• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mixed-race student brings lawsuit against charter school for mandatory CRT content.

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawsuit-nevada-race-christianity-william-clark
A publicly funded charter school in Nevada created a hostile environment for students by instructing them to associate aspects of their identity with oppression, a new lawsuit alleges.

The suit was filed Tuesday by a high school senior at Democracy Prep at the Agassi campus in Las Vegas, who claims he was forced to take the course -- titled "Sociology of Change" -- in order to graduate.

William Clark, whose mother is Black and deceased father was White, claims he felt discriminated against and harassed by various aspects of the course -- including an alleged assertion that by not identifying with an oppressive group, students were exercising their privilege or underscoring their status as an oppressor.

The text of the filing is available here:
https://www.schoolhouserights.org/the-lawsuit.html
Plaintiff, William Clark, brings suit for injunctive relief and damages against Defendants for repeatedly compelling his speech involving intimate matters of race, gender, sexuality and religion. Defendants compelled Plaintiff William Clark to make professions about his racial, sexual, gender and religious identities in verbal class exercises and in graded, written homework assignments which were subject to the scrutiny, interrogation and derogatory labeling of students, teachers and school administrators. By directing Plaintiff William Clark to reveal his identities in a controlled, yet non-private setting, to scrutiny and official labeling, Defendants were and still are coercing him to accept and affirm politicized and discriminatory principles and statements that he cannot in conscience affirm. Defendants
“invade the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.”
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
, 319 U.S. 624. Defendants repeatedly threatened William Clark with material harm including a failing grade and non-graduation if he failed to comply with their requirements. When he declined to participate in these confessional exercises and assignments, Defendants rejected his requests for reasonable accommodation and acted on their threats. Defendant
s’ coercive and intrusive behavior compelled William Clark’s protected speech and invaded his
privacy, violating his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Commentary from the daily caller website:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/23/nevada-lawsuit-racist-charter-school/
A student from Democracy Preparatory Academy and his mother filed a federal lawsuit against the school and its administrators Tuesday, alleging compelled speech and racial discrimination.

The suit alleges that William Clark, a biracial twelfth-grader at Democracy Preparatory Academy, Agassi Campus, was required “to make professions about his racial, sexual, gender and religious identities… which were subject to the scrutiny, interrogation and derogatory labeling of students, teachers and school administrators,” according to court documents obtained by the Daily Caller. If Clark did not comply with these course requirements, he would not receive a passing grade.
The student’s African-American mother, Gabrielle Clark, who is a co-plaintiff, requested that her son be removed from the class “Sociology of Change,” a civics class in which he would learn about intersectionality theory. However, Democracy Prep principal Adam Johnson told Clark that the course was mandatory, so her son would be forced to take it.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Do so hope that the pendulum starts to swing back from this lefty racist shit.
 

zorq

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,746
Location
Republic of Korea
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Moderate
It kind of sounds like the school was trying to coerce him to talk about private aspects of himself without his consent by tying that to his grade. Privacy has been determined to be a 1st amendment right and a publicly funded school shouldn't be allowed to invade a student's privacy or penalize them for refusing to do so.

I think the kid has a case.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I agree.

CRT is at least controversial, imo, but maybe there are moderate and extreme versions of it. I would certainly hope that there are more moderate versions of it than involved here, because to me this seems to have been attempted ideological indoctrination, involving an element of coercion.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,749
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I dunno.

My schools had requirements I didn't like. Part of education is learning that sometimes you have to do things you really really don't want to do in order to achieve a goal.
Tom
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,152
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I dunno.

My schools had requirements I didn't like. Part of education is learning that sometimes you have to do things you really really don't want to do in order to achieve a goal.
Tom

Yeah, people have to deal with that in the workplace too. Every year, having to fill out the evaluation form. Where do you see yourself in five years? What are your goals for the upcoming year? 90 percent of the workers can't answer honestly because "Do my job, get my pay, go home at five." isn't a career enhancing statement.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,749
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I dunno.

My schools had requirements I didn't like. Part of education is learning that sometimes you have to do things you really really don't want to do in order to achieve a goal.
Tom

Yeah, people have to deal with that in the workplace too. Every year, having to fill out the evaluation form. Where do you see yourself in five years? What are your goals for the upcoming year? 90 percent of the workers can't answer honestly because "Do my job, get my pay, go home at five." isn't a career enhancing statement.

It's not just the work place. It's marriage. It's parenthood. It's practically every aspect of reality. It's life!

Learning to soldier through tough circumstances is a crucial part of becoming a competent adult. Learning to file lawsuits when you're unhappy is what produces Trumps.

Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Learning to file lawsuits when you're unhappy is what produces Trumps.
Well, that's who's in charge of Amerian secondary ed right now, so...

It's funny how conservatives think the school system is super liberal because they hear wacko news stories about "extremist" teachers/professors or academic departments doing this and that. They never seem to notice that the reason they hear about it in the news is that said teachers, admins, professors and departments are being sued, fired, overtly illegalized, or otherwise formally persecuted by the instruments of state, which really aren't very liberal at all... It's not just Fox News watchers who spend their time and energy trying to think of new ways to denigrate and undermine the production of new knowledge, the administration of all these schools is totally on their side most of the time, especially if murdering the sciences saves money somehow.

It's funny, they claim to be defending "free speech" on campus, but here they're trying to make it illegal to so much as teach about critical race theory, let alone endorse it, even though that would be well within the traditional prerogative of a high school teacher anyway at least the way things used to be. Teachers aren't actually supposed to be compelled to endorse or not endorse any specific political position, and a high school senior should be challenged to occasionally consider political ideas other than those of their parents. The suit even noted the direct connection of this material to published, peer-reviewed research, so in theory it should be fair game just like any other scientific theory set that has met the same bar. Encountering new ideas, even ideas you are personally offended by, is part of being in high school. Or was. They're almost adults, and they should be treated like adults. But the Trump crowd wants even actual adults to act and be treated like children, so... I guess at least they're consistent.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I dunno.

My schools had requirements I didn't like. Part of education is learning that sometimes you have to do things you really really don't want to do in order to achieve a goal.
Tom

Yeah, people have to deal with that in the workplace too. Every year, having to fill out the evaluation form. Where do you see yourself in five years? What are your goals for the upcoming year? 90 percent of the workers can't answer honestly because "Do my job, get my pay, go home at five." isn't a career enhancing statement.


Oh, I see.

So, if your workplace sent you on compulsory courses saying that people from certain groups were inherently corrupt, that'd be a-okay with you?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
It's funny, they claim to be defending "free speech" on campus, but here they're trying to make it illegal

No, they're not.

to so much as teach about critical race theory, let alone endorse it, even though that would be well within the traditional prerogative of a high school teacher anyway at least the way things used to be. Teachers aren't actually supposed to be compelled to endorse or not endorse any specific political position, and a high school senior should be challenged to occasionally consider political ideas other than those of their parents. The suit even noted the direct connection of this material to published, peer-reviewed research, so in theory it should be fair game just like any other scientific theory set that has met the same bar.

To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
It's funny, they claim to be defending "free speech" on campus, but here they're trying to make it illegal

No, they're not.

to so much as teach about critical race theory, let alone endorse it, even though that would be well within the traditional prerogative of a high school teacher anyway at least the way things used to be. Teachers aren't actually supposed to be compelled to endorse or not endorse any specific political position, and a high school senior should be challenged to occasionally consider political ideas other than those of their parents. The suit even noted the direct connection of this material to published, peer-reviewed research, so in theory it should be fair game just like any other scientific theory set that has met the same bar.

To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.

You obviously don't understand critical race theory or feminist theory if that is your summary of it. Taking a course on the subject would help, not hurt, this situation. Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,152
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I dunno.

My schools had requirements I didn't like. Part of education is learning that sometimes you have to do things you really really don't want to do in order to achieve a goal.
Tom

Yeah, people have to deal with that in the workplace too. Every year, having to fill out the evaluation form. Where do you see yourself in five years? What are your goals for the upcoming year? 90 percent of the workers can't answer honestly because "Do my job, get my pay, go home at five." isn't a career enhancing statement.


Oh, I see.

So, if your workplace sent you on compulsory courses saying that people from certain groups were inherently corrupt, that'd be a-okay with you?

Classic strawman argument.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
No, they're not.



To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.

You obviously don't understand critical race theory or feminist theory if that is your summary of it. Taking a course on the subject would help, not hurt, this situation. Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh, I see.

So, if your workplace sent you on compulsory courses saying that people from certain groups were inherently corrupt, that'd be a-okay with you?

Classic strawman argument.

Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
No, they're not.



To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.

You obviously don't understand critical race theory or feminist theory if that is your summary of it. Taking a course on the subject would help, not hurt, this situation. Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Again, not even remotely connected to CRT. You aren't "inherently broken because of your skin color"; rather, because you were socialized into a culture in which skin color is used (somewhat arbitraily) as a class marker, your perceived skin color has had a measurable impact on your social life and position, whether or not you "meant" for this to be the case.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Oh, I see.

So, if your workplace sent you on compulsory courses saying that people from certain groups were inherently corrupt, that'd be a-okay with you?

Classic strawman argument.

Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Again, not even remotely connected to CRT. You aren't "inherently broken because of your skin color"; rather, because you were socialized into a culture in which skin color is used (somewhat arbitraily) as a class marker, your perceived skin color has had a measurable impact on your social life and position, whether or not you "meant" for this to be the case.

No. CRT evangelists have specifically called out white people as inherently racist.

But, that isn't the point. Even if it is 'socialisation', they say that only white people, and all white people, are racist. That statement is what CRT proponents believe. It is not a straw man.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.


Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.


Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.
Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.
Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...

You are embarrassing yourself luv.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Key-Terms-Racism.pdf

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...a-thing_n_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97?ri18n=true
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,637
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Why is it racist? Were the white kids excluded from the course?

"The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread." - Anatole France
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,637
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The suit even noted the direct connection of this material to published, peer-reviewed research, so in theory it should be fair game just like any other scientific theory set that has met the same bar.

Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.
If the research is peer-reviewed, that means it was reviewed by the authors' peers, i.e., by other critical race theorists?

"Correlation was established in 1981, as the Astrological Association’s international biannual Journal of Research into Astrology. It publishes the finest peer-reviewed astrological research."

https://correlationjournal.com/

Apparently astrology counts as a science now too.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Evidently you are not acquainted with CRT. They don't call prejudice against whites 'racism', nor is anything people of colour do to anyone else (including other people of colour) 'racism'. It could be bigotry and prejudice, but not racism.
Yes, your careful study of conservative websites trumps reading the actual literature on the subject...

You are embarrassing yourself luv.

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Key-Terms-Racism.pdf

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/e...a-thing_n_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97?ri18n=true

I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.

You did not even bother reading the first sentence in the first link.

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Politesse, you have multiple times responded to my threads and never bothered reading what is written. Please either start reading, or stop responding.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
You did not even bother reading the first sentence in the first link.

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Politesse, you have multiple times responded to my threads and never bothered reading what is written. Please either start reading, or stop responding.

The first sentence reads:

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Your claim was:

all white people are inherently racist.

Those aren't even slightly the same thing. And your third linked source directly refutes what you've written in its first sentence:

Race
“A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on certain
characteristics such as physical appearance (particularly skin color) ancestral heritage,
cultural affiliation, cultural history, ethnic classification...

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,653
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
No, they're not.



To imagine critical race theory is science is to imagine feminist theory is science. There's nothing 'scientific' about proclaiming that all white people are inherently racist.

You obviously don't understand critical race theory or feminist theory if that is your summary of it. Taking a course on the subject would help, not hurt, this situation. Not understanding science is not the same thing as science itself being wrong.

If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Such a snowflake...
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Such a snowflake...

Call me what you like luv. I don't need to volunteer my time to listen to it.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The first sentence read:



Your claim was:


That was one of my claims. Is that the only claim you are disputing about what CRT says?

It's the claim I objected to first and what you were ostensibly responding to. I concede that you have added a fair amount of other nonsense to the pile as well.

Note: I've edited the quoted post to clarify my point.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
The first sentence reads:

Assumptions and stereotypes about white people are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Your claim was:

all white people are inherently racist.

Those aren't even slightly the same thing. And your third linked source directly refutes what you've written in its first sentence:

Race
“A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on certain
characteristics such as physical appearance (particularly skin color) ancestral heritage,
cultural affiliation, cultural history, ethnic classification...

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Good god.

I said:

Critical race theory proponents say all white people, and only white people, are racist. It isn't a straw man.

You said:
What CRT observes is in a white-majority that the effect of white racism is very different from the effect of racism in the other direction, since there isn't an equivalent amount of insitutional inertia behind those two conditions.

I called you out because CRT does not accept that there is any such thing as 'racism' in the other direction. They don't call it racism, they call it bigotry and prejudice.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
In the interest of accountability, I cannot find the quote I was thinking of, of Robin DiAngelo calling white people inherently racist, so I will withdraw the claim. It's possible I'm misremembering another word used, like 'inescapably' or something similar.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,637
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions. It categorically affects you regardless of your personal opinions, so it's not that you are a racist so much as that you live within a system of institutionalized racism, and therefore benefit from it whether you agree with that system or not, just as you benefit from other social insitutions that favor you regardless of whether you personally agree with them, such as capitalism or the concept of governmental welfare or national citzenship.
:consternation2:

Um, he benefits from capitalism, governmental welfare and national citizenship because those are good things that help people. A system of institutionalized racism is a bad thing that hurts people. Why you would feel he benefits from it merely because it favors whites is transparently a zero-sum-game mentality. Life is not a zero-sum game. Institutional racism hurts people of all races -- the races it's directed against more than the rest.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,385
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This thread shows just how ridiculous CRT is. There is nothing redeeming academically to it. All it does is embolden anti-white racists in their racism.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,385
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I have no idea how to respond to this, except to express continued bafflement by your habit of voluntarily linking to documents that don't support your hysterical claims about their authors.

In what way do you these ramblings Methaphor linked to fail to support Metaphor's point?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,385
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.
In reality, "broad social structures" can favor blacks and in our modern world often do. Black politicians also often hold power, so "prejudice+power" would apply. When white people are denied employment and promotions in a black controlled government (such as Fulton and Clayton Counties in Georgia) that would be an example of racism under that definition. But it is not viewed as such under CRT because the sole purpose of CRT is to attack whitey. So excuses are made why that doesn't qualify. Or why "broad social structures" like giving black students preferences in admissions or such things as "cultural appropriation" that seek to control behavior of white people do not qualify.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Just because they ramble at length does not mean they are making any sense. When a black student can get into say med school with far worse grades and MCAT scores than a white or Asian student, how is that not an example of a "broad social structure" that benefits blacks? When white majority sports are pressured into recruiting or hiring more "minority" players, coaches etc. but black-dominated sports like NBA. I have never heard any calls for more player diversity in the NBA, but I have heard many such calls in other leagues. Why is that?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,576
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.
In reality, "broad social structures" can favor blacks and in our modern world often do. Black politicians also often hold power, so "prejudice+power" would apply. When white people are denied employment and promotions in a black controlled government (such as Fulton and Clayton Counties in Georgia) that would be an example of racism under that definition. But it is not viewed as such under CRT because the sole purpose of CRT is to attack whitey. So excuses are made why that doesn't qualify. Or why "broad social structures" like giving black students preferences in admissions or such things as "cultural appropriation" that seek to control behavior of white people do not qualify.

If you actually read your own links, they discuss this in some detail.

Just because they ramble at length does not mean they are making any sense. When a black student can get into say med school with far worse grades and MCAT scores than a white or Asian student, how is that not an example of a "broad social structure" that benefits blacks? When white majority sports are pressured into recruiting or hiring more "minority" players, coaches etc. but black-dominated sports like NBA. I have never heard any calls for more player diversity in the NBA, but I have heard many such calls in other leagues. Why is that?

Don't expect to get a meaningful response your questions or comments, as they don't have them. Instead, this is the point where they chime in and say this is a perfect example of "white fragility"...blah, blah, blah. You're wasting your time.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,056
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If my work put me on such a course I would go to it and I would film it.

But I am certainly not going to a course voluntarily that calls me inherently broken because of my skin colour.

Again, not even remotely connected to CRT. You aren't "inherently broken because of your skin color"; rather, because you were socialized into a culture in which skin color is used (somewhat arbitraily) as a class marker, your perceived skin color has had a measurable impact on your social life and position, whether or not you "meant" for this to be the case.

And you take it as a given that the differences are due to race rather than background.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wassup my Niggas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/us/mimi-groves-jimmy-galligan-racial-slurs.html#click=https://t.co/UA84HkMYXg

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

It might or might not be a mentality fostered by CRT. As such, I don't know if it's on-topic in this thread.

If it were a separate discussion, I would say there are two sides to it. For example, it's not for you to say it was a trivial thing, and even if, of itself, it was, it may have been part of a wider, non-trivial pattern. That is in fact what the article suggests.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.
If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.
If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

Well, that is vacuous reasoning.

Well, why protest your right to do something without consequences, if doing it is trivial? There are more important rights to defend.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,550
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.
No, it was one of the accepted interpretations of racism long before the offshoot of "only whites can be racist" view. I believe the second view became prevalent partly because most people in Western civilization either ignored or knew little about the histories of other civilizations. And, from a practical point of view, operationally, at the time, white people were the dominant power structure in their societies.

The definition is not stupid - it makes sense and it can be viewed as helping to delineate a major difference between racism and bigotry/prejudice - power over the disfavored. Now, one does not have to accept or like it, but it is not stupid.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,550
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.
If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

Well, that is vacuous reasoning.
Which is vacuous reasoning? Really, the observation about CRT seems more vacuous to me that Politesse's response.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,056
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And you take it as a given that the differences are due to race rather than background.
Race does not exist, except as an aspect of a person's background. But your background has an enormous impact on your life.

The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter.

In the real world the costs are borne by everyone and the result is counterproductive anyway. There are some true racists and I have no problem with punishing them but disparate results is a hopelessly inadequate way to find them.

Want to actually do something useful? Make one-party consent the law of the land. The boss is stepping over the line, record him doing it!
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,966
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter.
Definitely not what an expert in critical race theory would recommend. The whole point of shifting the direction of study away from individual culpability is to understand how racist institutions function as whole structures. "Fault" is irrelevant, the system needs to be documented and challeneged as a communal social production in which all actors are relevant. Indeed, I think most writers in this genre see people of color, explicitly not whites, as the parties most able to change the way the system functions. The king can't dissolve the monarchy, that's the job of the proletariat.

There are some true racists and I have no problem with punishing them but disparate results is a hopelessly inadequate way to find them.
Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Indeed, I think most writers in this genre see people of color, explicitly not whites, as the parties most able to change the way the system functions. The king can't dissolve the monarchy, that's the job of the proletariat.

I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but even since participating in this thread, I've read the opposite (it may even have been at one of the links provided) to the effect that under CRT it's whites who can effect the most change.

As with most ideologies not only can CRT actually be about different things to different people, but it may even be possible (as a result) to say almost anything about it.

And the idea that it is not white-blaming is, I think, effectively a non-starter. Without beating about the bush, that is effectively a large component of it, possibly the main one. As patriarchy (essentially, men-blaming) is to feminism.

To me, the question is not, 'is it white-blaming?' (to say anything other than yes is just mincing words, imo) but how to respond to that.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom