What, exactly, is CRT?

[Lumpenproletariat]

So, what exactly is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
It is the current "look squirrel" from Repugs.

Most of the above wiki is either anti-CRT critique, or it is incoherent babble, decorated in academic jingo, with mostly names of scholars and journals, but saying nothing of substance.

Here are some parts which seemed to say something:

Standpoint epistemology: The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have, and that this can expose the racial neutrality of law as false.

This seems to say that the "minority" has the truth, and others must keep their mouth shut and just listen to this "minority" member preach to them, because only this "minority" member has any understanding, and all others must have this truth spoon-fed to them because they're too unenlightened to be able to speak any truth themselves. So they must agree automatically with anything the "minority" member says about what's wrong with the law and how it must be changed, and not disagree with what this member preaches to them, because others "do not have" the "authority and ability" to speak about it which only this "minority" member has.

Structural determinism: Exploration of how "the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content", whereby a particular mode of thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually occurring without conscious knowledge. As such, theorists posit that our system cannot redress certain kinds of wrongs.

What "theorists"?

This seems to say that our "system" or "structure" of thinking cannot address certain social outcomes or "wrongs" which are to be redressed, and so we must abolish our current thinking entirely, perhaps do away with science or logic or any "structure" we currently follow that guides our thinking. But this does not answer how these "theorists" telling us this are not themselves part of the "structure" or "system" which cannot redress the wrongs.

So CRT then might be a substitution of one incapable "structure" for another, or it's just part of the current incapable "structure" or "system" which occurs "without conscious knowledge" and can't redress anything.

Empathetic fallacy: Believing that one can change a narrative by offering an alternative narrative in hopes that the listener's empathy will quickly and reliably take over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and group.

This seems to say that racism is incurable, because everyone ignores any "narrative" trying to change them and just remains in their own prejudice. So CRT = racism is permanent and unchangeable through any kind of communication (including communication from the CRT theorists, so that CRT inherently refutes itself or condemns itself as a failure).

Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism).

This seems to demand separation of anything non-White and funding of it by Whites.

Internalization
Karen Pyke documents the theoretical element of internalized racism or internalized racial oppression, whereby victims of racism begin to believe in the ideology that they are inferior to whites and white culture, who are superior. The internalizing of racism is not due to any weakness, ignorance, inferiority, psychological defect, gullibility, or other shortcomings of the oppressed. Instead, it is how authority and power in all aspects of society contribute to feelings of inequality.

This seems to say that White authority and power are automatically internalized by non-Whites in all aspects and believed by them, including White CRT theory (but no non-White CRT theory), because non-Whites are incapable of forming any belief other than that imposed by the authority and power of White culture. So any non-White theory/ideology cannot be internalized by them, but only White ideology, as non-Whites are inherently incapable of receiving or internalizing anything from non-Whites.

Institutional racism
Camara Phyllis Jones defines institutionalized racism as

differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes legalized and often manifests as inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice, and law, so there need not be an identifiable offender. Indeed, institutionalized racism is often evident as inaction in the face of need, manifesting itself both in material conditions and in access to power. With regard to the former, examples include differential access to quality education, sound housing, gainful employment, appropriate medical facilities, and a clean environment.

This seems like a normal description of race discrimination as something embedded in society, but it doesn't seem to add anything new to what was already known prior to CRT, which originated in the 1970s, according to this wiki page.

Critical race theorists have also paid particular attention to the issue of affirmative action, whereby scholars have argued in favor of such on the argument that so-called merit standards for hiring and educational admissions are not race-neutral for a variety of reasons, and that such standards are part of the rhetoric of neutrality through which whites justify their disproportionate share of resources and social benefits.

This seems to say there is no such thing as "merit" or "race-neutral" standards, ever. All choices anyone makes (or anyone White) are based on race prejudice, regardless what one claims. Even any attempt to avoid prejudice and judge by merit only stems from racial prejudice and is an attempt to disguise one's inherent prejudice. So don't waste your time trying not to discriminate. Your effort to do this is itself only another lie you're telling to try to conceal your inherent racism. Including any arguments by CRT scholars (if they're White).


Other than the above excerpts, the wiki page says nothing about what CRT is. It's mostly listings of distinguished scholars, so we know who the theorists are, but not what their theory is.

Since the schools seem to be the main battleground here, maybe we need some quotes from educators who are trying to introduce CRT into the schools. What exactly are they demanding to be taught to the kids? We need to see it in their words, rather than just the slogans from their opponents, who seem to be the only ones who want to talk about it.

There would be nothing wrong with having the textbooks rewritten to include events such as the Tulsa massacre.

 

[Politesse]

That is a really weird thing you have going on, quoting a source and then commenting that it "seems to say" a bunch of stuff it obviously doesn't say. Is that because you're hoping we'll just read your parts and skip past the quoted bit that doesn't support your assertion?

If the subject is "what does this academic theory say", then talking about academic theory, scholars, and principal works associated with that theory is not "academic jingo". It's the substance at hand. Indeed, anything else is off-topic.

Since the schools seem to be the main battleground here, maybe we need some quotes from educators who are trying to introduce CRT into the schools. What exactly are they demanding to be taught to the kids? We need to see it in their words, rather than just the slogans from their opponents, who seem to be the only ones who want to talk about it.

You can't do that because there aren't any. The "battle" is an invention, conjured to scare middle-class whites into voting Republican in 2022. Educators oppose these laws because we oppose censorship and because these laws are crafted so vaguely as to stifle all conversations about "divisive topics", not because CRT has much of anything to do with primary education.

 

[marc]

So the threat of CRT being forced into schools is about as substantial as the War On Christmas. The threat of "Their coming to take away your guns and bibles!". What other totally imagined conflicts does the GQP repeat these days?

 

[Politesse]

So the threat of CRT being forced into schools is about as substantial as the War On Christmas. The threat of "Their coming to take away your guns and bibles!". What other totally imagined conflicts does the GQP repeat these days?

"Political correctness", Mexican supercessionism, millions of fraudulent votes, "welfare queens", a global conspiracy to falsely data on climate change, and a liberal conspiracy to remove conservatives from university posts.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, and key Democrats are running some sort of child sex trafficking ring. George Soros and the Clintons are involved. If there's one thing that the Far Left and the Far Right can agree on, it's that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

 

[ZiprHead]

Don't forget death panels.

 

[Gospel]

Jewish Space Laser 2018 - Never Forget

 

[laughing dog]

1997

For Black Scholars Wedded to Prism of Race, New and Separate Goals

Critical race theorists, who are on the faculty at almost every major law school and are producing an ever-growing body of scholarly work, have drawn from an idea made popular by postmodernist scholars of all races, that there is no objective reality …

Critics of critical race theory, like Prof. Suzanna Sherry of the University of Minnesota law school, contend that it defies common sense and abandons intellectual principles in an effort to promote the political standing of blacks in society.

CRT rejects objective reality, is anti-empiricism, and is just self-serving bullshit.

That one is truly ironic. CRT is many things to many people but it is the bete noir of conservatives.

 

[Gun Nut]

Today it is three times as common as it was in 2000.

I bet it is more than twice as common in 2021 as it was 2020.
January 6th left right wing extremists casting about for something to attack for persecuting white people, and CRT was the best they could do.

I don't know half of CRT half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of it half as well as it deserves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1997

For Black Scholars Wedded to Prism of Race, New and Separate Goals

CRT rejects objective reality, is anti-empiricism, and is just self-serving bullshit.

Critical race theorists, who are on the faculty at almost every major law school and are producing an ever-growing body of scholarly work, have drawn from an idea made popular by postmodernist scholars of all races, that there is no objective reality. Instead, the critical race theorists say, there are competing racial versions of reality that may never be reconciled.

Trausti seems to completely miss the point here... probably why he ellipsed it away. They aren't rejecting "objective reality". There are things that are quite objective, like the sun and the stars. The question is whether experiences within the US are objective, and more specifically in the US among races.

It isn't even objective among white people. How the wealthy perceived the Great Recession in 2008 was different that how the unwealthy perceived the Great Recession in 2008. Yet, the Great Recession was the same actual event. How the law impacts the wealthy verses the proles or how tax law impacts the wealthy verses the proles, there are any number of different experiences based on your rung of the economy. Makes me think of Paltrow's infamous food stamp challenge fail. And we haven't even delved into how race then falls into it, from inertial systematic racism to snowballing consequences of previous racism.

That this is considered preposterous is more indicative of narcissism of others than anything else.

 

[Patooka]

Jewish Space Laser 2018 - Never Forget

We use the phrase "never Forget" for things like the Bowling Green Massacre. Don't be so disrespectful.

 

[Gospel]

Jewish Space Laser 2018 - Never Forget

We use the phrase "never Forget" for things like the Bowling Green Massacre. Don't be so disrespectful.

Wait what?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And Jade Helm 15

 

[Trausti]

You can't do that because there aren't any. The "battle" is an invention, conjured to scare middle-class whites into voting Republican in 2022. Educators oppose these laws because we oppose censorship and because these laws are crafted so vaguely as to stifle all conversations about "divisive topics", not because CRT has much of anything to do with primary education.

Um, okay.

 

[Torin]

So, I see threads asking why there is CRT hysteria, and see threads mocking people for opposing CRT.

What I don't see is a hard concrete steel-manned definition of CRT.

For me to know if it is as good or as bad as people say, I think I need to know more about what it is.

So, what exactly is it?

You should read a primer on Critical Race Theory written by a scholar if you want an accurate exposition you can rely on. This is a political debate forum, and nobody here is likely to be a scholar of Critical Race Theory, so it's not a great place to ask. Even if everything an internet rando tells you about CRT is completely accurate, you do not actually know that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

 

[Playball40]

Oh, and key Democrats are running some sort of child sex trafficking ring. George Soros and the Clintons are involved. If there's one thing that the Far Left and the Far Right can agree on, it's that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

Don't forget the vaccines are dangerous.

 

[Toni]

You can't do that because there aren't any. The "battle" is an invention, conjured to scare middle-class whites into voting Republican in 2022. Educators oppose these laws because we oppose censorship and because these laws are crafted so vaguely as to stifle all conversations about "divisive topics", not because CRT has much of anything to do with primary education.

Um, okay.

This post ^^ seems like a self-own to me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For me to know if it is as good or as bad as people say, I think I need to know more about what it is.

Ironically, you don't need to know what CRT is to comment on how it is being used as a rhetorical tool in media circles today.

Anyone can see "hey, they're using this term to mean something bad" without knowing what the term is.

I wish more people in this thread had taken to trying to describe CRT, instead of telling me how certain other people are all wrong about it.

The key point I took from the few who actually worked on defining it is that it describes "systemic" problems. As my politics are focused on the individual, "systemic" means little to me unless convinced otherwise. Still, I've heard many people say "systemic" before CRT became a big issue. Is there anything special about CRT versus anyone else who talks about systemic racism?

 

[Politesse]

For me to know if it is as good or as bad as people say, I think I need to know more about what it is.

Ironically, you don't need to know what CRT is to comment on how it is being used as a rhetorical tool in media circles today.

Anyone can see "hey, they're using this term to mean something bad" without knowing what the term is.

I wish more people in this thread had taken to trying to describe CRT, instead of telling me how certain other people are all wrong about it.

The posts that do this (like mine) are generally ignored. People like fighting more than they like learning, and I get tired of investing long periods of time carefully writing posts I know will be disregarded, or picked through for a "wham" passage to fixate on.

But it's also the case that in the present situation, understanding CRT is a fringe issue tangential to the present political debate, which is about the aesthetics, not the content, of Critical Race Theory. So it's sort of confusing to ask "What is CRT"? It's necessarily to clarify "to whom", because different parties are describing wildly different ideas by the same name.