The Definitive Critical Race Theory Thread

[Ralph Norton]

Would you like to ??
Because I'm pretty sure they're hiring


You guys get off topic and start name-calling as soon as you realize that PC
has swapped your boat...

What she does every single time

Name-calling is cool but discussing the issue is better

Who the hell did I call a name?

 

[Lisa558]

To put it another way: Asians need SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and an incredible 450 points higher than blacks (out of 1,600 points) to get into these schools. An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1,500, that is, has the same chance of being accepted as a white student with a 1,360, a Latino with a 1,230, or an African-American with a 1,050. Among candidates in the highest (1,400–1,600) SAT range, 77 percent of blacks, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites, and only 30 percent of Asians are admitted.

Fewer Asians Need Apply

How the Ivy League discriminates against top-achieving students

www.city-journal.org

Ivy League universities, along with prestigious med and law schools, have a dilemma. They have decided, using their superior liberal minds, that the percentage of a minority in their schools should match the percentage that minority represents in the general population because….well…..it feels right.

That means that if blacks are 14% of the population, a med school wants 14% of its class to be black. In order to do that, they have to lower the bar to get them in (while concurrently raising the standards for whites in order to reject them and make space for more blacks). The dilemma comes about because the bar has to be QUITE low to get enough of them in to reach the 14% - say, they need to drop the minimum GPA - just for blacks, mind you - to a 3.0, while simultaneously kicking the whites (which include Jews) and Asians to the curb with a 3.7. Not only is the discrepancy SO great that it becomes hard to justify, you end up with a “sub-cohort” that is less able to keep up those admitted under white standards. So they usually reach a balance - let’s drop to 3.2 for the blacks, even though that means we only reach 10% black representation - so as not to hurt the reputation of the school.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ivy League universities, along with prestigious med and law schools, have a dilemma. They have decided, using their superior liberal minds, that the percentage of a minority in their schools should match the percentage that minority represents in the general population because….well…..it feels right.

That means that if blacks are 14% of the population, a med school wants 14% of its class to be black. In order to do that, they have to lower the bar to get them in (while concurrently raising the standards for whites in order to reject them and make space for more blacks). The dilemma comes about because the bar has to be QUITE low to get enough of them in to reach the 14% - say, they need to drop the minimum GPA - just for blacks, mind you - to a 3.0, while simultaneously kicking the whites (which include Jews) and Asians to the curb with a 3.7. Not only is the discrepancy SO great that it becomes hard to justify, you end up with a “sub-cohort” that is less able to keep up those admitted under white standards. So they usually reach a balance - let’s drop to 3.2 for the blacks, even though that means we only reach 10% black representation - so as not to hurt the reputation of the school.

Expedience in place of excellence????


Have you seen this?


"...mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are doing more harm than good — even for their supposed beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.

...University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important, recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class."

The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, and defenders of the practice worry that the Court's decision may end the use of racial preferences in higher-ed admissions. But those concerned about minority studen...

www.nationalaffairs.com

 

[Leo123]

And there is the rub.

They are NOT teaching that

They certainly are. The whole basis is the assumption that America is a ‘white supremacist’ racist nation.

 

[Lisa558]

Expedience in place of excellence????


Have you seen this?


"...mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are doing more harm than good — even for their supposed beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.

...University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important, recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class."

The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, and defenders of the practice worry that the Court's decision may end the use of racial preferences in higher-ed admissions. But those concerned about minority studen...

www.nationalaffairs.com

I b

Expedience in place of excellence????


Have you seen this?


"...mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are doing more harm than good — even for their supposed beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.

...University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important, recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class."

The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, and defenders of the practice worry that the Court's decision may end the use of racial preferences in higher-ed admissions. But those concerned about minority studen...

www.nationalaffairs.com

No surprise, is it, that minority (NOT Asian) students enroll in colleges where they are near the bottom of the class, given that 2/3rds are admitted under lesser standards?

But it raises a good point. Are we really doing a black student a favor by allowing him into a highly competitive program, surrounded by HS valedictorians and 4.0 GPA students, when he ended up with a 3.3? Apparently - and obviously - we do such students NO favor when we place them among the top percentile and then have them struggle to keep up with their classmates.

Now, a 3.3. and top third of your class is still “college material,” but it’s at State U. It’s not such a horrible thing to get a (career-oriented) degree alongside other B+ students. And, as a benefit, without Affirmative Action, employers would know that the black students in whatever school they are in - be it Ivy League, a Tier 2 university, or a decent state college - got there on their own merit.

 

[Correll]

Nonsense...any mention of race is now being called CRT and stifled by the racist right

And that's a load of shit. Why you lie so much?

 

[Correll]

WHether it is or not (it's not...it's reality) it is NOT being taught below graduate level university

Fucking liar.

 

[Lesh]

Fucking liar.

Fucking douchebag

 

[Correll]

Fucking douchebag

See the difference here is, that you actually ARE a fucking liar, so my words have weight.

While your lies are just you spewing shit from your face anus.

 

[Lesh]

They certainly are. The whole basis is the assumption that America is a ‘white supremacist’ racist nation.

Wrong.

And no one ever teaches kids that

There IS mention of he effects of dedace osf racist policies though and THAT is what you actually take issue with

 

[Lesh]

See the difference here is, that you actually ARE a fucking liar, so my words have weight.

While your lies are just you spewing shit from your face anus.

See...the problem is that if you call someone a liar you have to prove it or you are a...yea

DOUCHEBAG

 

[Leo123]

Wrong.

And no one ever teaches kids that

There IS mention of he effects of dedace osf racist policies though and THAT is what you actually take issue with

Well, the facts disagree with you Lesh:

There are plenty of other examples that prove racial essentialism and collective guilt are being taught to young students. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school required third graders to rank themselves according to the “power and privilege” associated with their ethnicities. Schools in Buffalo, New York, taught students that “all white people” perpetuate “systemic racism” and had kindergarteners watch a video of dead black children, warning them about “racist police and state-sanctioned violence.”

Yes, critical race theory is being taught in public schools - Washington Examiner

While we all debate what critical race theory is and whether lawmakers should ban it from public schools, every honest person should agree on one thing: This theory is behind the curricula in school districts all over the country, shaping the minds of unsuspecting, malleable children.Just this...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Correll]

See...the problem is that if you call someone a laur you have to prove it or you are a...yea

DOUCHEBAG

We've all seen the clips or excerpts were racists like you are teaching America's young that the white kids are racist cause of blah, blah, blah, so your denial is clearly you being a lying asshole.

 

[Crick]

I strongly suspect you (Political Chic) will be tickled pink to hear this, but I have come to view you, not as misguided or contrarian but actually, demonstrably evil. I believe you experience pleasure at doing harm to the innocent. So, here. Enjoy someone who knows this topic a lot better than you or I.

From: James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory

James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory​

#ConceptualDisinformation Vol. 1​

Samuel Hoadley-Brill May 3, 2021

What is critical race theory (CRT)?
To attempt a rough, one-sentence summary: CRT is an approach to racial scholarship born in law schools in the 1980s that operates from the premises of pervasive racial inequality and a social constructionist (i.e. anti-essentialist) conception of race; challenges the idea that the superficially colorblind nature of the law means the law is race-neutral; and seeks to explain how landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to deliver on its promises of equality for the racial minorities it was supposed to uplift.
As my professor Charles Mills explains in the epilogue of his 2017 book, Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism, critical race theorists take up two tasks. The first is descriptive: “to recognize and theorize the centrality of race and white supremacy to the making of the modern world”; and the second is prescriptive: “[to recognize and theorize] the implications for normative theory and an expanded vision of what needs to be subjected to liberatory critique to achieve social justice.”
It is important to note here that Mills is using white supremacy to denote the political system of racial domination of whites over non-whites, not the ideology of white supremacist groups like the KKK; the term is ambiguous, and it is the former definition that is relevant for our purposes.
If you’re looking to dive deep into the scholarship on CRT, the papers compiled here will be helpful. Before addressing James Lindsay’s farcical claims about CRT, the debunking of which is the main purpose of the present essay, let’s set the table with a more detailed definition proposed in the 1993 book, Words That Wound, co-authored by Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Crenshaw:

In a search for a tentative expository answer to the question “What is critical race theory?” critical race scholars have identified the following defining elements:

1. Critical race theory recognizes that racism is endemic to American life. Thus, the question for us is not so much whether or how racial discrimination can be eliminated while maintaining the integrity of other interests implicated in the status quo such as federalism, privacy, traditional values, or established property interests. Instead we ask how these traditional interests and values serve as vessels of racial subordination.

Rather than seeing racism as aberrational, CRT scholars see it as a normal feature of American society. After all, the legacy of centuries of race-based slavery and second-class citizenship doesn’t fade away overnight.

1. Critical race theory expresses skepticism toward dominant legal claims of neutrality, objectivity, color blindness, and meritocracy. These claims are central to an ideology of equal opportunity that presents race as an immutable characteristic devoid of social meaning and tells an ahistorical, abstracted story of racial inequality as a series of randomly occurring, intentional, and individualized acts.

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train,” as Howard Zinn famously put it. CRT is well aware of this, and it contends that our inquiry would benefit from a recognition that there is no view from nowhere; we all speak from some perspective, one that is not immune to the influences of racialization. Further, the pervasive racial inequality we see in the United States is not produced merely by individual acts of discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1967, “Negroes have become aware of the deeper causes for the crudity and cruelty that governed white society's responses to their needs. They discovered that their plight was not a consequence of superficial prejudice but was systemic” (emphasis mine).

1. Critical race theory challenges ahistoricism and insists on a contextual/ historical analysis of the law. Current inequalities and social/institutional practices are linked to earlier periods in which the intent and cultural meaning of such practices were clear. More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that presumes that racism has contributed to all contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along racial lines, including differences in income, imprisonment, health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this presumption.

At first glance, this may look a failure to recognize that correlation does not entail causation. But what the authors are claiming is not the naive thesis that every racial disparity is attributable to racism. The claim is that, given the history of the United States’ treatment of racial minorities—coupled with the commitment to social constructionism about race—we can safely make a defeasible assumption that a complete causal analysis of any particular (dis)advantage along racial lines will include some racist policy or practice.

1. Critical race theory insists on recognition of the experiential knowledge of people of color and our communities of origin in analyzing law and society. This knowledge is gained from critical reflection on the lived experience of racism and from critical reflection upon active political practice toward the elimination of racism.

This claim may seem more controversial, but it can be interpreted in a weaker or a stronger sense. I draw here on a useful distinction made by Georgetown philosophy professor Olúfémi O. Táíwò in his excellent essay “Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference.” According to the weaker reading, this passage articulates standpoint epistemology, which amounts to three claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated; (2) Marginalized people have some positional advantages in gaining some forms of knowledge; (3) Research programs ought to reflect these facts.
Indeed, it is hard to see how this could be wrong. Táíwò draws on the work of London School of Economics philosophy professor Liam Kofi Bright, who

argues persuasively that these contentions are derivable from a combination of 1) basic empiricist commitments, and 2) a minimally plausible account of how the social world affects what knowledge groups of people are likely to seek and find.

This is precisely the sort of theoretical framework Mills employs in his work on the epistemology of ignorance.
If we read the passage in a stronger sense, however, the claim can be interpreted as much more dangerous. It might be taken to suggest, contrary to CRT’s own commitments, an essentialist account of racial identity, one where only people of color are capable of working toward the elimination of racism; whites must simply defer to the voices of their non-white peers. This is the sort of pernicious mindset Táíwò calls deference epistemology, an approach to knowledge that is not only philosophically objectionable but politically self-destructive. In keeping with the principle of charity and the fact that I have never encountered CRT scholarship that supports deference epistemology, I read the authors’ claim in its weaker sense.

1. Critical race theory is interdisciplinary and eclectic. It borrows from several traditions, including liberalism, law and society, feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism, critical legal theory, pragmatism, and nationalism. This eclecticism allows critical race theory to examine and incorporate those aspects of a methodology or theory that effectively enable our voice and advance the cause of racial justice even as we maintain a critical posture.

I discuss the ways in which CRT is both critical of and deeply committed to tenets of liberalism later in this essay. And finally,

1. Critical race theory works toward the end of eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression. Racial oppression is experienced by many in tandem with oppression on grounds of gender, class, or sexual orientation. Critical race theory measures progress by a yardstick that looks to fundamental social transformation. The interests of all people of color necessarily require not just adjustments within the established hierarchies, but a challenge to hierarchy itself. This recognition of intersecting forms of subordination requires multiple consciousness and political practices that address the varied ways in which people experience subordination.

 

[Lisa558]

I strongly suspect you (Political Chic) will be tickled pink to hear this, but I have come to view you, not as misguided or contrarian but actually, demonstrably evil. I believe you experience pleasure at doing harm to the innocent. So, here. Enjoy someone who knows this topic a lot better than you or I.

From: James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory

James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory​

#ConceptualDisinformation Vol. 1​

Samuel Hoadley-Brill May 3, 2021

What is critical race theory (CRT)?
To attempt a rough, one-sentence summary: CRT is an approach to racial scholarship born in law schools in the 1980s that operates from the premises of pervasive racial inequality and a social constructionist (i.e. anti-essentialist) conception of race; challenges the idea that the superficially colorblind nature of the law means the law is race-neutral; and seeks to explain how landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to deliver on its promises of equality for the racial minorities it was supposed to uplift.
As my professor Charles Mills explains in the epilogue of his 2017 book, Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism, critical race theorists take up two tasks. The first is descriptive: “to recognize and theorize the centrality of race and white supremacy to the making of the modern world”; and the second is prescriptive: “[to recognize and theorize] the implications for normative theory and an expanded vision of what needs to be subjected to liberatory critique to achieve social justice.”
It is important to note here that Mills is using white supremacy to denote the political system of racial domination of whites over non-whites, not the ideology of white supremacist groups like the KKK; the term is ambiguous, and it is the former definition that is relevant for our purposes.
If you’re looking to dive deep into the scholarship on CRT, the papers compiled here will be helpful. Before addressing James Lindsay’s farcical claims about CRT, the debunking of which is the main purpose of the present essay, let’s set the table with a more detailed definition proposed in the 1993 book, Words That Wound, co-authored by Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Crenshaw:

Rather than seeing racism as aberrational, CRT scholars see it as a normal feature of American society. After all, the legacy of centuries of race-based slavery and second-class citizenship doesn’t fade away overnight.

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train,” as Howard Zinn famously put it. CRT is well aware of this, and it contends that our inquiry would benefit from a recognition that there is no view from nowhere; we all speak from some perspective, one that is not immune to the influences of racialization. Further, the pervasive racial inequality we see in the United States is not produced merely by individual acts of discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1967, “Negroes have become aware of the deeper causes for the crudity and cruelty that governed white society's responses to their needs. They discovered that their plight was not a consequence of superficial prejudice but was systemic” (emphasis mine).

At first glance, this may look a failure to recognize that correlation does not entail causation. But what the authors are claiming is not the naive thesis that every racial disparity is attributable to racism. The claim is that, given the history of the United States’ treatment of racial minorities—coupled with the commitment to social constructionism about race—we can safely make a defeasible assumption that a complete causal analysis of any particular (dis)advantage along racial lines will include some racist policy or practice.

This claim may seem more controversial, but it can be interpreted in a weaker or a stronger sense. I draw here on a useful distinction made by Georgetown philosophy professor Olúfémi O. Táíwò in his excellent essay “Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference.” According to the weaker reading, this passage articulates standpoint epistemology, which amounts to three claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated; (2) Marginalized people have some positional advantages in gaining some forms of knowledge; (3) Research programs ought to reflect these facts.
Indeed, it is hard to see how this could be wrong. Táíwò draws on the work of London School of Economics philosophy professor Liam Kofi Bright, who

This is precisely the sort of theoretical framework Mills employs in his work on the epistemology of ignorance.
If we read the passage in a stronger sense, however, the claim can be interpreted as much more dangerous. It might be taken to suggest, contrary to CRT’s own commitments, an essentialist account of racial identity, one where only people of color are capable of working toward the elimination of racism; whites must simply defer to the voices of their non-white peers. This is the sort of pernicious mindset Táíwò calls deference epistemology, an approach to knowledge that is not only philosophically objectionable but politically self-destructive. In keeping with the principle of charity and the fact that I have never encountered CRT scholarship that supports deference epistemology, I read the authors’ claim in its weaker sense.

I discuss the ways in which CRT is both critical of and deeply committed to tenets of liberalism later in this essay. And finally,

You didn’t address me, but I will tell you that when you opened your novella by call Political Chic “evil,” I knew I was dealing with a leftist who throws out HORRIBLE accusations to kick off a debate, and I didn’t bother with the rest of the post.

Just sayin.

 

[Leo123]

I strongly suspect you (Political Chic) will be tickled pink to hear this, but I have come to view you, not as misguided or contrarian but actually, demonstrably evil. I believe you experience pleasure at doing harm to the innocent. So, here. Enjoy someone who knows this topic a lot better than you or I.

From: James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory

James Lindsay v. Critical Race Theory​

#ConceptualDisinformation Vol. 1​

Samuel Hoadley-Brill May 3, 2021

What is critical race theory (CRT)?
To attempt a rough, one-sentence summary: CRT is an approach to racial scholarship born in law schools in the 1980s that operates from the premises of pervasive racial inequality and a social constructionist (i.e. anti-essentialist) conception of race; challenges the idea that the superficially colorblind nature of the law means the law is race-neutral; and seeks to explain how landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to deliver on its promises of equality for the racial minorities it was supposed to uplift.
As my professor Charles Mills explains in the epilogue of his 2017 book, Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism, critical race theorists take up two tasks. The first is descriptive: “to recognize and theorize the centrality of race and white supremacy to the making of the modern world”; and the second is prescriptive: “[to recognize and theorize] the implications for normative theory and an expanded vision of what needs to be subjected to liberatory critique to achieve social justice.”
It is important to note here that Mills is using white supremacy to denote the political system of racial domination of whites over non-whites, not the ideology of white supremacist groups like the KKK; the term is ambiguous, and it is the former definition that is relevant for our purposes.
If you’re looking to dive deep into the scholarship on CRT, the papers compiled here will be helpful. Before addressing James Lindsay’s farcical claims about CRT, the debunking of which is the main purpose of the present essay, let’s set the table with a more detailed definition proposed in the 1993 book, Words That Wound, co-authored by Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Crenshaw:

Rather than seeing racism as aberrational, CRT scholars see it as a normal feature of American society. After all, the legacy of centuries of race-based slavery and second-class citizenship doesn’t fade away overnight.

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train,” as Howard Zinn famously put it. CRT is well aware of this, and it contends that our inquiry would benefit from a recognition that there is no view from nowhere; we all speak from some perspective, one that is not immune to the influences of racialization. Further, the pervasive racial inequality we see in the United States is not produced merely by individual acts of discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1967, “Negroes have become aware of the deeper causes for the crudity and cruelty that governed white society's responses to their needs. They discovered that their plight was not a consequence of superficial prejudice but was systemic” (emphasis mine).

At first glance, this may look a failure to recognize that correlation does not entail causation. But what the authors are claiming is not the naive thesis that every racial disparity is attributable to racism. The claim is that, given the history of the United States’ treatment of racial minorities—coupled with the commitment to social constructionism about race—we can safely make a defeasible assumption that a complete causal analysis of any particular (dis)advantage along racial lines will include some racist policy or practice.

This claim may seem more controversial, but it can be interpreted in a weaker or a stronger sense. I draw here on a useful distinction made by Georgetown philosophy professor Olúfémi O. Táíwò in his excellent essay “Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference.” According to the weaker reading, this passage articulates standpoint epistemology, which amounts to three claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated; (2) Marginalized people have some positional advantages in gaining some forms of knowledge; (3) Research programs ought to reflect these facts.
Indeed, it is hard to see how this could be wrong. Táíwò draws on the work of London School of Economics philosophy professor Liam Kofi Bright, who

This is precisely the sort of theoretical framework Mills employs in his work on the epistemology of ignorance.
If we read the passage in a stronger sense, however, the claim can be interpreted as much more dangerous. It might be taken to suggest, contrary to CRT’s own commitments, an essentialist account of racial identity, one where only people of color are capable of working toward the elimination of racism; whites must simply defer to the voices of their non-white peers. This is the sort of pernicious mindset Táíwò calls deference epistemology, an approach to knowledge that is not only philosophically objectionable but politically self-destructive. In keeping with the principle of charity and the fact that I have never encountered CRT scholarship that supports deference epistemology, I read the authors’ claim in its weaker sense.

I discuss the ways in which CRT is both critical of and deeply committed to tenets of liberalism later in this essay. And finally,

Sorry but the first sentence in your post:

"CRT is an approach to racial scholarship born in law schools in the 1980s that operates from the premises of pervasive racial inequality and a social constructionist (i.e. anti-essentialist) conception of race; challenges the idea that the superficially colorblind nature of the law means the law is race-neutral; and seeks to explain how landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s failed to deliver on its promises of equality for the racial minorities it was supposed to uplift."

Not only does it say the premises of CRT is that pervasive inequality exists but it tries to make some insane claim about superficially colorblind nature of the law which, they say is the reason why minorities are not uplifted. Now, I don't know about you but that whole premise is nothing but linguistic linguini.

 

[Leo123]

You didn’t address me, but I will tell you that when you opened your novella by call Political Chic “evil,” I knew I was dealing with a leftist who throws out HORRIBLE accusations to kick off a debate, and I didn’t bother with the rest of the post.

Just sayin.

Yeah, really......The whole screed reads like some nonsensical iteration by Kamala. I mean, just read this intentionally convoluted, arrogant crap Crick posted:

"This claim may seem more controversial, but it can be interpreted in a weaker or a stronger sense. I draw here on a useful distinction made by Georgetown philosophy professor Olúfémi O. Táíwò in his excellent essay “Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference.” According to the weaker reading, this passage articulates standpoint epistemology, which amounts to three claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated; (2) Marginalized people have some positional advantages in gaining some forms of knowledge; (3) Research programs ought to reflect these facts.
Indeed, it is hard to see how this could be wrong. Táíwò draws on the work of London School of Economics philosophy professor Liam Kofi Bright"

All that word salad means is that SOME people who are not in a 'position' will be disadvantaged related to knowledge. For Christ's sake, we have the world wide web where there is an almost unlimited bank of knowledge available to everyone. Perhaps the problem is that SOME are just too lazy or brainwashed to get their own info and have to be spoon fed CRT 'conditioned' knowledge and history. What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit.

 

[Lisa558]

Yeah, really......The whole screed reads like some nonsensical iteration by Kamala. I mean, just read this intentionally convoluted, arrogant crap Crick posted:

"This claim may seem more controversial, but it can be interpreted in a weaker or a stronger sense. I draw here on a useful distinction made by Georgetown philosophy professor Olúfémi O. Táíwò in his excellent essay “Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference.” According to the weaker reading, this passage articulates standpoint epistemology, which amounts to three claims: (1) Knowledge is socially situated; (2) Marginalized people have some positional advantages in gaining some forms of knowledge; (3) Research programs ought to reflect these facts.
Indeed, it is hard to see how this could be wrong. Táíwò draws on the work of London School of Economics philosophy professor Liam Kofi Bright"

All that word salad means is that SOME people who are not in a 'position' will be disadvantaged related to knowledge. For Christ's sake, we have the world wide web where there is an almost unlimited bank of knowledge available to everyone. Perhaps the problem is that SOME are just too lazy or brainwashed to get their own info and have to be spoon fed CRT 'conditioned' knowledge and history. What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit.

Yeah. It’s so EASY now! When I needed to research something, I had to traipse over to the library, and look up various publications and articles on that Literature Index - can’t remember the name - and then go into the Reference Room and look them up. Half the time you couldn’t find what you were looking for.

Now, you just type in a few words, and poof! hundreds of sources pop up. And yes, that includes the majority of poor people, who do indeed have internet access.

And what about applying for jobs? Remember how we had to wade through pages of tiny print in the newspaper, type out an individual and customized cover letter for each opening (and you get to the last line and make a typo and have to start over), grab a resume from our stack, address the envelope, and then mail it? Now you can have a boilerplate cover letter, switch a few words, and then apply online. SO much more efficient.

People have really gone soft. Or lazy. Or entitled.

 

[Lesh]

Critical race theory is a flashpoint for conservatives, but what does it mean?

Critical race theory has become a lightning rod for Republicans and an issue in the Virginia governor's race. But what exactly is it? Even those who condemn the concept struggle to define it.

www.pbs.org

 

[Lesh]

Is critical race theory being taught in schools?​

There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students, though some ideas central to it, such as lingering consequences of slavery, have been. In Greenwich, Connecticut, some middle school students were given a “white bias” survey that parents viewed as being part of the theory.

Republicans in North Carolina point to the Wake County Public School System as an example, saying teachers participated in a professional development session on critical race theory. County education officials canceled a future study session once it was discovered but insist the theory is not part of its classroom curriculum.

“Critical race theory is not something we teach to students,” said Lisa Luten, a spokeswoman for the school system. “It’s more of a theory in academia about race that adults use to discuss the context of their environment.”