes that happened.

sap

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet doing Critical Race Theory and I saw one of the Critical Race Theories and the Critical Race Theory looked at me!

Edited June 10, 2021 by bad_teammate

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

22 minutes ago, Mole said:

All this discussion of Critical Race Theory in schools, and I’m still stuck on the definition of “is being taught.”

If you make something vague enough, then it's a little like the witch scene from Monty Python or the McCarthy hearings wherein you interrogate someone in order to get them to name names. Once they've named names, then it is presumed because you named them they must be 'X' (Communists, witches, CRT instructors, heretics, etc).

Purging K-12 and higher education is a great way to influence parents to distrust education, educators, and critical thinking in general. Also, charter schools and vouchers for charter schools are one way for investors to make money off of education, taking tax dollars and funneling them into their pockets by building the campus and then renting it to the school. It's win-win.

[Captainant 27,442]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

https://nypost.com/2021/06/09/columbia-professor-says-parents-should-pull-kids-out-of-nj-school/

A prominent black Columbia University professor has called on New Jersey parents to pull their kids out of a prestigious Bergen County, NJ, prep school after an English teacher resigned over what she called a “hostile culture of conformity and fear” created by critical race theory.

“All hail Dana Stangel-Plowe, who has resigned from the Dwight-Englewood school, which teaches students ‘antiracism’ that sees life as nothing but abuse of power, and teaches that cringing, hostile group identity against oppression is the essence of a self,” John McWhorter, who is also a contributor to The Atlantic magazine, tweeted Tuesday.

“Truly antiracist parents, in the name of love of their kids, should pull them from the Dwight-Englewood school as of next fall,” McWhorter continued. “Only this will arrest these misguided Elect parishioners from their quest to forge a new reality for us all.”

In a resignation letter posted Tuesday on the website of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, English teacher Stangel-Plowe accused Dwight-Englewood administrators of “failing our students” by embracing critical race theory.

“[S]tudents arrive in my classroom accepting this theory as fact: People born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed,” she wrote. “Men are oppressors, women are oppressed, and so on. This is the dominant and divisive ideology that is guiding our adolescent students.”

Sounds pretty snowflake-y. Yawn. 

[Satchel 6,908]

We have  a family friend who attended Nolan Catholic in the 70’s. She still recalls with anguish how her history teacher explained the Civil Rights Bill to her white classmates. She told them that any old, dirty filthy black man could come into their place of business and they would be forced to serve him. When my friend objected to the teacher’s mis characterization, she was sent to the principal’s office.

...and people somehow find the nerve to be upset about high schoolers learning how race, racism and power are interrelated.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Satchel

[bad_teammate 13,132]

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We have  a family friend who attended Nolan Catholic in the 70’s. She still recalls with anguish how her history teacher explained the Civil Rights Bill to her white classmates. She told them that any old, dirty filthy black man could come into their place of business and they would be forced to serve him. When my friend objected to the teacher’s mis characterization, she was sent to the principal’s office.

...and people somehow find the nerve to be upset about high schoolers learning how race, racism and power are interrelated.

A good response to anyone who mentions Critical Race Theory in real life

"Is this something you know about 1st hand, heard someone in real life say really happened to them/their kid, or is this just you consuming social media or cable news and being mad about it?"

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

On 6/1/2021 at 7:41 PM, 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. 

A common criticism of any sort of critical studies.

And to answer your previous question, I think some Critical scholars take the "nihilistic" view, while others are content merely to expose how existing power structures operate, or may have operated, without concluding that the power structure can't be rebuilt or tweaked to eliminate the problems.

And that leads to another criticism of critical studies, and that is that it tends to offer few solutions to the problems it identifies.

[Satchel 6,908]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A common criticism of any sort of critical studies.

And to answer your previous question, I think some Critical scholars take the "nihilistic" view, while others are content merely to expose how existing power structures operate, or may have operated, without concluding that the power structure can't be rebuilt or tweaked to eliminate the problems.

And that leads to another criticism of critical studies, and that is that it tends to offer few solutions to the problems it identifies.

Your last point is important. Unlike critical theory, CRT questions the very foundations of the liberal order. It is not content with just theorizing. It seeks to transform the relationship among race, racism and power.

[Satchel 6,908]

This is what happens every time race anxiety gets the better of fearful people in the dominant culture:

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

A thread by a Black man

 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A thread by a Black man

 

That is an awesome read. +rep

great explanation 

[Captainant 27,442]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A thread by a Black man

 

@DonkeyCigars should read that thread, it's a pretty complete explanation of CRT

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

One of the more interesting things on that thread is this, referring to the "chart" of some poll results.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, some of the more extreme scholars conclude or advocate that the current American "system" is so rotten with racism that it effectively must be destroyed, not merely rebuilt.  Or, an even more extreme gloss, that the existence of a white race inherently threatens other races, or the black race.

Without examining the subtleties of those assertions, which are facially pretty extreme, the item in that poll that most closely correlates to those "extreme" conclusions is the one "ACHIEVING RACIAL JUSTICE  . . . "  And a majority of blacks don't support teaching that.

I'm not even sure I disagree with that proposition.  Affirmative action is troublesome, but I can't categorically say it's wrong and I tend to think it's justified.

At any rate, it shows that some group of proponents of teaching CRT, at least, do not advocate teaching the most extreme aspects of it.

[Pancho 44,454]

21 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

https://nypost.com/2021/06/09/columbia-professor-says-parents-should-pull-kids-out-of-nj-school/

A prominent black Columbia University professor has called on New Jersey parents to pull their kids out of a prestigious Bergen County, NJ, prep school after an English teacher resigned over what she called a “hostile culture of conformity and fear” created by critical race theory.

“All hail Dana Stangel-Plowe, who has resigned from the Dwight-Englewood school, which teaches students ‘antiracism’ that sees life as nothing but abuse of power, and teaches that cringing, hostile group identity against oppression is the essence of a self,” John McWhorter, who is also a contributor to The Atlantic magazine, tweeted Tuesday.

“Truly antiracist parents, in the name of love of their kids, should pull them from the Dwight-Englewood school as of next fall,” McWhorter continued. “Only this will arrest these misguided Elect parishioners from their quest to forge a new reality for us all.”

In a resignation letter posted Tuesday on the website of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, English teacher Stangel-Plowe accused Dwight-Englewood administrators of “failing our students” by embracing critical race theory.

“[S]tudents arrive in my classroom accepting this theory as fact: People born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed,” she wrote. “Men are oppressors, women are oppressed, and so on. This is the dominant and divisive ideology that is guiding our adolescent students.”

Yet another example of what CRT is NOT.  Once again, people are being snowflakes about CRT and have no idea what CRT actually is. This doesn’t help your personal argument that CRT is bad. It just confirms yet again that more and more people who want to “cancel” CRT have no idea what it is. 

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

13 minutes ago, Pancho said:

People born with less melanin in their skin are oppressors, and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed,” she wrote. “Men are oppressors, women are oppressed, and so on.

Can you say categorically that CRT does not include a fair amount of this rhetoric?

I don't think you can, because some of it does.  Of course, that doesn't mean that that was what was taught there.

I do think, though, that teaching many "principles" of CRT does not implicate that kind of rhetoric and is beneficial.

Harriott's description of it as "racism is ordinary" and thus, everywhere, where you least expect it, I think is valuable.  Even if you don't accept all of the "cases" advocated by CRT scholars, it's definitely thought provoking.

Speaking of which, I heard an interview on NPR recently of a professor arguing that the Second Amendment was racist. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment I would certainly agree that it was conceived of in a racist environment, and gun policy in the US has had many racist aspects, but the notion that the Second Amendment is racist in and of itself, inherently, was not persuasive.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Pancho 44,454]

Last year, I was asked to help create an Anti-Racist statement for our college that could go into syllabi of faculty.  The person who thought of this idea is a Filipino faculty member.  This was part of our job as the sub-committee for the instructional side of the President’s new DEI Task Force specifically for our campus, and the Anti-Racist Syllabus Statement was our job since we were the Instructional Sub-Committee.

Long story short, the words “Critical Race Theory” did not get mentioned not one damn time during the 2-3 months we met. They are not equal philosophies. 

Watching all of those on the radical Right Republican side of things get all “I NeEd MuH sAfE sPaCe!” and want to cancel (ironic) CRT because of anything that mentions race or racial injustice reminds me of my years at UT where lots of white folks thought I was on the [insert UT sports here] team. 

He’s Black, he must be at UT for athletics.  They are talking about something racial, well fuck damn it MUST be CRT! 

[Pancho 44,454]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can you say categorically that CRT does not include a fair amount of this rhetoric?

I don't think you can, because some of it does.  Of course, that doesn't mean that that was what was taught there.

I do think, though, that teaching many "principles" of CRT does not implicate that kind of rhetoric and is beneficial.

Harriott's description of it as "racism is ordinary" and thus, everywhere, where you least expect it, I think is valuable.  Even if you don't accept all of the "cases" advocated by CRT scholars, it's definitely thought provoking.

 

“Fair amount” is subjective.  And I would argue that one should probably read up and study the theory before making that type of comment. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And that leads to another criticism of critical studies, and that is that it tends to offer few solutions to the problems it identifies.

It's such pollyanna horseshit to have the attitude that a person shouldn't notice something wrong unless there's a cure on offer. It's like someone telling a doctor that brain cancer isn't real because there's no cure.

"YOU'RE SUCH A NEGATIVE NANCY, MR ONCOLOGIST!"

Anyone pushing that line is just revealing their own emotional insecurity because they're personalizing the issue.

Edited June 11, 2021 by bad_teammate

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

Just now, Pancho said:

“Fair amount” is subjective.  

True.

Without knowing the motivation of the "pro CRT" folks, I heartily agree with you that most DEI or "antiracist" curricula or proposed teaching just isn't a big deal and is probably separable from CRT as a concept, even though they incorporate ideas from CRT.

That is distinguishable from, say, a survey course on CRT where a variety of authors and scholars are considered.  And that's probably going to include what I'll call the "kill whitey" end of the CRT spectrum.  For teh lulz.

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's such pollyanna horseshit to have the attitude that a person shouldn't notice something wrong unless there's a cure on offer. It's like someone telling a doctor that brain cancer isn't real because there's no cure.

"YOU'RE SUCH A NEGATIVE NANCY, MR ONCOLOGIST!"

Anyone pushing that line is just revealing their own emotional insecurity because they're personalizing the issue.

Interesting that you chose my post to respond to, which simply notes the existence of a criticism, rather than Hookah's, which called CRT fatalistic.

I tend to agree that identifying problems is a valid endeavor on its own.  But "personally," I'm an engineer and a lawyer and in both of those capacities I am called upon to find solutions to problems, not to merely identify them.  So, problems without solutions dissatisfy me to some extent.

My introduction to critical studies was critical legal studies, which although similar, lack the "emotionally charged" nature of being race-based.  A lot of people have a similar reaction to CLS and it's not "personalizing" the issue, because there's little to personalize unless you identify as a rich white fat cat, which most law students do not, even if they are.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

....  And that's probably going to include what I'll call the "kill whitey" end of the CRT spectrum.

Those two words in quotes are what an entire university community distilled an African American professor's comments down to (taken out of context and blown up by a RW group and disseminated far and wide) and that resulted in his leaving this country to teach overseas. Partially due to the threats to his family and himself. It was pretty sad to watch and watch the distortion of his comments but this mob was frothing at the mouth over his words, except I don't think a single person (against him) actually understood the framework and context in which he said them and thus-- because a black man said something that a white man/men then reframed they were able to get him removed and declared that a victory. One guess where this occurred.....

[TwiceHorn 31,262]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Those two words in quotes are what an entire university community distilled an African American professor's comments down to (taken out of context and blown up by a RW group and disseminated far and wide) and that resulted in his leaving this country to teach overseas. Partially due to the threats to his family and himself. It was pretty sad to watch and watch the distortion of his comments but this mob was frothing at the mouth over his words, except I don't think a single person (against him) actually understood the framework and context in which he said them and thus-- because a black man said something that a white man/men then reframed they were able to get him removed and declared that a victory. One guess where this occurred.....

That's disturbing.  Where was this?

Aggy is the obvious answer, but I feel like I would know this.

Also, what Satchel reported upthread at Nolan is disgusting.  I went to the whitest school in Texas 10 years later and no one would have dared say such a thing, and I'm pretty sure there would have been an outcry if someone had.  And we had our fair share of crusty old white teachers, most of whom were probably pretty liberal.  I don't doubt that the sentiment existed here and there, but no one would have said it out loud.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

@DonkeyCigars should read that thread, it's a pretty complete explanation of CRT

I read it, thanks for sharing.

I think I've landed on the idea that CRT is so divisive politically because ultimately at the heart of it, it is a tool to enable people to create societal conflict.

You can say it's "good conflict" or whatever, but it's definitely an attempt to reframe thinking and to wrest power and grow strength of factions. Some, namely those with the power and privilege, will naturally be opposed to that. Others, those who are seeking to gain advantages from an under-advantaged or disadvantaged position will be for it. Thus the conflict.

I said this in another thread: Because at the end of the day American society has been defined and set in motion by a subset (let's use the 80/20 rule) of 20% of white, male stakeholders and cascaded down to the 80% over the years, any gains in equality is going to be at the expense of a faction of people with comfort and privilege and wealth due to laws and culture that have been codified over 250 years. Again, because it seems like CRT is a tool to enable people to create and succeed in conflict with those in power, thus it makes sense why it is seen as a negative thing for the white hegemony/patriarchy and seen with fear. It's almost ridiculous if you think about it, to expect humans with human nature to be proactive in giving away comfort and privilege and power because after all it is, hard fought and won-- which is why America was founded in 1776 and not with indigenous people or whatever else. To the victor go the spoils and history is written by the victors, etc.

My opinion is this is all much ado about nothing; CRT or nothing else will change anything materially because it will be shouted down by people in power and it will be socially distanced/politely ignored by non-racists (note: I did not say anti-racists). Only blood in the streets will create change, and then the 80% will create their own version of history from their own perspectives. Same as it has always been.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's disturbing.  Where was this?

Aggy is the obvious answer, but I feel like I would know this.

It was Texas A&M, Dr. Curry was a philosophy professor. Happened around 2018/19? I think. I remember it mostly for the vehemence with aggie people I know who talked about it. Being curious, I read more. I believe he teaches in Europe now. Even the 'academic' conservative journals got involved, but when I read about it, and listened to the supposed 'offensive' discussion, etc it was like they thought he was writing the black version of the Turner Diaries. An institution with a black student population of around 2% and a chip on their shoulder about "I'm not a racist, but that QB better shut up about the statue."

[Captainant 27,442]

29 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think I've landed on the idea that CRT is so divisive politically because ultimately at the heart of it, it is a tool to enable people to create societal conflict.

holy fucking white victimhood. Did you even read the entire thing before deciding how you feel about it? CRT is really just arguing that racism is ordinary and not remarkable - it's not divisive to say that, unless you are of the opinion that racism is a rare thing in our country.

Cmon man, I'm happy to try and have an actual discussion here, but your steadfast commitment to framing racial equality as "taking away my wealth" really prevents anything but an extreme response to your absurd and specious bullshit.

Your entire position is that "we white people won in the past, so our current state is just and anything else is rabble rousing".

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting that you chose my post to respond to, which simply notes the existence of a criticism, rather than Hookah's, which called CRT fatalistic.

I tend to agree that identifying problems is a valid endeavor on its own.  But "personally," I'm an engineer and a lawyer and in both of those capacities I am called upon to find solutions to problems, not to merely identify them.  So, problems without solutions dissatisfy me to some extent.

I didn't say you had the attitude.

On the issue, though, that dissatisfaction can manifest in different ways.

"I can't find the answer right now so I'm frustrated because I don't like valid questions being unanswered" vs "I can't find the answer right now so I'm frustrated and think the question itself is invalid as a result". I'm imagining you're more on the former side, yes? Just my presumption.

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

34 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I read it, thanks for sharing.

I think I've landed on the idea that CRT is so divisive politically because ultimately at the heart of it, it is a tool to enable people to create societal conflict.

I think at the highest level, CRT is so divisive politically because the vast majority of Americans have no idea what CRT is.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The CRT bans are a step towards making the observation of white supremacy in society a thought crime. 

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Yet another example of what CRT is NOT.  

Honestly, I'd like to gain a more complete view of critical theory, and by extension, critical race theory.  Got any recs for a good book the average Joe could digest?  I'm not looking to earn a PhD in this, but rather just to understand the overarching framework.

Edited June 11, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

holy fucking white victimhood. Did you even read the entire thing before deciding how you feel about it? CRT is really just arguing that racism is ordinary and not remarkable - it's not divisive to say that, unless you are of the opinion that racism is a rare thing in our country.

Cmon man, I'm happy to try and have an actual discussion here, but your steadfast commitment to framing racial equality as "taking away my wealth" really prevents anything but an extreme response to your absurd and specious bullshit.

Your entire position is that "we white people won in the past, so our current state is just and anything else is rabble rousing".

I make no claims of just or righteousness, by the way. 

Racism is ordinary and not remarkable-- sure, fine, no disagreements there. But CRT is making the argument or the case, to what end? That's why it's divisive, because it empowers and informs positions whose aims are to engage in conflict. That's why I think it's so divisive. In a vacuum, sure, there's nothing to see here.

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The CRT bans are a step towards making the observation of white supremacy in society a thought crime. 

Huge potential for this to backfire on the right. High probability this gets the Streisand Effect going and actually pushes people into confronting America's white supremacist origins when those have largely been hidden/suppressed.

[Pancho 44,454]

31 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I read it, thanks for sharing.

I think I've landed on the idea that CRT is so divisive politically because ultimately at the heart of it, it is a tool to enable people to create societal conflict.

You can say it's "good conflict" or whatever, but it's definitely an attempt to reframe thinking and to wrest power and grow strength of factions. Some, namely those with the power and privilege, will naturally be opposed to that. Others, those who are seeking to gain advantages from an under-advantaged or disadvantaged position will be for it. Thus the conflict.

This isn’t called conflict, it’s called “change.”  Societal change. There’s a difference. CRT wasn’t thought of to purposely create conflict. 

[Captainant 27,442]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

I make no claims of just or righteousness, by the way. 

Racism is ordinary and not remarkable-- sure, fine, no disagreements there. But CRT is making the argument or the case, to what end? That's why it's divisive, because it empowers and informs positions whose aims are to engage in conflict. That's why I think it's so divisive. In a vacuum, sure, there's nothing to see here.

So your position is that it's divisive to be aware that racism is ordinary in America? Because it makes people upset to be aware of the inequality? And your solution is to ignore the inequality and hope that people are less divided, despite the inherently inequitable nature of racism?

That's some galaxy-brain shit. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I make no claims of just or righteousness, by the way. 

Racism is ordinary and not remarkable-- sure, fine, no disagreements there. But CRT is making the argument or the case, to what end? That's why it's divisive, because it empowers and informs positions whose aims are to engage in conflict. That's why I think it's so divisive. In a vacuum, sure, there's nothing to see here.

Pretty fair statement.

People are obviously reading a lot into what you are saying and making (perhaps accurate) presumptions about your own personal feelings, but you are correct CRT is divisive because it challenges pre-existing ideas.

That causes internal conflict, in this case for people whose pre-existing ideas about race are stupid baby shit like "WELL SLAVERY ENDED SO IT'S FINE NOW STOP WHINING" or something.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, Pancho said:

This isn’t called conflict, it’s called “change.”  Societal change. There’s a difference. CRT wasn’t thought of to purposely create conflict. 

Change and conflict are basically brothers.

Conflict is good. Embrace it.

[Brisketexan 104,557]

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

A good response to anyone who mentions Critical Race Theory in real life

"Is this something you know about 1st hand, heard someone in real life say really happened to them/their kid, or is this just you consuming social media or cable news and being mad about it?"

This is excellent.  I hate it when BT has an idea that is spot-on, but this is definitely a good one.

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Your entire position is that "we white people won in the past, so our current state is just and anything else is rabble rousing".

This is pretty much what it boils down to.  "We won.....after 4 centuries of enslaving, abusing, and murdering black people, and then fucking them over when they supposedly had 'rights'......and even ACKNOWLEDGING those truths is divisive and hurts America.  And by America, I mean those people who benefited from those 4 centuries of bullshit."

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The CRT bans are a step towards making the observation of white supremacy in society a thought crime. 

They already are.  It's exactly what they are.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

White guys outlawing the teaching of Critical Race Theory is Critical Race Theory in practice.  

It is so on the nose, it’s almost comical 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Brisketexan 104,557]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I make no claims of just or righteousness, by the way. 

Racism is ordinary and not remarkable-- sure, fine, no disagreements there. But CRT is making the argument or the case, to what end? That's why it's divisive, because it empowers and informs positions whose aims are to engage in conflict. That's why I think it's so divisive. In a vacuum, sure, there's nothing to see here.

 

You're using "conflict" as a synonym for "discomfort" and "disruption of the status quo trajectory."  To which I would say.....fuck yes, and that's good.  That's the fucking point.  Conflict is not an end in and of itself, but we know that NOTHING will change WITHOUT conflict/discomfort.

The Civil Rights movement did not have success because it AVOIDED "conflict."  It succeeded because it put this sort of thing front-and-center to the rest of America, who had enough decency and humanity to say "huh, maybe we shouldn't do that sort of shit."  Not as much of the rest of America felt that way as we'd like....but enough of them eventually did.

 

Shit like that made a lot of Americans VERY uncomfortable.  They didn't like that "conflict."  Good.  It worked.

If we really think we're the country we CLAIM to be, we aren't in the "making people comfortable and avoiding conflict" business.  We started off by dumping the Brits' tea in the harbor, rebelling against the crown, and crossing a river on Christmas to kill the enemy in their sleep.  Whenever we've wanted to improve our lot, some measure of conflict has been involved to get there.

So, you don't like it.  Tough fucking shit.  I say that to you like I'd have said it to Bull Connor.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

White guys outlawing the teaching of Critical Race Theory is Critical Race Theory in practice.  

It is so on the nose, it’s almost comical 

dudes online talking about strapping GoPros to their kids so they can keep an eye on their teachers imagining it's a cadre of Ivy League minorities who studied with Bill Ayers

Meanwhile, their kids' 2nd grade teachers are all white women who graduated from Tier 3 universities and read nothing but young adult romance novels.

 

Which is fine, mind you, just not exactly the CRT-pushing demographic.

Edited June 11, 2021 by bad_teammate