What is CRT?

When asked about whether or not CRT was taught in schools, Biden's Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said simply that “It’s not.”

After Glenn Youngkin’s win, Joy Reid spent a segment asserting that critical race theory is not “actually taught” in any public school.

We’re both educators. These assertions are patently false.

In most cases of such assertions, we assume naïveté. In others, however, schools have outright lied to parents about the issue.

Indianapolis Public Schools advised their principals to tell parents that CRT is not taught in their schools while offering professional development for their teachers that explicitly outlines the tenets of CRT, recommends strategies for incorporating it, and suggests further reading — including Ibram X. Kendi.

The genesis of CRT in education is arguably Gloria Ladson-Billings’s seminal essay “Just what is critical race theory and what is it doing in a nice field like education?”

In it, she repudiates the slow progress of the civil-rights movement and concludes that liberalism is insufficient due to its lack of sweeping changes. Since its publication, Ladson-Billings has been ranked as one of the country’s most influential scholars of education.

Critical race theory is but one branch of a larger approach to instruction called critical pedagogy, which includes CRT, deconstructionist, feminist, postcolonial, and other progressive approaches to teaching.

Critical pedagogy forms the basis of many teacher-training programs — Ladson-Billings and other critical pedagogues, like bell hooks and Paulo Freire, are canon at these institutions — and these ideas then leak onto K–12 schools.

There are plenty of examples of critical race theory manifesting itself in public education: fifth graders told to celebrate Communism and brought through a mock black-power rally, or third graders mapping their racial identity and ranking themselves according to privilege.

Even in Seattle’s math curriculum, concepts such as geometry and algebraic equations play second fiddle to identity, power, liberation, and activism. The guiding questions encourage students to consider “How can we use math to measure the impact of activism?” One common textbook encourages teachers to, if they must read literature, do so through a Marxist or critical-race lens.

Deniers are correct in one narrow sense: Few if any students read the scholarly texts of Kimberlé Crenshaw or Richard Delgado in their classes.

But even so, the language, the theory, the application, the ideas, the instructional practices, the arguments, and the policies of these scholars permeate almost every sphere of K–12 education. To draw from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: CRT is the light that casts the shadows on the wall, even if those looking at it are unaware of the source.

In many cases, denials come from naïveté. In others, when administrators or pundits say that schools are not teaching CRT, they are lying.

To combat the spread of critical pedagogy requires exposure and pressure. Sending examples of activities or curricular documents to news outlets to demonstrate yet more of its ubiquity and apply pressure on school boards or even individual buildings can force their focus back to the content of education. Electorally, Virginia shows that if conservatives run on a platform of returning education to its actual purpose — reading, writing, and arithmetic over activism — they can win even tight elections and implement sensible policies.

Finally, so long as the universities and bureaucracies produce the curricular materials and professional development, these ideas will continue to flourish. Decoupling the university from schools by loosening teacher licensing and breaking the bureaucratic hold by empowering parents with choice would allow teachers to get back to basics.

Education has become a winning issue for conservatives. It’s time to start supporting conservative teachers, holding schools responsible, and doing the diligent work of providing agency and transparency for our families and communities.

Daniel Buck is a teacher and a senior visiting fellow at the Fordham Institute. Anthony Kinnett is a curriculum developer and coordinator in Indianapolis


https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/were-educators-critical-race-theory-is-in-fact-in-the-schools
 
martin said:
Exactly backwards. CRT is an attempt to understand racism as a way of coming to grips with it. The inane responses on this thread from you and others suggest the attempt is at least partly in vain.
Click to expand...


:laugh: You gave it your best shot, Martin. 'CRT' has now become weaponized. Being 'For it' will mean you want children to hate each other based on race.
 
Earl said:
The left just had their clock cleaned due to teaching CRT race hatred in the schools.

You would think they would repent and go away.
Click to expand...

What schools? You are wrong. You really want slavery and our institutional racism to be ignored in school. However, CRT is not in high schools.
 
 
martin said:
Browsing the forum this morning I came upon the following post about the meaning of CRT:

“Part of the obfuscation of this issue by the Left is that they focus solely on curricula. That is they say CRT isn't being taught as a subject in K-12 schools. In that they're correct. As a subject it isn't being taught.

But that doesn't wipe away that CRT is being used because it is. There are two parts to teaching, curricula and pedagogy. Curricula is an outline of what is to be taught while pedagogy is how it will be taught. What versus how.

Where CRT is being used is in pedagogy. It doesn't show up in curricula but does when you observe how the teacher teaches the material in the curricula.

As an hypothetical example, a teacher is teaching the class about pre-Civil War slavery. She (85% of teachers K - 12 are women) wants the class to do an exercise where minority students are made slaves, and the white students slave owners. She then turns that into a lesson about race and privilege. She just used the basic tenants of CRT to teach a class about slavery. Maybe she adds in stuff to make the white students feel guilty about their supposed privilege, that sort of thing. That would further indicate she's using some variant of CRT to teach the subject. If she went further and told the students that the whites were still guilty for slavery and privilege, then all doubt is removed. This is CRT to a tee.

So, CRT is being used in schools--many schools--in one form or another as part of teaching subject matter.”

- - - - -

The member who quoted the post described it as, “brilliant”.

Brilliant in its way or not it is incorrect. What the member describes is the common idea of racial prejudice with its example of a teacher having her students picture themselves in the position of oppressed black people in order to “feel what is was like”. Not that terrible an idea but not CRT.

CRT in fact is the opposite of what the member describes. It is not the personal feeling of racism but rather the transfer or expansion of such personal feelings into social policies and even law - landlords and lenders and country clubs that accept or reject tenant applications on the basis of race, for example; educational institutions that do the same unless compelled to reverse the advantage in favor of black applicants. CRT focuses on the institutional side of racism, in other words. And it does this both ways, looking not only at the transfer of personal prejudice to social systems but also the transfer of institutional racism to personal experience, such that when an organization is accused of racism its members may feel accused personally even though the specific charge is about something they had nothing to do with or hadn’t known about.

Whether you buy these theories or not you should be able to recognize they are at a level that would not be taught in grade school. You might also recognize they have merit. There is much about what
CRT really is to be found with a little googling if you look.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is exactly CRT. Kimberley Crenshaw, a hardcore Marxist is the leading academic in developing CRT. The core idea of CRT is that racist ideas are not an individual thing but rather a legal (from Critical Legal Theory) and social construct of society (from Critical Pedagogy). That is, racism is a function of ethnic and other groups in society, not something practiced by individuals.

This can be most clearly seen in the concept that All Whites are racist while Blacks cannot be racist because they are oppressed. In CRT certain ethnic groups are considered the privileged and racist while others are the oppressed and victims of that racism. The individual isn't considered.

This is can be traced back to Critical Pedagogy and then to the original Marxist class struggle. For a believer in Marx, like Crenshaw, race as a class struggle makes perfect sense. It validates Marx and her own belief in Communism as a class struggle.

Let's "google" some CRT...

According to Ladson-Billings (1998) what this theory provides are the tools with which to expose and interrogate racism in its various forms. Though there is no one-core statement that defines Critical Race Theory, though there are three core themes (Taylor, 2009). The main and perhaps most challenging theme to emerge from CRT is one that regards racism as a ‘permanent fixture’ of society (Ladson-Billings 1998), bringing racism to the center of discussions. For CRT scholars such as Delgado & Stefancic (2001) racism is so entrenched in American society that it is taken for granted and viewed as natural. CRT scholars emphasize that racism does not only necessarily operate in the crude explicit forms of extreme white power groups but operates in a socio-political manner that infuses the everyday fabric of society (Ignatiev,1997, Leonardo, 2004).

Closely tied to this theme of the all pervading power of racism is the notion of interest convergence (Bell, 1973, Taylor, 2009). The line of argument here is that white people have little incentive to work to eliminate racism. However, there are times when the idea of greater equality operates in the interests of white people. The notion of interest convergence helps to explain how such advances in race dialogue have been achieved (Bell, 1973).
Click to expand...
https://thefactsofwhiteness.org/critical-race-theory/

(Note: All the quoted individuals, except Bell are Communists)

Put simply, according to Crenshaw, who coined the term intersectionality, which refers to how different forms of discrimination (such as sexism and racism) can overlap and compound each other, critical race theory is a way to talk openly about how America’s history has had an effect on our society and institutions today.
Click to expand...
https://news.columbia.edu/news/what-critical-race-theory-and-why-everyone-talking-about-it-0

The concept of "intersectionality" is central to CRT. It uses classic conspiracy theory methods to cherry pick history to result in an argument that racism is endemic, systemic, and pervasive in society and that those who argue against CRT are in fact, themselves, racists often without knowing it.

Are all white people racist? Why Critical Race Theory has us rattled
Click to expand...
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/book...ce-theory-has-us-rattled-20201105-p56bwv.html

Is Critical Race Theory racist? Yes.
Does Critical Race Theory advance the vision and activism of the Civil Rights Movement? No.
Does Critical Race Theory say all white people are racist? Yes.
Is Critical Race Theory Marxist? Yes and no.
Is Critical Race Theory an analytical tool for understanding race and racism? No, not really.
Click to expand...
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/five-ugly-truths-about-critical-race-theory/

CRT as Crenshaw, it's primary inventor, envisioned it is a just the classic Marxist class struggle reimagined as being between racial groups rather than economic classes within a society.
 
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: You must have gotten that from the Gateway Pundit or others of its ilk. The crisis all happened on bush's watch. Repugs tried to blame it on a law from 1977, and even on Bill Clinton. What a surprise.

Seven good links in this article. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-what-really-caused-housing-crisis/
Click to expand...

Right, so now I'm an avid reader of GW, seriously? Maybe then you ought to read the uber-right wing Atlantic magazine on the role played by the likes of Barney Frank?

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

By Peter Wallison
DECEMBER 13, 2011

A member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission responds to our interview with Barney Frank, arguing that without the government's intervention, there would be no housing crisis

On December 9, The Atlantic published online an interview with Congressman Barney Frank. In it, he called me a "real extremist." This name-calling was not only false but also inappropriate to the seriousness of the issue -- which is whether government housing policy, and not the banks or the private sector, caused the 2008 financial crisis. I decided to respond to both Congressman Frank's statements and the questions he was asked about government housing policy and the financial crisis.

We're hearing Republicans in the presidential primary blame the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people. In your view, what caused the mortgage crisis and subsequently the financial crash?

Congressman Frank, of course, blamed the financial crisis on the failure adequately to regulate the banks. In this, he is following the traditional Washington practice of blaming others for his own mistakes. For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.

It is government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making an effort to maintain underwriting standards.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.

Congressman Frank makes assertions about who was responsible, but he, like all those who hold his position, have no data. He says that the banks were responsible, but cannot challenge the numbers I have outlined above. These numbers show, beyond question, that it was government housing policy that caused the financial crisis. Even he has admitted it. In an interview on Larry Kudlow's show in August 2010, he said "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

Have the Republicans "blame[d] the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people" as The Atlantic's question to Frank suggested? Of course not. Those who took advantage of the opportunity offered by the government's policies are not to blame for the crisis, just as those who make use of Medicare or other government programs are not responsible for the government's current debt problems. It is the government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making any effort to prevent the deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.

Finally, Congressman Frank calls me an "extremist" and says that I blamed the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act. That just shows he hasn't read anything I've written, but remains chained to his partisan prejudices. I was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. I dissented from the FCIC's majority report, and in my dissent, I used the data above to indict government's housing policy. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)--which required banks to make mortgage loans to borrowers that were riskier than their normal loans--was certainly a part of the same government-quota approach that underlay the affordable housing requirements and was strongly supported by Congressman Frank. However, as far as I can tell, CRA was a relatively small contributor to the crisis, when compared to the GSEs and the affordable housing requirements. In any event, the FCIC acquitted the CRA from any responsibility for the crisis before it even began its study, and resisted all my efforts to find out more about the effect of the Act.

You said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a role in pushing this along. How heavily do you think they contributed?

Congressman Frank's response was "They were not the major factor. Let's put it this way: I think you would have had a crisis without them." Once again, Frank makes assertions without numbers. Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor." It was the unprecedented number of delinquencies and defaults among these mortgages, as I noted above, that drove down housing prices all over the country and caused the financial crisis. The data and my analysis led me to a conclusion that is exactly the opposite of Congressman Frank's: if it hadn't been for the government's housing policy, there would not have been a financial crisis.

In the presidential race, how would you grade Republicans' grasp of the history of the financial crisis, and would you say they're distorting it?

Congressman Frank's response was that Republicans have been distorting the history of the crisis. However, the real history of the deterioration of mortgage underwriting standards, and the reasons for it, are outlined above. For most of his career, Congressman Frank was one of the leaders of the effort in Congress to meet the demands of activists like ACORN for an easing of underwriting standards in order to make home ownership more accessible to more people. It was perhaps a worthwhile goal, but it caused the financial crisis when it was done by lowering mortgage underwriting standards. In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were nearing insolvency and the housing market was so engorged with subprime and other low quality mortgages that nothing could save it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
The "demographics" are irrelevant to what I stated you racist bigot.
Click to expand...

The "demographics" are drawn from US Census surveys which ask people to "self-identify"as one of the following:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

The 1997 OMB standards permit the reporting of more than one race. An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification.

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html


:rofl2:
 
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society.

Critical race theorists believe that American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, preach freedom and equality, but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination.

They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.

Key terms: Whiteness, white privilege, white fragility, oppressor/oppressed, intersectionality, systemic racism, spirit murder, equity, anti-racism, collective guilt, affinity spaces.

Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of “Blackness” and “Whiteness,” then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to “Blackness” and negative traits are attributed to “Whiteness.” Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.

“Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people.” Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility.”

“Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.”

“Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant.

All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.

“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.

“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.

“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” Ibram Kendi on KING5 News.
America is a fundamentally racist nation: Critical race theorists argue that America was founded on racism, slavery, and white supremacy—and remains a fundamentally racist nation to this day.

“White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions … Entering the conversation with this understanding is freeing because it allows us to focus on how—rather than if—our racism is manifest.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.

“America is inherently a ‘white’ country: in character, in structure, in culture. Needless to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet, as a people, they face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority. America’s version of apartheid, while lacking overt legal sanction, comes closest to the system even now being reformed in the land of its invention.” Andrew Hacker, Two Nations.

“It is a racial crime to be yourself if you are not White in America. It is a racial crime to look like yourself or empower yourself if you are not White.” Ibram Kendi, How to be an Antiracist.
Collective guilt: Critical race theory claims that individuals categorized as “White” are inherently responsible for injustice and oppression committed by white populations in the past. This concept is sometimes framed as “white guilt,” “white shame,” and “white complicity,” which are psychological manifestations of collective guilt.

“Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.
“All whites are racist because we benefit from systemic white privilege. Generally whites think of racism as voluntary, intentional conduct done by horrible others. Whites spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves and each other that we are not racist. A big step would be for whites to admit that we are racist and then to consider what to do about it.” Wildman and Davis, Readings for Diversity and Social Justice.

Opposition to equality under the law: Critical race theorists explicitly reject the principle of equality under the law, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argue that legal equality, nondiscrimination, and colorblindness are mere “camouflages” (Tate, 1997) used to uphold white supremacist structures.

“Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

“[Critical race theorists] are also highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights … Think how that system applauds affording everyone equality of opportunity but resists programs that assure equality of results.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

Opposition to meritocracy: Critical race theorists oppose meritocracy, especially standardized testing and competitive admissions in the education system. They claim that meritocracy is a mechanism to uphold racist structures and is derived from “racism, nativism, and eugenics” (Au, 2013).

“White people are raised on five strong cultural myths: meritocracy, manifest destiny, white racelessness, monoculture, and white moral and managerial superiority. These lay the foundation for our feeling good about ourselves as white people, and they work in us to override and discredit counter-evidence.” Peggy McIntosh, “White People Facing Race: Uncovering Myths that keep Racism in Place.”

“The ideologies of meritocracy, equal opportunity, individualism, and human nature we described above play a powerful role in denying the current of privilege and insisting that society is just.” Ozlem & DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal?

Active racial discrimination: Critical race theorists believe that the state must actively discriminate against racial groups that are deemed “privileged,” meaning whites and sometimes Asians. Critical race theorists support policies such as racial quotas, race-based benefits, and race-based redistribution of wealth.

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Ibram Kendi, How to be an Antiracist.

“Formal equality overlooks structural disadvantage and requires mere nondiscrimination or ‘equal treatment’; by contrast, affirmative action calls for equalizing treatment by redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property.”

Restriction of free speech: Critical race theorists believe that the First Amendment serves to advance the interests of white supremacy and systemic racism, under the guise of freedom of speech. They argue that the government should restrict freedom of speech that is “racist” or “hateful.”

“The American marketplace of ideas was founded with the idea of the racial inferiority of non-whites as one of its chief commodities, and ever since the market opened, racism has remained its most active item in trade.” Mari Matsuda, et. al., Words That Wound.
“[Critical race theorist Mari] Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia.

“The DOA [or Department of Antiracism, as proposed by Kendi] would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.” Ibram Kendi, “Inequality: Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment.”

Abolition of whiteness: Critical race theorists believe that society should work to “abolish the white race.” Although they often insist that this means dismantling cultural constructions associated with white identity, this language often adopts tropes associated with race eliminationism.

“We believe that so long as the white race exists, all movements against what is called ‘racism’ will fail. Therefore, our aim is to abolish the white race.” Noel Ignatiev in Critical Whiteness Studies.
“Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Noel Ignatiev in the film Indoctrinate U.

“If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders. If you want to abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness.” Noel Ignatiev in the film Indoctrinate U.

Neo-segregation: Critical race theorists endorse a new form of racial segregation—often called “racial affinity groups” or “racial caucuses”—with separate meetings, facilities, living quarters, and training programs for whites and racial minorities. The assumption is that whites must “do the work” to address their “internalized racial superiority” and racial minorities must be protected from invasive “whiteness.”

“Multi-racial space often results in the people of color—who have been most harmed by structural racism—carrying an additional burden of educating others (at best) or being retraumatized through the reliving of painful experiences.” JustLead Washington, Caucuses as a Racial Justice Strategy.

“In a RAG [racial affinity group], white people can discover together their group identity. They can cultivate racial solidarity and compassion and support each other in sitting with the discomfort, confusion, and numbness that often accompany white racial awakening. They can also discern white privilege and its impact without the aid of or dependence on POC.” Ruth King, Transforming Racism From The Inside Out.
Anti-capitalism and forced redistribution of property: Critical race theorists have adopted the core Marxist position of anti-capitalism, arguing that America is an “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (hooks, 2012). They argue that “whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property” (Harris, 1993), allowing whites to extend domination from slavery into the free-market society. The solution is to redistribute private property and dismantle the system of capitalism.

“In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist…. And in order to truly be anti-capitalist, you have to be antiracist, because they’re interrelated.” Ibram Kendi, “Ibram X. Kendi on Why We Need to Fight Racism the Way We Fight Cancer.”
“In challenging the property interest in whiteness, affirmative action [in support of property redistribution] could facilitate the destruction of the false premises of legitimacy and exclusivity inherent in whiteness and break the distorting link between white identity and property … Existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality. Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.” Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property.”

https://christopherrufo.com/crt-briefing-book/
 
San Diego Public Schools accused white teachers of being colonizers on stolen Native American land and told them “you are racist” and “you are upholding racist ideas, structures, and policies.” They recommended that the teachers undergo “anti-racist therapy.”

Original Source Document: https://christopherrufo.com/woke-elementary/
 
Legion said:
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society.

Critical race theorists believe that American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, preach freedom and equality, but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination.

They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.

Key terms: Whiteness, white privilege, white fragility, oppressor/oppressed, intersectionality, systemic racism, spirit murder, equity, anti-racism, collective guilt, affinity spaces.

Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of “Blackness” and “Whiteness,” then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to “Blackness” and negative traits are attributed to “Whiteness.” Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.

“Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people.” Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility.”

“Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.”

“Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant.

All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.

“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.

“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.

“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” Ibram Kendi on KING5 News.
America is a fundamentally racist nation: Critical race theorists argue that America was founded on racism, slavery, and white supremacy—and remains a fundamentally racist nation to this day.

“White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions … Entering the conversation with this understanding is freeing because it allows us to focus on how—rather than if—our racism is manifest.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.

“America is inherently a ‘white’ country: in character, in structure, in culture. Needless to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet, as a people, they face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority. America’s version of apartheid, while lacking overt legal sanction, comes closest to the system even now being reformed in the land of its invention.” Andrew Hacker, Two Nations.

“It is a racial crime to be yourself if you are not White in America. It is a racial crime to look like yourself or empower yourself if you are not White.” Ibram Kendi, How to be an Antiracist.
Collective guilt: Critical race theory claims that individuals categorized as “White” are inherently responsible for injustice and oppression committed by white populations in the past. This concept is sometimes framed as “white guilt,” “white shame,” and “white complicity,” which are psychological manifestations of collective guilt.

“Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.
“All whites are racist because we benefit from systemic white privilege. Generally whites think of racism as voluntary, intentional conduct done by horrible others. Whites spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves and each other that we are not racist. A big step would be for whites to admit that we are racist and then to consider what to do about it.” Wildman and Davis, Readings for Diversity and Social Justice.

Opposition to equality under the law: Critical race theorists explicitly reject the principle of equality under the law, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argue that legal equality, nondiscrimination, and colorblindness are mere “camouflages” (Tate, 1997) used to uphold white supremacist structures.

“Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

“[Critical race theorists] are also highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights … Think how that system applauds affording everyone equality of opportunity but resists programs that assure equality of results.” Delgado & Stefanic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

Opposition to meritocracy: Critical race theorists oppose meritocracy, especially standardized testing and competitive admissions in the education system. They claim that meritocracy is a mechanism to uphold racist structures and is derived from “racism, nativism, and eugenics” (Au, 2013).

“White people are raised on five strong cultural myths: meritocracy, manifest destiny, white racelessness, monoculture, and white moral and managerial superiority. These lay the foundation for our feeling good about ourselves as white people, and they work in us to override and discredit counter-evidence.” Peggy McIntosh, “White People Facing Race: Uncovering Myths that keep Racism in Place.”

“The ideologies of meritocracy, equal opportunity, individualism, and human nature we described above play a powerful role in denying the current of privilege and insisting that society is just.” Ozlem & DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal?

Active racial discrimination: Critical race theorists believe that the state must actively discriminate against racial groups that are deemed “privileged,” meaning whites and sometimes Asians. Critical race theorists support policies such as racial quotas, race-based benefits, and race-based redistribution of wealth.

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Ibram Kendi, How to be an Antiracist.

“Formal equality overlooks structural disadvantage and requires mere nondiscrimination or ‘equal treatment’; by contrast, affirmative action calls for equalizing treatment by redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property.”

Restriction of free speech: Critical race theorists believe that the First Amendment serves to advance the interests of white supremacy and systemic racism, under the guise of freedom of speech. They argue that the government should restrict freedom of speech that is “racist” or “hateful.”

“The American marketplace of ideas was founded with the idea of the racial inferiority of non-whites as one of its chief commodities, and ever since the market opened, racism has remained its most active item in trade.” Mari Matsuda, et. al., Words That Wound.
“[Critical race theorist Mari] Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia.

“The DOA [or Department of Antiracism, as proposed by Kendi] would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.” Ibram Kendi, “Inequality: Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment.”

Abolition of whiteness: Critical race theorists believe that society should work to “abolish the white race.” Although they often insist that this means dismantling cultural constructions associated with white identity, this language often adopts tropes associated with race eliminationism.

“We believe that so long as the white race exists, all movements against what is called ‘racism’ will fail. Therefore, our aim is to abolish the white race.” Noel Ignatiev in Critical Whiteness Studies.
“Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Noel Ignatiev in the film Indoctrinate U.

“If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders. If you want to abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness.” Noel Ignatiev in the film Indoctrinate U.

Neo-segregation: Critical race theorists endorse a new form of racial segregation—often called “racial affinity groups” or “racial caucuses”—with separate meetings, facilities, living quarters, and training programs for whites and racial minorities. The assumption is that whites must “do the work” to address their “internalized racial superiority” and racial minorities must be protected from invasive “whiteness.”

“Multi-racial space often results in the people of color—who have been most harmed by structural racism—carrying an additional burden of educating others (at best) or being retraumatized through the reliving of painful experiences.” JustLead Washington, Caucuses as a Racial Justice Strategy.

“In a RAG [racial affinity group], white people can discover together their group identity. They can cultivate racial solidarity and compassion and support each other in sitting with the discomfort, confusion, and numbness that often accompany white racial awakening. They can also discern white privilege and its impact without the aid of or dependence on POC.” Ruth King, Transforming Racism From The Inside Out.
Anti-capitalism and forced redistribution of property: Critical race theorists have adopted the core Marxist position of anti-capitalism, arguing that America is an “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (hooks, 2012). They argue that “whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property” (Harris, 1993), allowing whites to extend domination from slavery into the free-market society. The solution is to redistribute private property and dismantle the system of capitalism.

“In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist…. And in order to truly be anti-capitalist, you have to be antiracist, because they’re interrelated.” Ibram Kendi, “Ibram X. Kendi on Why We Need to Fight Racism the Way We Fight Cancer.”
“In challenging the property interest in whiteness, affirmative action [in support of property redistribution] could facilitate the destruction of the false premises of legitimacy and exclusivity inherent in whiteness and break the distorting link between white identity and property … Existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality. Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.” Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property.”

https://christopherrufo.com/crt-briefing-book/
Click to expand...

Excellent article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top