Reply to Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Are you okay with students learning abou CRT"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No, because it's obvious what it is.  And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.[/quote]
it's obvious that some people who are vehemently against it don't know what it is.

Time spent replacing something else.... I guess they shouldn't bother teaching about slavery or segregation in this country's history.  It's time spent away from teaching how the US single handedly won WWII (that was sarcasm btw).[/quote]

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major.  But I'm ok with that. [b] CRT seems something a bit different.[/b]  O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.[/quote]
What do you think CRT is?

I have not seen anyone who opposes CRT on here define what about CRT that they find so objectionable.

If you are ok with everyone studying Black history, then what exactly is so objectionable about CRT?  Don't you realize that you probably learned some CRT when you were studying black history?

IMO, people are just triggered by the CRT label. If you called it "black history in America and the impacts of that history today", there would probably be less objections.
[/quote]

I don't understand why people don't make more of an effort to understand the basis for concerns before spouting off.  Is it really ignorance, or is it a belief that the best way to accomplish one's objectives is to obfuscate.

At its core, CRT reflects the belief that race is a social construct (no basis in science) but that, once constructed by Whites to serve their economic interest, racism is an overarching prism through which to engage in academic study, analyze current conditions, and make decisions about future policy.

While some of it is political theory, it also reflects legal concepts, such as the idea of torts (intentional wrongs) that result in damages to certain groups (just like a class in a class-action lawsuit), and warrant remedies (damages and other forms of court or government-ordered relief to place victims in the position they theoretically would have enjoyed but for the wrongdoing).

The part that very few object to in 2021 is studying historical events and acknowledging their racial foundation or impact.  No one can study slavery, immigration laws, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, or resistance to school integration without acknowledging the systemic racism at play.

Where more people start to get concerned is when every disparity that currently exists in society is somehow attributed to past, systemic racism, when people argue that past racism justifies ongoing and future discrimination against Whites and "White-adjacent" cohorts, or when academics suggest that race is the prism through which everything should be evaluated.  That's the case for a host of reasons, including the further down the road one goes the more difficult it becomes to quantify the present-day effects of racism, the fact that it promotes looking at people not as individuals but as members of particular racial groups, and it ultimately envisions coercive measures by the Federal Government to effect a transfer of wealth, resources, and societal opportunities from Whites and White-adjacent groups (presumed to have been unjustly enriched by past racism) to Blacks (presumed to have been damaged by past racism).  If you think that's hyperbole, read a bit of Ibram Kendi, who has called for both a Constitutional amendment that would make "racist ideas" by public officials unconstitutional and the creation of a Department of Anti-Racism, which would evaluate all "local, state, and federal" policies to determine whether they would promote greater equity or not contribute to greater inequity (in which case they would be OK) or have the opposite effect (in which case they would be struck down).

So, personally, I'd have no problem with students learning about CRT in college, but I'd hope that my kid had a strong enough foundation to be able to appreciate its foundation and its shortcomings.  At the end of the day, an awful lot of it feels like a giant bluff designed simply to pressure officials to provide additional government benefits to historically disadvantaged communities.  Relatedly, what worries people in K-12 education isn't that students in elementary or middle school are going to be tutored in CRT, so much as the ongoing training of teachers and development of K-12 pedagogy that starts to spoon-feed tenets of CRT (racism is systemic and pervasive, the group is more important than the individual, and that discrimination against some groups is necessarily to improve the standing of other groups) without providing any larger framework for that content.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics