Chilling Orwellianism at NYU

[Enoch the Red]

Teaching and learning CRT has absolutely nothing to do with policy-making or any attempts to change society. It merely presents a framework for understanding the origin of issues and barriers. As I said, education is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Educated people might want to change things, and CRT might help understand why various things might not be terribly effective or functional on a meaningful time-frame, but it doesn't tell you how to effect change in society, it tells you what kind of things would need to BE changed if identified issues are to be ameliorated.

I don't think your understanding of the tenets of CRT is very complete.

The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America, and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideals such as "the rule of law" and "equal protection." The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it." (Crenshaw et al., 1995)

So, I understand that you might want CRT to be unrelated to policy-making or attempts to change society, however that isn't what CRT actually teaches, nor even what it professes to teach. If I teach that global warming is killing the planet, that it will end civilization as we know it, and that unless it is brought under control then our days our numbered, is that teaching divorced from policy solutions, and social change? Of course not, the course is clear - to prevent catastrophe global warming needs to be stopped at any cost. What if I teach that, “Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity," and that there are no such things as non-racist ideas? Does that not also contain inherent in it recommendations on policy and society? If you believe a student being taught this would not see the prescriptivist ideas being espoused then I don't feel you are being honest.

And Enoch, your listing of a bunch of individuals is exactly why I harped on your entire social and political ideology being deliberately blind to the core topic of CRT, the identification and root-cause analysis of systemic racial bias, because you flat out refuse to acknowledge that there is or can be such bias if you can identify individuals who have succeeded in the face of such bias. If something isn't a hard barrier that flat out stops EVERYONE it doesn't exist to you. You're convinced that if some handful of disadvantaged people (who may or may not have countervailing advantages in other areas) can still see ultimate success DESPITE the bias then it doesn't actually exist or at least has no tangible effect. Which is just ludicrous.

If you would care to look at what I actually wrote, it was a critique of your stated belief that continued racial progress would require hundreds of years, not an argument that systemic racial bias does not exist. If in a lifetime you went from the Tulsa Race Massacre to black members of the supreme court, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a black Secretary of State, a black president and vice president, then that is progress that is not glacial, in social space that is breakneck. And while there still may be racial problems in hundreds of years, the rate of change to see a society that is widely free of racial discrimination is not, in my estimation, hundreds of years away. Or at least, such was my belief five years ago. Currently that trajectory is not being maintained.

As far as refusing to acknowledge bias, you are wrong. I freely admit it exists. What I refuse to believe is that the systems of power that are being described and railed against are so rooted in white supremacy and racism that they are irredeemable and require being completely overhauled. An irredeemably white supremacist society does not elect a black president. I agree, a society can elect a black president and still have systemic racial bias, I disagree that a society that does so has not made stunning progress towards equal justice and more equal opportunities. We have seen too slow a pace to combat the very real racism and bias in our country, but regardless of the valid critiques that can be made we have seen real movement. I think much of that can be laid at the feet of liberalism. What I have not seen, and have yet to be convinced of is that overturning the imperfect system that brought us that progress, progress which historically speaking is unimaginable and unheard of, will result in further progress.

What seems to be widely ignored or unrecognized here is that this constant focus on the centrality and intersectionality of race and racism is that it is coming at a cost, and I fear that cost is going to be the galvanization and widespread acceptance of a white racial identity. And when that happens the results will be disastrous - for whites, blacks, and the country as a whole. White nationalism, white supremacy are taboo, they are fringe. That may not always continue to be the case. I for one do not look forward to a return of the darker days of our country's history, and that seems to be the direction we are heading.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think your understanding of the tenets of CRT is very complete.



So, I understand that you might want CRT to be unrelated to policy-making or attempts to change society, however that isn't what CRT actually teaches, nor even what it professes to teach.

It doesn't matter what it professes to teach. Education doesn't make policy. It describes. I've never once alleged that I want to make policy based on CRT. I've said that it should be taught so that people can be informed about those systemic issues if and when they want to address them. I also said that there is not and cannot be a total removal of bias which means that if and when these issues comes up it is the responsibility of those addressing them to decide when and to what extent the knowledge they gained from CRT should be applied. But you can't apply knowledge you were forbidden from getting in the first place. Which means that if and when those issues come up, the people addressing them will be working blind and consequently any improvements will be a matter of chance. Critical Race Theory. Go ahead and tell me when Theory gains innate agency and maybe I'll be willing to readdress your ridiculous counter.

What seems to be widely ignored or unrecognized here is that this constant focus on the centrality and intersectionality of race and racism is that it is coming at a cost, and I fear that cost is going to be the galvanization and widespread acceptance of a white racial identity. And when that happens the results will be disastrous - for whites, blacks, and the country as a whole. White nationalism, white supremacy are taboo, they are fringe. That may not always continue to be the case. I for one do not look forward to a return of the darker days of our country's history, and that seems to be the direction we are heading.

It's ALREADY there. It is accepted. And you're blind to it because you're inside the fishbowl and consider your own acceptance of it a default state of nature instead. The existence of the identity doesn't inevitably become racial nationalism or supremacy either. That's even more fearmongering

[Loki]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ugly-war-...090507290.html

If this is how mayors are treated, imagine how non-mayors are treated.

[Enoch the Red]

It doesn't matter what it professes to teach. Education doesn't make policy. It describes. I've never once alleged that I want to make policy based on CRT. I've said that it should be taught so that people can be informed about those systemic issues if and when they want to address them. I also said that there is not and cannot be a total removal of bias which means that if and when these issues comes up it is the responsibility of those addressing them to decide when and to what extent the knowledge they gained from CRT should be applied. But you can't apply knowledge you were forbidden from getting in the first place. Which means that if and when those issues come up, the people addressing them will be working blind and consequently any improvements will be a matter of chance. Critical Race Theory. Go ahead and tell me when Theory gains innate agency and maybe I'll be willing to readdress your ridiculous counter.

First point, I have not really engaged with your education being descriptivist vs prescriptivist argument yet, but unless I am being particularly dense, (which is entirely possible) it strikes me as nonsensical. Education can contain both descriptivist pedagogy and prescriptivist pedagogy. If the education surrounding how to throw a grenade is:

1. Remove pin
2. Throw sufficiently close to target to cause desired effect and sufficiently far enough away from yourself to avoid danger
3. Take cover

then that would hardly be descriptivist in my book. While there may be a descriptivist component to the education, say the radius at which the grenade is lethal, what kinds of destruction grenades are capable of, stories regarding their past usage and efficacy, there is also the prescriptivist component which outlines the correct procedures to follow, and in what order, to safely and effectively use the tool. While I am not certain what education you have received, if it was anything like my own there was ample prescriptivism included. I certainly do not subscribe to the belief that education is solely one or the other.

Second, the onus is on you, (or other advocates) to prove that CRT is the correct tool to use when considering systemic issues, bias, and how and when to address them. If CRT is a flawed framework then teaching it isn't giving individuals or policy makers the opportunity to make improvements, in fact, the opposite may be true.

It's ALREADY there. It is accepted. And you're blind to it because you're inside the fishbowl and consider your own acceptance of it a default state of nature instead. The existence of the identity doesn't inevitably become racial nationalism or supremacy either. That's even more fearmongering

I wouldn't assume to speak for you or anyone else, but to say that whiteness is a meaningful component of my identity strikes me as laughable. If I were rank ordering the elements that comprise my identity - husband, father, son, brother, my interests, hobbies, and profession, the political leanings and moral values I hold, the food I enjoy, the amount of melanin in my skin may be somewhere on the list, but it is no where near central to who I am as a person, nor how I view the world. I believe that the vast majority of my conscious identity could be mapped on to any one else, regardless of their skin color, without much in the way of contradiction. I can recognize parts of that as being a privilege of being in the racial majority, and I understand how that may not be the case for everyone, especially when both individuals and society place their own emphasis on race. However, the obvious solution to that problem seems to be to continue to focus society on minimizing the role race plays in how we view each other, and maximize our understanding of the individual - and the content of their character not the color of their skin. This stands in direct opposition to the teachings of CRT.

This isn't complicated - when you teach the importance of making race central to ones identity, then that certainly makes room for making whiteness, and all the ugliness that comes with a focus on racial identity, to become far more of an issue than it is today.

As far as my fears being fearmongering, I certainly hope you are right. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong.

[Steely Glint]

I readily admit that they do.

You just refuted laissez faire capitalism.

[Aimless]

People should've paid more attention during The Matrix.

[Enoch the Red]

You just refuted laissez faire capitalism.

If you say so.

[Aimless]

"How to identify a competent history teacher in the classroom"

Twitter Link

Moral panic with the stupidity dialed up to eleven

[Ominous Gamer]

Libs just cancelled this conservative thought-leader:

Nikole Hannah-Jones receives tenure offer from UNC after backlash
https://19thnews.org/2021/06/nikole-...nure-decision/

Who would have guessed that allowing megadonors to politicize colleges would be so... problematic.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

The left is outta control

[GGT]

Hang on, Enoch. K-12 public schools don't *teach* CRT.

It's a theory that's only *taught* in some (not all) universities, mostly at the Masters and Doctoral level. It's meant to be a critical thinking course, expanding on cultural and world views that don't necessarily conform to the traditional/historical White Male perspective.

If those highly educated people then go on to examine how history has been taught -- including all the revisionist history -- and set out to make education more accurate and truthful, and put it into a curriculum, with footnotes and citations, then what's your beef?

[GGT]

Tangential discussion for Enoch:

What do you think about the advancements in Psychology that have impacted everything from sports to courts? Would you ignore or dismiss behavioral science when its theories confront an "inconvenient truth", because it doesn't fit the traditional narrative? Would you call it pseudo-science or a "hoax", and rely on your gut instincts and biases instead -- even tho millions of people are literally telling you something different?

<There's a reason we have Juvenile courts with different guidelines, and exceptions for the mentally ill>

PTSD is real. The main thing that's changed is how *trauma* has been understood and defined. (PS, It's not something just military vets experience, they just put the name on the map.) We don't know this because there was some Deep State cabal influencing policy, with a political agenda. We know this because there are millions of people experiencing traumatic events, with fall-out that lasts for decades, even life-times.

In architecture it's called "form follows function". But architects can't do a damn thing without structural engineers. I hope you will see the parallel comparison in education...and will stop using your strawman argument about CRT.

[Lewkowski]

Hang on, Enoch. K-12 public schools don't *teach* CRT.

It's a theory that's only *taught* in some (not all) universities, mostly at the Masters and Doctoral level. It's meant to be a critical thinking course, expanding on cultural and world views that don't necessarily conform to the traditional/historical White Male perspective.

If those highly educated people then go on to examine how history has been taught -- including all the revisionist history -- and set out to make education more accurate and truthful, and put it into a curriculum, with footnotes and citations, then what's your beef?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-schools.html

"Following the NEA's decision, Christopher Rufo, an outspoken opponent of Critical Race Theory, wrote in a tweet, 'BREAKING: The nation's largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states and 14,000 local school districts. The argument that 'critical race theory isn't in K-12 schools' is officially dead.'

Rufo continued: 'The union has also approved funding for "increasing the implementation" of CRT in K-12 curricula and for attacking conservative groups who oppose CRT indoctrination."

You were saying?

[Loki]

You're citing the Daily Mail quoting some nobody?

[Aimless]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-schools.html

"Following the NEA's decision, Christopher Rufo, an outspoken opponent of Critical Race Theory, wrote in a tweet, 'BREAKING: The nation's largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states and 14,000 local school districts. The argument that 'critical race theory isn't in K-12 schools' is officially dead.'

Rufo continued: 'The union has also approved funding for "increasing the implementation" of CRT in K-12 curricula and for attacking conservative groups who oppose CRT indoctrination."

You were saying?

Wow, a clown quoting a clown-magazine quoting a clown





Honestly Lewk, you're the second dumbest person I've ever encountered.

[Lewkowski]

This is a great example of ad hominem, now let's take a look at the actual article and what the teacher's union said:

The resolution reads that the NEA will 'provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism (human centered points of view) and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.'

It continues to say that the NEA plans to 'publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society.

'The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.'

[Loki]

Lewk, questioning the quality and credibility of sources is not an ad hominem. Me saying that I don't find it surprising that you have no such standards would be.

The description you provided isn't of CRT. CRT is given as one potential framework for examining those issues. Keep trying. Maybe one day you'll look up the thing you're currently meant to hate because certain people told you to.

[Lewkowski]

Did you even read the NEA's statement? Nothing that I quoted from Rufo here was factually incorrect. The argument about what CRT is or isn't is a sideshow parlor trick designed to obfuscate the issue. Put very cleanly and simply do you think you should treat students differently based on their race? If your answer is yes you are a racist. Should you assume things about people based on their skin color? Beyond medical issues (like how easy one can sunburn) you shouldn't make assumptions about anyone based on skin color. The CRT proponents and the headline speakers for CRT in the K-12 system all think people should be treated differently based on race and that you can assign certain likely held values based on skin color. That's shitty and backwards thinking.

The big issue with "CRT" (defined broadly or narrowly) is what is the purpose? The purpose is to leverage belief that a system is fundamentally flawed at its root and must be overthrown. That shit certainly shouldn't be presented as fact to grade school kids.

Honestly Loki I'm wondering what your take on certain elements of CRT - lets look at the big first one right up there on the ole wikpedia:

"Critique of liberalism: Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse.[25] They favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle[42] with an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies."

In favor? Opposed? Why or why not?

[LittleFuzzy]

Hang on, Enoch. K-12 public schools don't *teach* CRT.

But they COULD which means they WILL teach Holocaust Denial if Something Isn't Done.

[Enoch the Red]

But they COULD which means they WILL teach Holocaust Denial if Something Isn't Done.

I think you can do better Fuzzy.

[Loki]

Did you even read the NEA's statement? Nothing that I quoted from Rufo here was factually incorrect. The argument about what CRT is or isn't is a sideshow parlor trick designed to obfuscate the issue. Put very cleanly and simply do you think you should treat students differently based on their race? If your answer is yes you are a racist. Should you assume things about people based on their skin color? Beyond medical issues (like how easy one can sunburn) you shouldn't make assumptions about anyone based on skin color. The CRT proponents and the headline speakers for CRT in the K-12 system all think people should be treated differently based on race and that you can assign certain likely held values based on skin color. That's shitty and backwards thinking.

The big issue with "CRT" (defined broadly or narrowly) is what is the purpose? The purpose is to leverage belief that a system is fundamentally flawed at its root and must be overthrown. That shit certainly shouldn't be presented as fact to grade school kids.

Honestly Loki I'm wondering what your take on certain elements of CRT - lets look at the big first one right up there on the ole wikpedia:

"Critique of liberalism: Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse.[25] They favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle[42] with an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies."

In favor? Opposed? Why or why not?

In case you missed the obvious, I'm strongly against a political party waging war against ideas (that don't advocate violence). And I'm definitely against a bunch of know nothings inserting themselves into complex academic debates by misleading supporters they believe are idiots. I personally think CRT falsely assumes everything is about race, just like Marxism assumes everything is about class and liberalism that everything is about maximizing profit. That doesn't mean these theories (and particularly anything even remotely related to them) should be banned by the new Salem witch hunters.

[Lewkowski]

In case you missed the obvious, I'm strongly against a political party waging war against ideas (that don't advocate violence). And I'm definitely against a bunch of know nothings inserting themselves into complex academic debates by misleading supporters they believe are idiots. I personally think CRT falsely assumes everything is about race, just like Marxism assumes everything is about class and liberalism that everything is about maximizing profit. That doesn't mean these theories (and particularly anything even remotely related to them) should be banned by the new Salem witch hunters.

Again no one is banning CRT in college or in the public sphere as a whole.

[Loki]

Again no one is banning CRT in college or in the public sphere as a whole.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/ne...oo/7621012002/

I'm sure Republicans in Georgia demanding to know which college courses teach about white privilege or Florida Republicans demanding that college students and professors reveal their ideologies is kosher as we

You're ok with politicians ignoring a consensus in scientific fields and banning the teaching of ideas that are politically inconvenient to them?

[Lewkowski]

Paywall - but to answer your question, no I don't think college students or professors should be required to reveal their political leanings.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think you can do better Fuzzy.

Probably, but why bother when you're wasting all our time by at least pretending to believe the facetiousness of their putting Holocaust Denial in with the CRT as relevant or meaningful.

[Loki]

Paywall - but to answer your question, no I don't think college students or professors should be required to reveal their political leanings.

If the Democrats demanded that high schools not teach that the Democratic Party supported slavery and Jim Crow, would you be ok with that?

[Enoch the Red]

Probably, but why bother when you're wasting all our time by at least pretending to believe the facetiousness of their putting Holocaust Denial in with the CRT as relevant or meaningful.

For a first amendment argument I maintain that such a comparison is worthwhile. Or is this more like the time wasting done when you pretend to believe that education is solely descriptivist?

[Lewkowski]

If the Democrats demanded that high schools not teach that the Democratic Party supported slavery and Jim Crow, would you be ok with that?

Again you are conflating things to obscure the issue. There is zero problem with teaching historical facts. There is a huge problem in teaching people that we should treat each other differently based on skin color.

[Loki]

Again you are conflating things to obscure the issue. There is zero problem with teaching historical facts. There is a huge problem in teaching people that we should treat each other differently based on skin color.

Did you read this thread at all? CRT is descriptive (a lot of our laws and institutions were intentionally created to benefit whites). Some people choose to make prescriptions based on it. The GOP is banning both.

[Loki]

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-critical...135510393.html

Lewk, are you ok with this? Parents demanding that actual history not be taught because it makes white people look bad?