Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am okay with my DC learning about anything. Saying that, as far as I understand it, CRT is about tearing down the current system as it is deemed racist - this is total BS and I am absolutely not okay with that. Do I think kids should be aware of systematic racism - absolutely, it exist and it should be dealt with!But do we have to tear the entire system to fix it - i don’t think so, that is inviting chaos an anarchy!

You misunderstand. CRT is a theoretical framework for looking at the law, and history.

So, to take an example that is pretty well understood, CRT led to a reevaluation of sentencing discrepancies. Rather than just accepting that cocaine possession was worth 2 years in jail, but crack was worth 10 years, critical race theorists examined the reasons why those discrepancies existed. SURPRISE! It was because of race. So, they advocated for political change because "the law" was not neutral. It was racialized.

Basically, it's a lens through which to view the law and history. To take another analogy, it's like a lens used to look at literature. You can read a classic book for the story, or for the prose, or as a way to understand how certain groups existed within the time and place when the book was written. So, you can take the same book and apply different lenses to understand it in different ways.

All of which to say, CRT is not actually prescriptive. It's not about tearing down racist systems, even though I think we should tear down racist systems. It's about identifying the places in the law and in US history where race intersects with our understanding.

You can also look at student math achievement and see there is a gap between POC and whites/asians. California is looking to do away with tracking and have everyone in the same classes until high school. Do you think this is the way to address the issue?

If you believe that racism permeates our current system, I think PP is saying you would want it torn down and rebuilt. That may not be true for some, but with regard to California that's what is happening.

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying that CRT will only be taught in college.. why do college kids have to learn about CRT?
Are you okay with it? I have opinion I just want to know what other people think.

The two parts of your first sentence don’t match. Saying that something “will only be taught in college” really is not the same as saying that “college kids have to learn about CRT”. There are many things that are “only taught in college” that no one “has to learn” unless they choose to take specific courses.

Also:”They are now saying…” Who are “they”? If “they are NOW saying something….” What were they saying before?


Is this yet another one of those potentially inflammatory threads where the OP never comes back to genuinely interact with commenters?

The blurring of the lines between facts and opinions in certain types of media has really had a pervasive and destructive impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am okay with my DC learning about anything. Saying that, as far as I understand it, CRT is about tearing down the current system as it is deemed racist - this is total BS and I am absolutely not okay with that. Do I think kids should be aware of systematic racism - absolutely, it exist and it should be dealt with!But do we have to tear the entire system to fix it - i don’t think so, that is inviting chaos an anarchy!

You misunderstand. CRT is a theoretical framework for looking at the law, and history.

So, to take an example that is pretty well understood, CRT led to a reevaluation of sentencing discrepancies. Rather than just accepting that cocaine possession was worth 2 years in jail, but crack was worth 10 years, critical race theorists examined the reasons why those discrepancies existed. SURPRISE! It was because of race. So, they advocated for political change because "the law" was not neutral. It was racialized.

Basically, it's a lens through which to view the law and history. To take another analogy, it's like a lens used to look at literature. You can read a classic book for the story, or for the prose, or as a way to understand how certain groups existed within the time and place when the book was written. So, you can take the same book and apply different lenses to understand it in different ways.

All of which to say, CRT is not actually prescriptive. It's not about tearing down racist systems, even though I think we should tear down racist systems. It's about identifying the places in the law and in US history where race intersects with our understanding.

You can also look at student math achievement and see there is a gap between POC and whites/asians. California is looking to do away with tracking and have everyone in the same classes until high school. Do you think this is the way to address the issue?

This is a related, but different issue. First, you have to understand the issue, then depending on what you find, you may have to consider remedies. What this thread is about is understanding/discussing the perspective. I think what conservatives want to avoid is the call for remedy. Oftentimes, remedy means changing a system where current winners will win less often. For example, take the mass adoption by colleges of test optional applications. By now, I think we understand that its intention is to admit more minorities without decreasing the stated scores/hurdle for other applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm totally fine with it. I guess I really don't get the uproar? I'm not saying that to be obtuse, I truly don't understand why it's so controversial to teach kids about redlining, racial covenants, three strikes you're out, etc. I learned about redlining and disproportionality in high school (in not particularly liberal part of Wisconsin, mind you) in the late 90s, it's not that new. Somehow we all survived.

That's not CRT.

So you’re fine with all that being taught in schools, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely! I want to learn it myself. I grew up in the south and the whitewashing was so prevalent that I'm not sure anything I learned about history was real. As an adult, I've made it a priority to relearn as much as possible.

How can we make things better in the future if we aren't willing to learn/teach the truth about the past?

That last line is true. But slavery has been around since biblical times. So it’s actual a flaw on all humans. But I get a feeling this won’t be taught too...

You don't know your bible very well. The slavery described in the bible, which includes manumission after 6 years, is utterly different than industrial chattel slavery.

And clearly you know nothing about CRT, because no one who studies or writes about it claims that slavery is a recent invention.

Anonymous wrote:I am okay with my DC learning about anything. Saying that, as far as I understand it, CRT is about tearing down the current system as it is deemed racist - this is total BS and I am absolutely not okay with that. Do I think kids should be aware of systematic racism - absolutely, it exist and it should be dealt with!But do we have to tear the entire system to fix it - i don’t think so, that is inviting chaos an anarchy!

Clearly, you don't understand CRT at all. What does "tearing down the current system" even mean? If you think that institutional racism is inextricably linked to the American legal and political system, then I don't think you've understood the genius of American government. Our system is meant to evolve, and we've evolved a LOT. We need to continue to evolve by teaching the reality of our history and the centrality of race to much of that history (redlining, federal government support and expansion of segregation, restrictive housing covenants, sundown towns, racial terrorism in the south from Reconstruction through the lat 1960s, the absolutely shameful role of the one-party southern Democratic party system, voting tests, anti-miscenenation laws, forced sterilization of poor, mostly black people from the 1920s through the 1970s, etc.).

It's not directly related to CRT, but if you have any doubts about how far we've come, I urge you to read things like the publications of the UVA President’s Commissions on Slavery and on the University in the Age of Segregation (e.g. https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-and-history-race-eugenics-racial-integrity-act-health-disparities). The university is confronting and bringing to light an incredibly painful, frankly shameful history of support for eugenics and white supremacy. This is not to "tear down the system" but rather to understand what happened and how we can improve. That's the exercise that we as a nation are going through, and trying to suppress the truth of this history -- at the GOP is currently doing to gain political advantage -- helps no one.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely! I want to learn it myself. I grew up in the south and the whitewashing was so prevalent that I'm not sure anything I learned about history was real. As an adult, I've made it a priority to relearn as much as possible.

How can we make things better in the future if we aren't willing to learn/teach the truth about the past?

That last line is true. But slavery has been around since biblical times. So it’s actual a flaw on all humans. But I get a feeling this won’t be taught too...

Anonymous wrote: I need a definition of CRT before I can answer the question.

My first thought was whether OP meant CRT as intended or the bogeyman that right wing media is peddling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is CRT viewed as controversial? Assumes that entire construct of US Laws and Government intentionally devised with institutionalized racism as primary goal.

The U.S., and all of its laws and institutions, were founded and created based on white supremacy—the assumption that lighter skin and European ancestry meant that white people were better and deserved a higher social and economic position than people of color. Because racism is embedded within our systems and institutions, codified in law, and woven into American public policy, this racial inequality is replicated and maintained over time. Thus, systemic racism shows up in nearly every facet of life for people of color.

Instruction often takes a deficits-based approach, characterizing students of color as being in need of remediation rather than appreciating their talents and giftedness.

No other opinion can be discussed, so this is hypocrisy. Especially in an academy of higher learning. No other viewpoint can possibly be expressed, thus it's t's exactly the opposite of engaging in "critical thinking."

If you go to Hillsale or Liberty, then this is a true statement. Otherwise, it is simply right wing fantasy. Stop watching Fox News.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am okay with my DC learning about anything. Saying that, as far as I understand it, CRT is about tearing down the current system as it is deemed racist - this is total BS and I am absolutely not okay with that. Do I think kids should be aware of systematic racism - absolutely, it exist and it should be dealt with!But do we have to tear the entire system to fix it - i don’t think so, that is inviting chaos an anarchy!

You misunderstand. CRT is a theoretical framework for looking at the law, and history.

So, to take an example that is pretty well understood, CRT led to a reevaluation of sentencing discrepancies. Rather than just accepting that cocaine possession was worth 2 years in jail, but crack was worth 10 years, critical race theorists examined the reasons why those discrepancies existed. SURPRISE! It was because of race. So, they advocated for political change because "the law" was not neutral. It was racialized.

Basically, it's a lens through which to view the law and history. To take another analogy, it's like a lens used to look at literature. You can read a classic book for the story, or for the prose, or as a way to understand how certain groups existed within the time and place when the book was written. So, you can take the same book and apply different lenses to understand it in different ways.

All of which to say, CRT is not actually prescriptive. It's not about tearing down racist systems, even though I think we should tear down racist systems. It's about identifying the places in the law and in US history where race intersects with our understanding.

You can also look at student math achievement and see there is a gap between POC and whites/asians. California is looking to do away with tracking and have everyone in the same classes until high school. Do you think this is the way to address the issue?

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying that CRT will only be taught in college.. why do college kids have to learn about CRT?
Are you okay with it? I have opinion I just want to know what other people think.

If they are going into law, higher education, or social constructs, then it would make sense, so , sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is CRT viewed as controversial? Assumes that entire construct of US Laws and Government intentionally devised with institutionalized racism as primary goal.

The U.S., and all of its laws and institutions, were founded and created based on white supremacy—the assumption that lighter skin and European ancestry meant that white people were better and deserved a higher social and economic position than people of color. Because racism is embedded within our systems and institutions, codified in law, and woven into American public policy, this racial inequality is replicated and maintained over time. Thus, systemic racism shows up in nearly every facet of life for people of color.

Instruction often takes a deficits-based approach, characterizing students of color as being in need of remediation rather than appreciating their talents and giftedness.

No other opinion can be discussed, so this is hypocrisy. Especially in an academy of higher learning. No other viewpoint can possibly be expressed, thus it's t's exactly the opposite of engaging in "critical thinking."

NP: What environment have you been in where CRT — the real version, not the I-know-it-when-I-see-it Fox version— is discussed where “no other opinion can be discussed”?

As others have said, it is a lens through which things can be examined, and it is taught as such. By law school, by college, and, I would hope even by high school, students have learned enough about critical thinking, context, and perspectives to be able to look at and talk about multiple perspectives.

This!! And it goes both ways btw. I don’t want woke kids at colleges too close minded to listen to conservative thought. Nothing good comes from living in an echo chamber.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is CRT viewed as controversial? Assumes that entire construct of US Laws and Government intentionally devised with institutionalized racism as primary goal.

The U.S., and all of its laws and institutions, were founded and created based on white supremacy—the assumption that lighter skin and European ancestry meant that white people were better and deserved a higher social and economic position than people of color. Because racism is embedded within our systems and institutions, codified in law, and woven into American public policy, this racial inequality is replicated and maintained over time. Thus, systemic racism shows up in nearly every facet of life for people of color.

Instruction often takes a deficits-based approach, characterizing students of color as being in need of remediation rather than appreciating their talents and giftedness.

No other opinion can be discussed, so this is hypocrisy. Especially in an academy of higher learning. No other viewpoint can possibly be expressed, thus it's t's exactly the opposite of engaging in "critical thinking."

NP: What environment have you been in where CRT — the real version, not the I-know-it-when-I-see-it Fox version— is discussed where “no other opinion can be discussed”?

As others have said, it is a lens through which things can be examined, and it is taught as such. By law school, by college, and, I would hope even by high school, students have learned enough about critical thinking, context, and perspectives to be able to look at and talk about multiple perspectives.

Op, you are talking about college aged students, right? Adults, or very close to it?

You don't need to be ok with it.

Anonymous wrote:This is the type of debate kids miss when they solely focus on career. I understand the need for a job after college, but if our nation’s brightest don’t want to be bothered with reflective and critical thinking, we have a fundamental social/political/economic problem.

So, CS majors and Facebook won’t solve all our problems?