The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Video of Discussion of Critical Race Theory at University of Chicago Law School

|

Last Wednesday, I gave a talk about Critical Race Theory at U. Chicago, as a guest of the school's Federalist Society chapter. Professor William H.J. Hubbard commented on my talk. We had an interesting, amicable discussion, with me being very critical of CRT, and Prof. Hubbarb, while agreeing with many of my criticisms, providing a more sympathetic take.

You can find a video of the event here. Given the rampant dishonesty from the right and disingenuousness from the left (and maybe also vice versa) surrounding CRT of late, I thought this was a really refreshing, serious discussion.

NEXT: Mikhail Baryshnikov on Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Choosing “a Russia of Pushkin” over “a Russia of Putin”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "rampant dishonesty from the right" and "disingenuousness" from the left, or vice versa?

    Then where's all the mendacity and prevarication coming from? Oh, yeah, the media.

    1. The lawyer mentioned Marxist analysis, the experience of dark skinned immigrants outperforming whites, adversarial nature of the proponents. Pretty good. Did a far better job of attacking than I ever have. Thank you for the effective realism, Prof. Bernstein.

  2. what exactly is the 'rampant dishonesty' from the right about CRT?

    The truth and what the right has said is that CRT = 'whitey's fault'. You can write a 100 page dissertation on what CRT is supposed to be, and many progs have in a feeble defense attempt, but in the end thats what it inevitably and indisputably is.

    1. what exactly is the 'rampant dishonesty' from the right about CRT?

      As you illustrated in your very next paragraph, you know the answer.

      1. CRT is stale Maoist criticism of the USA from the 1960's. It is totally rebutted by the millions of dark skinned people who risked their lives to enter the USA legally or illegally. Maybe they know something, the servants of the Chinese Commie Party amond do not.

    2. Obsolete, disaffected bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      1. Hi, Artie. What is your preferred pronoun?

        1. "A", as in "Hole"

    3. The truth value seems similar to what Roxane Gay wrote in the NYT.
      "Ms. Pinkett Smith has alopecia, a condition resulting in hair loss that disproportionately affects Black women"

      Actually I would have said that alopecia disproportionately affects White men, except that lots of Black men go bald also

      1. Of course, you know that while baldness is a symptom of alopecia, alopecia is not synonymous with baldness.

        1. That is consistent with what I wrote. It is Ms Gay that does not understand the matter.

        2. Indeed David,
          Even my female chocolate mini-dachshund has alopecia. But I dont think that is what Ms Gay meant by Black women.

      2. "disproportionately affects Black women"

        Only Traction Alopecia, cause by tight braids.

        Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease.

  3. "what exactly is the 'rampant dishonesty' from the right about CRT?"

    that it's common in the public schools, mostly.

    1. If its vanishingly rare than why are you/CNN/WAPOO/NYT/HUFFPOO/Yahoo etc flipping your lids over it? Its like having a multiyear long nationwide meltdown over a ban on unicycle machine gun chainsaw juggling classes for kindergartners.

      1. Why in the world would anyone be unhappy about a political party lying about what's happening in schools to get elected?

        And the bans are targeting well beyond your cartoonish 'whitey's fault' charactarization.

        1. Nobody gives a shit whether or not the crap that's being taught about race in schools falls under the umbrella of CRT.

          If Dems fall into the trap of arguing about that, they will lose. The Repubs see it as a wining issue because many parents believe that schools are indoctrinating children with far-left academic nonsense.

          Most parents believe that children should see people for who they are rather than the color of their skin, and schools are teaching that that is white supremacy.

          This will be a winning issue for Republicans unless the Dems either abandon that approach, or convince parents that they are correct.

          1. I like to think that rampant scaremongering based on lies isn't a sustainable strategy.

            It'll fool you, but you wanted to be fooled. We'll see how long saying stuff that's not true can prop up a political party.

            1. Since your party is currently scaremongering about banning saying "gay", why do you think you're in a position to complain about scaremongering? Or crowing about saying stuff that's not true not being a viable political strategy?

              1. Brett, the don't say gay law including the ambiguous language about 'age-appropriate' has been explained to you a number of times.

                Do you keep forgetting?

                1. Does it say "you can't say Gay"? Unless it does, you're defending scaremongering based on lies.

                2. No. He doesn't forget.

                  He doesn't hear it, because it invalidates his opinion.

                  1. How does it invalidate is opinion? His opinion is that the bill is being dishonestly portrayed by Dems as a bill that bans saying gay, when in reality the bill limits some of the circumstances in which the government can discuss sex with children.

                    And you guys haven't been able to refute that claim, you just pivot to a different claim about the bill being ambiguous.

            2. "I like to think that rampant scaremongering based on lies isn't a sustainable strategy."

              It's not. You think parents don't know what's being taught to their children at school? They don't like it, and the response of "don't worry, it isn't CRT" isn't addressing the issue.

              Of course, if this were rampant scaremongering based on lies, the way to address that would be to increase curriculum transparency.

              But have you noticed who's been pushing curriculum transparency and who's against it?

              Even the ACLU has come out against informing parents about what's being taught in schools, making the ridiculous claim that it will be used to "censor" public schools.

            3. I mean, what are you claiming that the Republicans are doing? From your comments, it appears that:

              1. You don't believe most people know what CRT is.

              2. You don't believe that most people know what's being taught about race is schools.

              3. Republicans falsely claim that CRT is being taught in schools...

              4. Somehow this helps Republicans?

              How does that even make sense?

        2. If its not being taught anyway than why get so angry over a so called ban? The bans are specifically targeting CRT, whats this 'good stuff' thats also being targeted by this ban?

          1. As I said in the short comment you replied to but apparently didn't read:

            the bans are targeting well beyond your cartoonish 'whitey's fault' charactarization.

            1. So sayeth Sarcastr0. "I've never read it, but I know what it doesn't say".

            2. Not the ones I've looked at, no. The anti-'CRT' laws typically ban teaching racial guilt and racial supremacy.

              The Georgia bill, for instance, bans teaching that,
              "(A) One race is inherently superior to another race;28
              (B) The United States of America is fundamentally racist;29
              (C) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, is inherently or consciously racist or oppressive toward individuals of other races;
              (D) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race;
              (E) An individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race;
              (F) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race, bears individual responsibility for actions committed in the past by other individuals of the same race;
              (G) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race, should feel anguish, guilt, or any other form of psychological distress;
              (H) Performance-based advancement or the recognition and appreciation of character traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or have been advocated for by individuals of a particular race to oppress individuals of another race; or

              (I) Any other form of race scapegoating or race stereotyping."

              So, which of these do you think SHOULD be taught in public schools?

              1. They object to the fact that the law implemented in the state level will actually be enforced in an equal manner. Federal government has been so captured that equality laws are now interpreted to demand discrimination, it would take decades to twist state level laws in the same way, which would be a huge blow to to the pro-discrimination advocates.

                1. This very much proves my point about the mischief these state laws will cause.

                  Anyone combatting a situation wherein the 'Federal government has been so captured that equality laws' is going to be quite activist in implementing these vague laws.

              2. B. The United States has been fundamentally, brutally racist throughout it's entire history. Black, brown, Asian, indigenous "red" people. Have been (& unfortunately still are) subject to ugly behavior & rhetoric from the entitled majority. Primates display dominance by proving they can abuse the less powerful, lower status members. Primates are hostile & aggressive to others outside their group. The overwhelming majority in America has been white. And often violently unwilling to share power or even space with people who "aren't white". America is a promise that hasn't been kept. That is why you get to absurd caricature, "It's all Whitey's fault". We see lots of reduction to absurdity here.

              3. "(B) The United States of America is fundamentally racist;29"

                The US is fundamentally selfish. It is, what can you do for me, and race does not matter.

              4. Not the ones I've looked at, no. The anti-'CRT' laws typically ban teaching racial guilt and racial supremacy.

                So, which of these do you think SHOULD be taught in public schools?

                Here's the problem: the language slipperiness goes both ways. First everything some people don't like is labeled CRT, mostly incorrectly. Then they announce that they're going to ban teaching CRT. Then they write a law that doesn't describe CRT very well (or at all), but bans certain things, often in general terms. And then they enforce it against a much broader set of things.

                See, e.g., Tennessee, where the Orwellianly named "Moms for Liberty" (which, to steal from Voltaire, involves neither Moms nor Liberty) claimed that teaching about the civil rights movement was violative of the anti-CRT law, because teaching about it could cause white kids to feel bad.

                https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1465364770232705032

                1. Well, I'm not going to claim that every last opponent of CRT has a good definition, or is attacking something that should be attacked. It's been my experience that every group beyond some very small size is guaranteed to have its share of idiots and lunatics. (Goes for CRT, too, of course.)

                  So, have "Moms for Liberty" drafted a law, that's been introduced in some legislature? I'd like to see an example of a law written in very general terms to enforce against a broader set of things. I'd like to see some evidence that the bad stuff you warn of has actually made some progress towards being made law, not that some fringe group somewhere advocates it.

                  1. Brett, the laws as drafted are not completely directive. No law is, but these anti-CRT laws are quite ambiguous.

                    The proof will be in the implementation. And you cannot pretend the implementation is nothing to be worried about.

                    You are now choosing the most anodyne interpretations you can, and insisting it is the only possible interpretation. That is manifestly untrue.

                    1. "Brett, the laws as drafted are not completely directive. No law is, but these anti-CRT laws are quite ambiguous. "

                      I just quoted one above. What do you find objectionable about it?

                    2. Come on, man. How many of those could apply to teaching 'whites as a race perpetrated or condoned slavery on black Americans?'

                      I could easily see arguments that falls under B, E, F.

                      And H is a not well hidden vehicle to forbid any attacks on our janky meritocracy, or advocacy of affirmative action.

                    3. "Come on, man. How many of those could apply to teaching 'whites as a race perpetrated or condoned slavery on black Americans?'"

                      None of them. Teaching THAT would simply be inaccurate, not contrary to the above law. At least until you added, "And you, little Tommy, are guilty of that!"

                      The objectionable thing being banned here isn't the claim that some long dead whites did awful things, but that this has some relevance to living whites, who personally didn't do those things.

                    4. I could easily see arguments that falls under B, E, F.
                      Really? teaching that "'whites as a race perpetrated or condoned slavery on black Americans?'" would fall under teaching that "An individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race;"?
                      You'd need to explain how you get to that conclusion.

                    5. "Come on, man. How many of those could apply to teaching 'whites as a race perpetrated or condoned slavery on black Americans?'"

                      How does one do something "as a race?"

                      How is the different than saying, "Muslims, as a religion, perpetuate terrorism against Christians and Jews."?

                  2. No, they used the law that was passed by the Tennessee legislature.

                    (Oh, and the response of school officials to the formal MFL complaint was not "Don't be stupid; this isn't CRT." The response was, "We can't do anything about these because you're complaining about books from last year and the law isn't retroactive.")

                    1. Again, I must ask: What part of the actual law do they find objectionable? The Tennessee law.

                      "(a) An LEA or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:
                      (1) One (1) race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
                      (2) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
                      (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex;
                      (4) An individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex;
                      (5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
                      (6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex;
                      (7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;
                      (8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;
                      (9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government;
                      (10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people; (11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex;
                      (12) The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups;
                      (13) All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or
                      (14) Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

                      (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or from allowing teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include:
                      (1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with part 22 of this chapter;
                      (2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;
                      (3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or
                      (4) Historical documents relevant to subdivisions (b)(1) - (3) that are permitted under § 49-6-1011."

                    2. An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
                      This is the concept of privilege. It's not some scary thing, it's just a fact.

                      A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;

                      A given meritocracy may absolutely be tilted like that.

                      This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;

                      What does 'fundamentally' mean? Slave labor built a lot of states.

                      Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people
                      You could drive a truck through this part.

                      The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups;
                      This is an area of discussion among CRT scholars.

                      All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
                      Better throw Frederick Douglas and MLK in jail then.

                      This is a travesty, Brett. It's not hard to see it.

                    3. "This is the concept of privilege. It's not some scary thing, it's just a fact."

                      This "concept" is not a "fact", its just wrong.

                      A black female doctor at Mayo Clinic has more "privilege" than 90% of white males.

                      "Slave labor built a lot of states."

                      Those states had that wealth destroyed in a war, you might have heard of it. The former Confederacy was the poorest part of the country for a century.

                      "Better throw Frederick Douglas and MLK in jail then."

                      They are dead, the society they lived in is gone. CRT teaches the US is no different in 2022 as in 1822 or 1922.

                    4. At LAST you actually responded with substance.

                      "An individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;
                      This is the concept of privilege. It's not some scary thing, it's just a fact."

                      Your concept of privilege is racist to the core. Seriously, it is. Appalachian hard scrabble farmers are "privileged"? That's nuts. And "inherently"? That's a claim that you don't have to prove it in individual cases.

                      "A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;

                      A given meritocracy may absolutely be tilted like that."

                      To the extent a meritocracy is "tilted" it ceases being a meritocracy. And, again, it doesn't say a meritocracy can be racist or sexist, it states that to be inherent in the very notion.

                      "This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist;

                      What does 'fundamentally' mean? Slave labor built a lot of states."

                      And didn't a lot of other states. And, fundamentally or irredeemably? If you think that, emigrate, don't spend your time teaching American kids to hate their own country, and expect the country you hate to pay you to do it.

                      "Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people
                      You could drive a truck through this part."

                      People get jailed for things less vague.

                      "The rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups;
                      This is an area of discussion among CRT scholars."

                      Yes, damnably so, it is.

                      "All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
                      Better throw Frederick Douglas and MLK in jail then.

                      More like, better not let David Duke teach kindergarten. MLK would affirm we WERE created equal, and demand that the government act like it, not affirm that we were created unequal.

                      Yes, your response is a travesty, but thanks for actually addressing the content of the law.

                    5. "What does 'fundamentally' mean?"

                      If you don't know what it means, why do you want to teach it so bad?

                    6. Brett, your arguments are now well into viewpoints. Love it or leave it, this or that is racist...

                      Which makes the point about how censorious this law is.

                  3. I'm not going to claim that every last opponent of CRT has a good definition, or is attacking something that should be attacked.

                    Good. Now tell us which, if any, have good definitions, as opposed to just fighting the latest RW culture war fad.

                    1. I don't really care if the definition of CRT in the two laws I quoted is accurate or not. They both ban something that should be banned in public schools, and if CRT meets the criteria, it should be banned, if it fails to meet the criteria, then these laws aren't applicable to it.

                      The fact that so many people on the left are opposed to such anodyne laws really reflects horribly on the left. Of course, reading where Sarcastro finally responded to the substance of one of them, correctly so.

                2. "See, e.g., Tennessee, where the Orwellianly named "Moms for Liberty" (which, to steal from Voltaire, involves neither Moms nor Liberty) claimed that teaching about the civil rights movement was violative of the anti-CRT law, because teaching about it could cause white kids to feel bad."

                  Anybody can claim anything. Are you claiming that teaching about the civil rights movement violates this law? If not, the response is simply that the claim is wrong.

      2. If its vanishingly rare than why are you/CNN/WAPOO/NYT/HUFFPOO/Yahoo etc flipping your lids over it? Its like having a multiyear long nationwide meltdown over a ban on unicycle machine gun chainsaw juggling classes for kindergartners.

        Actually, Amos, it's the right that is flipping its lid. What the left is upset about is the rampant dishonesty coming from people like you about the whole thing.

        Come to think of it, the rampant dishonesty isn't really coming from people like you. You are just spreading it like gullible fools. It's coming from your politicians and publicists, like Carlson.

        1. Theres more whining about about this horrible ban from the MSM than people actually pushing the ban. And the focus is on how horrible this ban is. Where is this gigantic silent majority of lefties who have no problem with the ban but are just mad at Republican dishonesty about it? Show me this flood of coverage from this perspective that we're all missing.

      3. The notion that Critical Race Theory is being taught in lower grades, or even high schools, has become another Republican Big Lie. But it really gins up the hatemongers.

        1. Hi, Not. Come to kindergarten. Now, stand up. Confess you have white privilege. Confess that the underperformance of the diverses is all your fault. Now imagine being a 5 year old girl afraid of school.

        2. So why are there schools that use that exact term when describing their lesson plans for elementary school classes? Are they part of the "Republican Big Lie"?

      4. This lid-flipping you're imagining... is it as entertaining as the guy complaining about school litterboxes for children who identify as cats?

    2. But it is common in public schools.

      They're also teaching that white people are devils.

      1. "But it is common in public schools."

        sure, most grade schools teach law school topics.

      2. As usual, TiP, you generalize based on some random opinion piece.

        1. No, I state facts based on the actual book. I linked to a random opinion piece because it had an image of what's in the book.

          1. Not true. To quote from the linked article:

            On one page near the end of Not My Idea, there’s a picture of a devil holding a contract “binding you to whiteness” for kids to sign or reject. “You get stolen land, stolen riches, special favors (land, riches and favors may be revoked at any time for any reason),” it states. “Whiteness gets to mess endlessly with the lives of your friends, neighbors, loved ones, and all fellow humans of color for the purpose of profit.”

            Here the devil is not racially identified. He is the offeror of the contract. White persons are presumably offerees, with the option to accept or reject the offer.

            While it describes a (potential) deal with the devil, it does not assert that white people are devils.

            There is also no identification in the linked article -- an interview of the author by an Atlantic writer -- of any school at which the referenced book is taught.

            1. Also - it is an anecdote. There is nothing to say this is what is being taught nationwide.

              But TiP would like to act like it is. Because he's nutpicked so hard he only sees nuts now.

            2. For a petty nitpicker ( "the book doesn't call white people devils, it just portrays them as making a deal with the devil". That's all right, then"), you sure are clueless about using things like Google.
              The book is used at at least 25 public school districts
              https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1413176040613048320/photo/1

              1. For people who can do math, 25 school districts isn't "nationwide" in a nation with 50 states.

                1. For people who can do geography, states from California to Washington to Illinois to Maine to Arkansas to New Jersey is, in fact, nationwide.

                2. I was responding to There is also no identification in the linked article -- an interview of the author by an Atlantic writer -- of any school at which the referenced book is taught.

                  Any grade-school aged kid with access to the internet could have found that link with a 5 second search, but it somehow eluded our nitpicker.

                3. Oh, gee. Twenty-five districts.

                  There are 13,800 school districts in the country.

                  So less than two tenths of 1%.

                  Yeah. "Nationwide." According to Michael P., if there were only two districts, one in ME, one in CA, even that would be "nationwide."

                  1. It was at least 25. If we had more curriculum transparency, we'd now how many. But teachers' unions and the ACLU are fighting curriculum transparency tooth and nail.

                  2. You might have a point if this was the only book being used to promote CRT ideas in schools. But it is not. Similar books are being used in other districts.

                    Again, the claim I was responding to was that since no school district was named in the article, then by implication, this specific book is not actually being used, when a simple search shows that it is used, coast-to-coast.

                    As to "nationwide", putting aside that this is a strawman introduced by Sarcastr0, in common parlance, that means multiple locations, across the country, not "in every single location I can think of". For example, Ted's Montana Grill, is described as a chain with "locations nationwide" (https://www.gayot.com/restaurants/teds-montana-grill-gaithersburg-md-20878_34md160803.html) , despite being present in only 16 states, none on the West Coast. Similarly, the Grocery Outlet chain is "across the nation", despite being present on only 5 states.

        2. Again a lot of anger and indignation over banning something that doesn't exist according to you.

          1. Dude, your comment above trying to make this point got dunked on like six different ways.

            You don't care, you'll make that dumbass point again. It still feels like a good point to you, regardless of how it came across.

            1. You're a bit delusional about thinking you're "dunking" anyone here.

              1. Brett, didn't you know that anything Sarcastr0 says is a fact just because he says it is?

              2. I wasn't talking about just myself.

                There are six different responses to AA's original post saying this exact same thing.

                1. A lie is still a lie no matter if 6 or 600 repeat it.

                  CRT is taught to teachers. The teachers then use it to teach the concepts to kids.

                2. "There are six different responses to AA's original post saying this exact same thing."

                  A dunk and a response aren't the same thing, even if you agree with the response.

    3. James. Come to kindergarten. I want you to stand up and confess to your white privilege. I want you to admit, you are the cause of the underperformance of the diverses. This is while people who are really black, and arrived from abroad are outperforming whites in the 2010 Census. Now, imagine being a 5 year old girl who is scared of school.

      1. I'm a little old for kindergarten. You'll actually have to find something else to bring for show and tell.

        1. What do you think about Red Guard methodology in kindergarten?

  4. We should have paid $1 trillion in reparations to descendants of American slaves in 2021 instead of the much broader and more expensive helicopter drop we did. Descendants of American slaves would have been the perfect group to get dollars to in order to stimulate the economy in a responsible manner while tackling the violent crime wave which is being driven by young Black males.

    1. I kinda agree with this. Arguably we've already paid tons of reparations and then some but perhaps any confirmed descendant that feels they've been done wrong can take a check for 100k in return for dropping any claim for them or their descendants and a one way irrevocable permanent ticket back to the motherland. Makes more sense than the amorphous unquantified injustice we have to pay forever and ever.

      1. " a one way irrevocable permanent ticket back to the motherland "

        What would you think about an offer by the reasoning, educated, progressive, inclusive American mainstream to pay America's vestigial, disaffected right-wing bigots a modest sum -- $10,000, perhaps -- to leave America, relinquish all claims, and try to find elsewhere a prudish, bigoted, half-educated, superstitious community that would be heaven on earth to bitter clingers?

  5. I started to watch the video. It sounded promising. More than one hour long, ugh lawyers are so verbose.

    But the thing that turned me off after 5 minutes was the academic language. Academics throw around terms like anti-liberal assuming that everyone in the room knows immediately what that means.

    1. It is a habit from hourly billing. Keep talking, saying nothing, to pump up the bill.

      1. Academics are almost all salaried, and none of them bill hourly.

  6. Is there really any sane case for CRT? At least one where logically we don't have to apologize to the former Confederate states and pay them reparations?

    1. Save those confederate dollars jimmy, the south is gonna rise again!

    2. People want money without the hassle of earning it. Same as lots of other things.

    3. "At least one where logically we don't have to apologize to the former Confederate states and pay them reparations?"

      Depends on whether or not actual history matters. People who were awake in history class learned that the Confederacy started the war by raiding federal armories and firing on Fort Sumter. You don't have to pay reparations for finishing a war that the other guy started. This is why we don't pay reparations to Japan (for using an atomic bomb on them).

      1. Actually, I learned in history class that the Union started the war by investing Ft. Sumter, which had previously been vacant, being still under construction. My history teacher in Michigan in the early 70's was a Civil war buff. Not particularly sympathetic to the South, but a stickler for accuracy.

        And, why would the Confederacy, on leaving the federation, not expect to take possession of any federal assets on its territory?

        1. Not particularly sympathetic to the South, but a stickler for accuracy.

          Well, then your history teacher was stupid and ignorant.

          1. Well, he was obsessive about the details of the Civil war, that much is true. But nothing he told me about it has failed to check out on investigation.

            1. FWIW, he is using oddball terminology, then. In military contexts, investing a fortress means:

              "Investment is the military process of surrounding an enemy fort (or town) with armed forces to prevent entry or escape. It serves both to cut communications with the outside world and to prevent supplies and reinforcements from being introduced."

              So it was the Rebs who invested Ft Sumter, not the Feds.

              1. (additionally, I fail to see how Maj. Anderson moving his command from federally owned Ft. Moultrie to federally owned Ft. Sumter 'started a war'.

                I would say that the rebs opening fire when navy ships tried to resupply the fort started the war.)

                1. I would say that adopting a position that allows you to threaten all traffic into and out of a major port is fairly hostile.

                  1. "fairly hostile"

                    Anderson had a legal right to move his command into a US owned fort.

                    SC had no right to try to stop him.

                    1. The fort was in Confederate territory, secession doesn't normally involve letting the larger entity you're leaving keep pieces of your territory.

                      So, basically, you're reasoning on the basis that the Southern states didn't have a right to secede, so that essentially ANYTHING they did consequent to that was something they had no right to do.

                    2. "ANYTHING they did consequent to that was something they had no right to do."

                      Correct.

                      The war just confirmed what the Articles of Confederation and Constitution established, a perpetual union with no right to succeed.

                    3. The only question killing people ever answers is "Are you able to kill people?" All other questions it simply intimidates people into not asking for a while.

                  2. "I would say that adopting a position that allows you to threaten all traffic into and out of a major port is fairly hostile."

                    More or less hostile than opening fire?

                    My neighbor the cop has a gun, and could open fire on anyone who drives down the street. Is it OK for me to open fire on his house preemptively?

        2. why would the Confederacy, on leaving the federation, not expect to take possession of any federal assets on its territory?

          A better question is why they would think they were entitled to take possession? It's not like it was an amicable split and they were just dividing property. When war is likely you don't just hand over a fort to the probable enemy.

          They may have expected to take possession, but if so they were foolish. It was US property.

          1. If they wanted an amicable split, opening fire made that rather unlikely.

    4. Race theories are thousands of years old. If you're honest and look back of the class of race theories, you'll see that
      If you espouse a race theory, you are a racist.
      In recent decade Nazis had Aryanism, American whites had the Bell Curve, and now American Blacks and the woke Whites have CRT. Racist creeds one and all.
      Teaching any of these in schools, especially in elementary grades as the sociological truth is indoctrination or at least teaching propaganda.
      Teaching multiple examples in context as social history to high school students can be acceptable.
      Have the courage to be honest with yourself and with others with whom you disagree.

      1. I'd bet you've never read or even skimmed through The Bell Curve. What about it justifies your putting it in the same boat as the Nazis' "Aryanism?"

        1. The Bell Curve is roundly debunked. Those that cling to it just like them some scientific racism.

          1. So, have you read The Bell Curve? Or are you just taking the word of people hostile to the book?

            1. His comment proves that he hasn't.

            2. We've had this discussion a number of times, and once again, yes I have read it. My parents were into contrarianism in the books they bought.

              It holds together if you read it in a vacuum - or it did to my teenage eyes. But the data was sample biased all to hell.

              Lots of sources of that.

        2. "What about it justifies..."
          The manner in which it was widely cited to justify discrimination based on race alone.

          1. Well, you write a book, you can't control how idiots cite it, but I really don't recall anything in the book advocating racial discrimination.

            And mostly I've heard it cited in opposition to racial discrimination. Are you sure you're not using "discrimination based on race" in the Orwellian sense of "refusing to practice discrimination based on race"?

  7. I was surprised at how weak the presentation by the pro CRT professor was. The one point he made that I thought was interesting and thought-provoking was that the race neutral view is a white view. I don’t know if that is true or if it matters.

    There is an internal contradiction in the notion that critical race theory can be “critical” if an individual cannot be objective. The guy did say there is no objective person.

  8. Finally a chance to listen to the video.

    Professor Hubbard: "Critical race theory can be understood to be many different things depending on the context."

    It has a motte AND a bailey! There's always another version of it to retreat to when somebody attacks, so every individual attack can always be claimed to be directed at something you're not defending.

    1. Many on this forum have told you what it is. You and your compatriots insist that's a lie.

      That's not a motte and bailey, it's a strawman.

      1. And the guy in the video told me what it was: A dozen different things, depending on context.

        1. That's not what actual critical theory scholars say. That's not what materials about CRT written before the GOP blew it up into this whole new thing say.

          But you got your cherry to generalize based on.

          But that's not motte and bailey - you and Amos and the like are the one making up a definition off that characterization.

          1. So Prof. William H. J. Hubbard, a legal scholar who is currently a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and the editor of the Journal of Legal Studies doesn't understand what the defintion of CRT is?

          2. He's contradicting what CRT scholars say.
            And he's not a CRT scholar.

            And this is a partisan issue.

            You do the math.

            1. He is a prominent legal scholar, and he was there to defend the pro-CRT position, so to the extent that this is a partisan issue, he was a member of the pro-CRT "party"

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

              1. Only Sarcasto gets to say who a CRT scholar is. Just like he is the only one who gets to define CRT.

                Its more convenient that way.

              2. " he was there to defend the pro-CRT position "

                Bradley Foundation fellow. Clerk for a Republican judge (Fifth Circuit). Institute for Humane Studies product. Selected by the Federalist Society to moderate a program.

                Clingerverse. Clingerverse. Clingerverse. Clingerverse.

                An assertion he was there for pro-CRT anything seems daft.

  9. I think there is a disingenuous argument from both sides of the discussion.

    What many people perceive to be CRT is in fact more properly anti-racism.

    The definitions are vague enough that no one really understand wat the other is talking about.

    1. The definitions are intentionally vague, to make it hard to attack. A very Proteus of doctrines.

      Theories, as they abandon being empirical, tend to evolve features like that, to save them from any prospect of falsification. CRT seems to be a catalog of such features.

      1. A moment of thought makes it clear that keepings things vague is a more advantageous position for the GOP than the Dems.

        YOU are the folks choosing to stick to the intentionally vague definitions.
        More specific definitions have been provided, but you reject them and call them lies.

        1. I've cited the quite specific text of two state laws so far, in this thread, and you've declined my offer to explain which of the banned in class conduct you'd care to defend.

          No, you're the one trying to keep things vague, because what's actually being banned in 'anti-CRT' is very specific, and you can't defend it as something that shouldn't be banned. So you don't want to engage the specific details of what is being banned, but just pretend it's some vague CRT stuff.

          1. It's the usual bad faith dodge. It amazes me that anyone actually engage him. My favorite feature is the way he goes full classical propagandist. Always accuse your target to the things that you yourself are guilty of.

            1. Fuck you very much, then.

              Brett knows I've pasted in definitions of what CRT is on this site multiple times.

              And when challenged on this stuff above, Brett ended up with a revealing repeated argument that boiled down to 'these positions are bad I disagree with them that's why they should be banned' which rather gives the game away.

              1. Then, you can surely do it again:
                What is CRT according to you?

                You've refused to define it in other places, so it would be nice if you show what you are claiming when you constantly claim that something else isn't CRT.

                Incidentally, can you point out anywhere you did define CRT previously? I don't remember you ever supplying a workable definition, although I do remember lots of "Not that" or "it's just a legal theory" type comments.

  10. CRT is only a small part of this. More and more, I'm convinced the Democratic party is becoming a death cult.

    Maryland SENATE BILL 669 [Missed it by just 3!]

    "(H) THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE ANY FORM OF INVESTIGATION OR PENALTY FOR A PERSON:
    (1) TERMINATING OR ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE THE PERSON’S
    OWN PREGNANCY; OR
    (2) EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE, PERINATAL DEATH RELATED TO A FAILURE TO ACT, OR STILLBIRTH"

    "(J) A PERSON MAY BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES IF THE PERSON WAS SUBJECT TO UNLAWFUL ARREST OR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION AS A RESULT OF:
    (1) TERMINATING OR ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE THE PERSON’S
    OWN PREGNANCY;
    (2) EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE, STILLBIRTH, OR PERINATAL DEATH; OR"

    "(1) THE STATE MAY NOT INVESTIGATE OR PENALIZE A PREGNANT
    PERSON FOR TERMINATING THE PERSON’S OWN PREGNANCY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES."

    "(2) A PREGNANT PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR CIVIL DAMAGES OR
    SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR TERMINATING OR ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE THE PERSON’S OWN PREGNANCY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES."

    The key point here is that "perinatal" is defined as, "Perinatal: Pertaining to the period immediately before and after birth. The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth."

    So, in Maryland, Democrats are protecting the legal 'right' of women to starve their babies to death for up to a month after birth, or leave them out in a snowbank, or kill them at any time prior to birth so long a they do it themselves.

    Also similarly protected is anybody who assists in the DIY abortion or infanticide through neglect.

    A death cult, that's what they're becoming.

    Maryland is not alone in this: NY recently changed their law to eliminate all protections whatsoever of recently born infants, too.

Please to post comments