Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

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).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

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).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

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).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

Anonymous wrote:The academy has done humankind a great service by making people more aware of perspectives/lens, but they haven’t done a great job in helping people, especially non-college teachers, apply that understanding. For example, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish, some perspectives/methods/ways are more helpful than others. So, if I’m trying to get from NOVA to DC, there may be various routes, but depending on my criteria/constraints, some paths may be better. Do I want the fastest route? The most scenic? The shortest? Similarly, we can think about what we want our schools or government to accomplish. Depending on those goals, some paths are better. All that said, it is not fair to ask kids younger than middle school to contemplate these issues and trade offs. Science/psychology and most traditional societies identify the age of accountability as 12 or older.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had to listen to my conservative extended family about this nonstop. I do understand where they’re coming from. (Everyone- liberal or moderate should try to understand where conservatives are coming from). I think CRT or watered down CRT that is being taught in K-12 is often taught poorly. It’s one thing to look at laws and history to see racism, it’s another to blame kids for the sins of their fathers. My kids come from poor white families in poor white rural towns. To say they’ve gotten ahead solely because of racism is disingenuous. An aunt was fired up because her son was told that he was privileged for having two married parents. And another kid suffered trauma because his parents weren’t married and he should be given more because of that. The words “privilege” and “trauma” and “crt” are so overused they’ve lost meaning.

Anonymous wrote:CRT is the notion that current/past law generates/perpetuates racism. For example, a previous poster mentioned redlining. Redlining was the bank practice not to lend to people in certain areas. Who were those people? Mostly black people. What was the effect of they practice? To deprive black people of home ownership. Why does that matter? For many families, home ownership is the cornerstone of their wealth. Also, neighborhoods of homeowners tend to be more stable and provide better living conditions. In sum, redlining is an example of a law/practice that systematically disenfranchised a group from prosperity. Kids should know about that to ensure that future society doesn’t repeat it. If you don’t support economic handouts, don’t make it impossible for people to succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

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.