Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) I actually studied CRT at the graduate level and that's not what's happening in schools here. Letting children know racism exists and has been an important part of our history is not CRT. Here's a reading list for those asking what it is: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/c.php?g=414672&p=3327226. I recommend this article: https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/

2) I am in favor of kids learning about the history and presence of racism in the US at grade appropriate levels (e.g. my first grader can't learn about legal history because he still doesn't have much understanding of the legal system, but he can learn in a fairly basic way about segregation, and we talk at home about how this influenced our city and school system).

Here's the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I actually studied CRT at the graduate level and that's not what's happening in schools here. Letting children know racism exists and has been an important part of our history is not CRT. Here's a reading list for those asking what it is: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/c.php?g=414672&p=3327226. I recommend this article: https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/

2) I am in favor of kids learning about the history and presence of racism in the US at grade appropriate levels (e.g. my first grader can't learn about legal history because he still doesn't have much understanding of the legal system, but he can learn in a fairly basic way about segregation, and we talk at home about how this influenced our city and school system).

Here's the answer.

+2. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

Do you have statistics on the # of crimes on Wall Street during the 80’s… during the crack epidemic.

It cost our country way more than the petty crimes from crack use.

Pesky facts!

[Anonymous]

Praxis, look it up, been around for more than a day. It's a KC shuffle, everyone focused on CRT. Reality is the paradigms can be taught under the guise of other theories and dripped in. Believe what you all want and do what you do. To say CRT actual is being distributed in schools is disingenuous, to say it's not is the same. Now go figure it out and decide for yourself, imagine it will always come out on the same side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I actually studied CRT at the graduate level and that's not what's happening in schools here. Letting children know racism exists and has been an important part of our history is not CRT. Here's a reading list for those asking what it is: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/c.php?g=414672&p=3327226. I recommend this article: https://harvardlawreview.org/1993/06/whiteness-as-property/

2) I am in favor of kids learning about the history and presence of racism in the US at grade appropriate levels (e.g. my first grader can't learn about legal history because he still doesn't have much understanding of the legal system, but he can learn in a fairly basic way about segregation, and we talk at home about how this influenced our city and school system).

Here's the answer.

+2. Thank you.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, totally fine with it.

Former academic, and if you can give me one example of an undergraduate actually being taught "CRT" in class, I will eat my dissertation. And, no blather from FOX news.

We can barely get the students to come to class and pay attention, even in college.

* AFAM 239a / AMST 461a / EDST 209a / ER&M 292a / WGSS 202a, Identity, Diversity, and Policy in U.S. Education  Craig Canfield
Introduction to critical theory (feminism, queer theory, critical race theory, disability studies, trans studies, indigenous studies) as a fundamental tool for understanding and critiquing identity, diversity, and policy in U.S. education. Exploration of identity politics and theory, as they figure in education policy. Methods for applying theory and interventions to interrogate issues in education. Application of theory and interventions to policy creation and reform.  WR, HU

http://catalog.yale.edu/ycps/courses/afam/

I would expect that any university with an African American studies department will have a similar offering. I hope you weren't too verbose in your thesis.

I don't have a problem with any of those topics. The more the merrier! Let the young people learn and discuss all views and truthful history. Don't burn the books. Our kids can handle the information. I wish I had learned more about this stuff in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

Do you have statistics on the # of crimes on Wall Street during the 80’s… during the crack epidemic.

It cost our country way more than the petty crimes from crack use.

Pesky facts!

Not sure how this is at all related. Yes there were issues on Wall Street -- connection to what was stated above?

[Anonymous]

And the coke addicts on Wall Street generally were ignored while the crack addicts in Harlem were vigorously rounded up and prosecuted.

THAT is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

Do you have statistics on the # of crimes on Wall Street during the 80’s… during the crack epidemic.

It cost our country way more than the petty crimes from crack use.

Pesky facts!

If you use a CRT lens , you look at how these practices either reflect racial bias or perpetuate racist outcomes-- in this case, meaning disproportionate impact on black communities. Using this lens help you see what practices have racial impact. The point isn't to say "Gotcha, you're a racist" rather to say which laws (or policies) are unfair and caused these kinds of harm. And in your above example, you say the crack epidemic was increasing the crime level--why would you not just police for the increased crimes then? Those laws are already on the books. And anyway there are a lot of theories/lens for looking at things--that's what you learn in college and grad school--how to use different theoretical frameworks to see data in a variety of ways. I learned to use a wide variety of theoretical frames, including CRT. You learn to ask, what does this framework help me see? What are its blindspots? How does it complement the other frameworks?

(And to the other poster, I think the PP mentioning the Wall St. connection had to do with all the coke the Wall St. folks were doing in the 80s--lots of coke-fueled white collar crime that cost our nation a lot. But we're as not used to hearing that coke fueled a crime rate because we're conditioned to think of white collar crime as not being as harmful as someone robbing a convenience store for a lot less money. I don't know the actual data though on that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

Do you have statistics on the # of crimes on Wall Street during the 80’s… during the crack epidemic.

It cost our country way more than the petty crimes from crack use.

Pesky facts!

If you use a CRT lens , you look at how these practices either reflect racial bias or perpetuate racist outcomes-- in this case, meaning disproportionate impact on black communities. Using this lens help you see what practices have racial impact. The point isn't to say "Gotcha, you're a racist" rather to say which laws (or policies) are unfair and caused these kinds of harm. And in your above example, you say the crack epidemic was increasing the crime level--why would you not just police for the increased crimes then? Those laws are already on the books. And anyway there are a lot of theories/lens for looking at things--that's what you learn in college and grad school--how to use different theoretical frameworks to see data in a variety of ways. I learned to use a wide variety of theoretical frames, including CRT. You learn to ask, what does this framework help me see? What are its blindspots? How does it complement the other frameworks?

(And to the other poster, I think the PP mentioning the Wall St. connection had to do with all the coke the Wall St. folks were doing in the 80s--lots of coke-fueled white collar crime that cost our nation a lot. But we're as not used to hearing that coke fueled a crime rate because we're conditioned to think of white collar crime as not being as harmful as someone robbing a convenience store for a lot less money. I don't know the actual data though on that).

On wall street in the 80s, there was coke and there was crime. The two did not meet very often though. So let's just leave that out.



In CRT race is the center. You always find a racial answer. And often race is involved but it is often not the answer by itself. CRT ignores the complexity. It does so on purpose a lot like class actions because each thing cannot be proved or disproved on its own.

By the focus on race as the answer to everything is what is objected to --- In CRT everything is about race; and that may be true in some places but it is not true most places where almost nothing is about race.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure in my own way, I've taught this to my kids informally. So sure, I'd absolutely be thrilled with someone formally teaching it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CRT is a theory that everything is based on race. And I do mean everything. Everything can be explained by race. PP above used crack cocaine sentences vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a a much higher sentence. If you look at it under CRT it is because crack was largely at the time a black drug and powder was a white drug. So race is responsible for the sentence. But there is another way to look at this. The sentence structure was higher because at the time there was a crack epidemic that was increasing crime level. Not the same with powder. IMO race had zero to do with the sentence disparity. Now after the sentences started, it became clear that heavy sentences were falling on Blacks and that the stiffer sentences were not helping. IMO we took too long to fix that and race had something to do with that as there was no one with power speaking up for this group of Black violators. So race is connected to this story but not really at the start. But if you subscribe to CRT, you do not get into the messy facts; you believe that all decisions taken by any institution are based on race and quite possibly racist.

Do you have statistics on the # of crimes on Wall Street during the 80’s… during the crack epidemic.

It cost our country way more than the petty crimes from crack use.

Pesky facts!

If you use a CRT lens , you look at how these practices either reflect racial bias or perpetuate racist outcomes-- in this case, meaning disproportionate impact on black communities. Using this lens help you see what practices have racial impact. The point isn't to say "Gotcha, you're a racist" rather to say which laws (or policies) are unfair and caused these kinds of harm. And in your above example, you say the crack epidemic was increasing the crime level--why would you not just police for the increased crimes then? Those laws are already on the books. And anyway there are a lot of theories/lens for looking at things--that's what you learn in college and grad school--how to use different theoretical frameworks to see data in a variety of ways. I learned to use a wide variety of theoretical frames, including CRT. You learn to ask, what does this framework help me see? What are its blindspots? How does it complement the other frameworks?

(And to the other poster, I think the PP mentioning the Wall St. connection had to do with all the coke the Wall St. folks were doing in the 80s--lots of coke-fueled white collar crime that cost our nation a lot. But we're as not used to hearing that coke fueled a crime rate because we're conditioned to think of white collar crime as not being as harmful as someone robbing a convenience store for a lot less money. I don't know the actual data though on that).

On wall street in the 80s, there was coke and there was crime. The two did not meet very often though. So let's just leave that out.



In CRT race is the center. You always find a racial answer. And often race is involved but it is often not the answer by itself. CRT ignores the complexity. It does so on purpose a lot like class actions because each thing cannot be proved or disproved on its own.

By the focus on race as the answer to everything is what is objected to --- In CRT everything is about race; and that may be true in some places but it is not true most places where almost nothing is about race.

Every theoretical frame has something at its center--that's why you choose different theoretical frames to look at things to see what they reveal. It is a tool. If there aren't disparate racial outcomes associated with a policy, law or practice than CRT isn't the likely best tool to use. But look at any major social institution or practice in the US and CRT can be revealing of patterns around race--because there usually are--criminal justice, legislation, housing, education etc. Is it ONLY about race? No. And, also, CRT often strongly advocates for an intersectional approach -- combining race with gender, class, educational background etc. to understand patterns more deeply and in a more nuanced way. That's also why you combine theoretical tools. Does "Game Theory" mean that everyone who uses it thinks that everything is always and only a game? No, it just means that using constructs of games can help you understand social patterns. And it helps you see game constructs and game-like qualities where you didn't think of them before. And, yes, it can make you gamify the world more than someone without the lens because most powerful theories are widely applicable. And maybe some adherents to any framework think it explains everything. But
most fields have dozens and dozens of theoretical frames that help you take different angles on complex problems and situations. CRT is one of many that people learn--and an important one. I would think my kid's education was limited if in social science, government, law, education or some arena of public policy and they didn't learn about its use.

[Anonymous]

There are a few informed posts above explaining CRT as an academic theory and noting that is not what the CRT education debate is really about, but I didn't see any that spelled it out. I'll try.

The school debate is really about the way modern "anti-racist" training is being conducted. These are trainings done in the image of the writings of Ibram Kendi and Robin D'Angelo -- the best selling authors of anti-racism books. The CRT label is used as an umbrella term, and was probably selected because one can find connections -- albeit they may be modern distortions -- between the modern teachings and CRT theory. You can read an interesting and digestible essay seeking to simply show the likely relationship between CRT and the moderns, here.

https://freebeacon.com/culture/how-critical-race-theory-led-to-kendi/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the coke addicts on Wall Street generally were ignored while the crack addicts in Harlem were vigorously rounded up and prosecuted.

THAT is the point.

Talk to your boy Biden about that.