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.
“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.
