Letter to Brearly Parents Decrying CRT Indoctrination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this interesting or newsworthy?

The author states: "We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country's history and adds no understanding to any of today's societal issues."

I think that's a pretty fringe viewpoint, and certainly not one worthy of a new thread discussion.

Except no one can name an actual place where there's systemic racism. If you do, it can be immediately addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a racists-hole! I can’t believe anyone would attach their name to that letter publicly. How shaming for the daughter and spouse!

I know, Let’s get ‘em! Go after their employment, their families, their reputations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, it appears "systemic racism" is a MYTH
that's making a few people very rich.

Next time you hear that hoax, just ask them
"Where exactly?"

That'll shut them up, just like it did here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this interesting or newsworthy?

The author states: "We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country's history and adds no understanding to any of today's societal issues."

I think that's a pretty fringe viewpoint, and certainly not one worthy of a new thread discussion.

The real issue here is one arising out of people not using terms in the same way. The letter writer uses the term “systemic racism” in the way that term would have been understood in the past, a structure of overtly discriminatory acts against Black people. That term is being used quite differently by the anti-racist movement now: it means any detectable difference in outcome in which Black people do worse than others, regardless of mechanism. This is really what all the fighting is about.

Racial preferences in education are a good example. The letter-writer suggests that admission to colleges is biased in favor of Blacks because they tend to get admitted with much lower objective criteria; the anti-racist looks at the same system, sees Blacks are admitted in lower proportions than their presence in the population, and concludes the system is by definition racist. So too with the crack issue. It is a matter of history that the penalties for crack were enhanced relative to cocaine because it was perceived to have a uniquely destructive effect on people and communities, largely Black ones. This may or may not have been right, but it was a policy choice that wasn’t crazy, and it was not intended to increase incarceration of Blacks relative to others. But, it led to detectable differences across racial groups that were worse for Black people, thus racist as many currently use that term. People may come down on different sides of these issues, but there is a lot of wasted energy and pointless discussion because people are talking past each other by using words differently.

DP. Not only it was a policy choice that wasn’t crazy, it was actively supported by the black community leaders, politicians and so on at the time. This choice was based, in part, on some medical “facts” that apparently turned out to be untrue, but black doctors and black judges believed them. There is a book about it “Locking up our own”. I lived in NYC, and I remember leaders of tenants associations in the projects very much supporting zero tolerance on drugs.

These last two are really good comments and worth repeating. As someone who was aware of “CRT” before it became fashionable and believes it has useful points and less useful points (and respect for Kendi but none for DiAngelo), a big problem with his definition of racist/anti-racist policies is that you don’t always know the result of a policy until after it is implemented. So even advocating for “anti racist policies” can backfire if they lead to more inequality.

While I don’t view all perspectives on this as equally valid/informed, living in a democratic society means listening to boring/stupid/irrational people (I am all of those things depending on the topic) and working through things with them. Shutting down discussion / limiting acceptable viewpoints will not lead to creative problem solving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is possible to disagree with the part of the letter that claims that there is not systemic racism and agree with the overall theme of the letter that expresses concerns with illiberalism and intolerance of different viewpoints, significant substantive changes in the curriculum, and erosion of quality standards.

+1000
Couldn’t agree more!

[Anonymous]

You mean systemic racism like black people getting pulled over in traffic disproportionately and killed disproportionately whereas white people carrying guns get gently taken to McDonalds and cops go on TV saying they had a bad day and like when white people take guns into a federal building, not only do they not get shot, they don't even get arrested while they are in there? You mean that kind of systemic racism, or are you talking about something else, like how blacks are disproportionately poor and schools are funded by property values so that areas where black people live get less money than areas where white people live because the wealth inequity that was created 200 years ago is baked into the system now.

But PP poster who posted the Sartre quote was spot on because racism deniers don't care about this stuff. They aren't going to change their minds, they just want to waste your time and play word games with you. It's like a game. More than anyone, they need an actual real history class in this stuff, except they won't open their ears to hear it.

[Anonymous]

You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

[Anonymous]

How does sentencing for meth compare to crack?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

This is irrelevant. Poke holes at random stuff because you can't address the main issue. Weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

Is this in answer to the troll asking for evidence of systemic racism?

[Anonymous]

The troll has been rebutted. He just keeps asking the same question. I think the troll might actually benefit from a comprehensive anti-racist curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

This is irrelevant. Poke holes at random stuff because you can't address the main issue. Weak sauce.

Perhaps our systemic racism is in our Democrat Party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

It's exactly this type of 'thinking' that the author of the letter is talking about.

Whether you realize it or not, what you are saying is that "Black people are so unable to follow the rules of our society that if we start actually enforcing our laws then we'll need to throw most of them in prison, and that's awfully unfair because they just can't help themselves."

Some of us believe that just like white people, black people make a choice about their behavior. Deciding that black people just can't help themselves but be criminals is the definition of racism and I can't believe that you don't see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all know it was Kamala Harris who cracked down on young black men who had low-level pot possession?

Countless black children were left fatherless.
Yet you put her and racist Joe in the WH.
(Kamala called Joe a racist.)

It's exactly this type of 'thinking' that the author of the letter is talking about.

Whether you realize it or not, what you are saying is that "Black people are so unable to follow the rules of our society that if we start actually enforcing our laws then we'll need to throw most of them in prison, and that's awfully unfair because they just can't help themselves."

Some of us believe that just like white people, black people make a choice about their behavior. Deciding that black people just can't help themselves but be criminals is the definition of racism and I can't believe that you don't see that.

We don't put zero tolerance on wall street. We don't apply "broken windows" theory to police misbehavior. But we do it to poor black folks. And from this you get " "Black people are so unable to follow the rules of our society "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does sentencing for meth compare to crack?

Meth tends to be sentenced more harshly than crack (and btw power heroin even now is still sentenced more lightly than crack because it's mostly sold by white people like black people but okay) -- but opiods are the real new example of disparate drug treatment, as white people use opioids disproportionately more than black people but opioid users get a lot more sympathy and much lighter sentences. And of course the real criminals in the opioid business -- the very white Sackler family -- has not been brought to justice and is still squabbling over how much of the money they can keep.