The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is Opposition to Critical Race Theory Correlated with Ignorance of Critical Race Theory?
A new study says yes, but it has some serious problems.
A new academic study by Brianna Richmond, et al., purports to show that opposition to Critical Race Theory is correlated with ignorance of CRT. The quiz the authors use, however, to determine the level of knowledge of CRT is quite problematic. CRT, being a body of academic work, does not have a singular position on various issues, making any such "quiz" difficult. But with that said, the quiz is structured so that the answers reflect how many CRT advocates would like CRT to be seen for PR purposes, rather than a reasonable interpretation of what CRT often stands for. Let's go through the questions:
1. Which of the following is suggested by Critical Race Theory?
White Americans are naturally racist [lure]
Racism is an individual problem
People should be judged by their skin color
Certain laws in America have played a role in perpetuating racial inequality [correct]
In their paper, the authors describe the lure as white people are born racist, but that's not necessarily what "naturally" means. It could mean, for example, whites grow up in a racist society, so, *naturally*, i.e., the natural/expected consequences is, that they are racist, which is in fact what CRT often teaches. As for the third choice, do some Critical Race Theorists argue that in some circumstances different standards should apply to whites than to BIPOC or People of Color? Yes. So that answer is correct as well. As for the official correct answer, belief that laws in America have played a role in perpetuating racial inequality is not at all specific to CRT, to say the least.
2. What group is credited with creating Critical Race Theory (CRT)?
Academic scholars [correct]
Political radicals [lure]
The media (i.e. newspapers)
Elementary school teachers
I can't think of any of the founders of Critical Race Theory who wouldn't qualify as political radicals. Indeed, CRT is a self-consciously radical movement, not that there is anything inherently wrong with that. So both the lure and the official correct answer are correct.
3. Where is Critical Race Theory generally implemented?
Elementary schools [lure]
Law schools [correct]
Congress
West coast schools
CRT is much more prevalent and much more overt in law schools than in elementary schools, but there are only 190 law schools and tens of thousands of elementary schools, so the lure is again as good an answer as the putatively correct one, depending on whether one interprets "generally" as meaning prevalence or total presence.
4. A survey of African American adolescents found that 50% of them reported having experienced what at their school during the last 3 months?
Receiving a lower grade than deserved
Being wrongly disciplined or given detention by a teacher
Being called racial slurs by other kids at school [correct]
Feeling proud of their racial heritage because of learning CRT [lure]
First, let me say that this correct answer suggests an appalling reality. That said, I don't see what this question has to do with CRT, as such. It asks about an empirical finding, and Critical Race Theory doesn't have any monopoly on empirical research, and indeed some strands of CRT are hostile to empirics.
5. What implications does Critical Race Theory have for American history?
CRT rewrites American history to make Whites look bad and to advantage minorities [lure]
CRT explores the lasting effects of slavery/racism in institutions and systems [correct]
CRT teaches that Americans should be ashamed about their history
CRT ignores what makes America exceptional and makes it seem like any other country
I wouldn't say the lure is correct, because I don't think CRT historical scholarship is trying to make whites look bad and advantage minorities, and some historical scholarship by people affiliated with CRT is quite good. On the other hand, there is CRT-adjacent writing that does rewrite history in rather blatant ways. See, eg, Kendi & Reynolds Stamped: A Remix--though the authors begin the book by claiming that there history book isn't a history book. The official correct answer is indeed correct. But I think the next two choices are at least not incorrect. Surely, CRT teaches that Americans should be ashamed about some or even much of their history (and in some cases, most obviously slavery, they are correct!). And CRT-affiliated scholars are highly unlikely to buy into "American exceptionalism."
6. White students in a summer camp who were exposed to history lessons about racism reported:
Being bored and uninterested
Valuing racial fairness more [correct]
Feeling more negative attitudes toward White people [lure]
Less interest in math and science
OK, but what do knowing about the reactions of students "exposed to history lessons about racism" have to do with one's knowledge of Critical Race Theory?
7. Critical Race Theory was developed in conjunction with:
Marxism
Black Lives Matter [lure]
The 1619 Project
Intersectionality [correct]
Marxism is probably the best answer here. Early work on Critical Race Theory, most prominently by Derrick Bell, predated "intersectionality," but was clearly influenced by Marxism in general, and Critical Legal Studies, itself a Marxist offshoot, in particular. The correct answer is also correct.
8. How does Critical Race Theory interpret the Constitution?
CRT rejects the Constitution as an invalid document
CRT denounces the Constitution as conservative propaganda [lure]
CRT views the Constitution as sacred, holy, and inviolable
CRT explores how the text of the original Constitution and its amendments affected racial relations in America [correct]
"Rejects the Constitution as an invalid document" is perfectly fine answer, though of course this will vary depending on who one is talking to, and what one means by "invalid." As for the correct answer, many non-CRT scholars, including me, have done the same thing, it's not at all specific to CRT.
9. What does Critical Race Theory say about White people?
Critical Race Theory teaches White people they should feel guilty and ashamed. [lure]
Critical Race Theory suggests that racism between White and Black people is inevitable.
Critical Race Theory argues that achieving racial justice and equality between racial groups requires discriminating against White people.
Critical Race Theory indicates that White people have benefited from decades of laws designed to benefit White people but not other groups. [correct]
All of these answers are correct. The three answers coded as incorrect are more closely associated with CRT than the correct answer. With regard to "guilty and ashamed," there is a whole line of CRT scholarship, especially in psychology and anthropology, arguing that whites must develop "white racial consciousness" to recognize their privilege, and then become woke based on that recognition. Seems to me one can reasonably interpret this as saying white people should first feel guilty about their privilege, and then ashamed if they aren't using that privilege in anti-racist activism. I suppose saying that CRT suggests that racism is inevitable is a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly suggests that it is an intractable problem in the US, and some like Derrick Bell have argued that any seeming amelioration of racism since the 1950s is an illusion. Finally, CRT scholars may bristle at affirmative action preferences being described as "discriminating against white people" it's hardly a "wrong" answer if a respondent feels otherwise.
Now, it would hardly surprise me if most Americans who have an opinion on CRT don't know much about it. As co-blogger Ilya Somin has often noted, the most Americans are remarkably ignorant about most political issues, even the most well-publicized ones. But I don't think this study is helpful in showing that ignorance of CRT is correlated with hostility to it.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's a lot of prose concerning critical race theory.
Any thought about John Eastman? Do you still believe he would be a fine candidate for important public office? Are you willing to acknowledge yet that he is an un-American asshole?
Carry on, clingers. So far as . . . you know (all too well).
The (Very Wrong) Reverend Jerry Sandusky Ladies and Germs, expert on American Assholes
LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
"Critical race theory is the wholly unremarkable concept that there is more than one side to any story, including American history, and its opponents want to ensure that their side is the only one that gets a hearing."
Not sure I entirely agree with that statement -- I found it on a Web site about critical race theory -- but it makes an interesting point.
Ir's peculiar to find 'opponents' of academic work outside of academic circles, but CRT is definitely the exception, and there are definitely efforts to prevent it being heard, albeit a muddled straw-man mutant version of it, but that version also justifies passing laws against it and banning books about it.
Well, there are a lot of crackpots outside academic circles who criticize what I would call academic work. Flat earthers, evolution deniers, climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, young-earth creationists, gravity deniers, et al. In the non-science area you have, for example, advocates for Jeffersonian celibacy (after the death of his wife), lost cause neo-confederates, etc. If Marxism has a foundation in academic circles (post -modern neo Marxism or whatever) then much of the prevalent popular anti-Marxism is from ill-informed non-academics. Not that there is not very good reason to criticize Marxism for what it actually is.
Oh -- in these comments you'll find ignorant laymen pontificating incoherently about the opinions and theories of actual "law scholars", so there is that. Also here you will find various amateur history revisionists.
Fair point, though they don't usually make it to the national political stage.
I find it interesting that Holocaust deniers say the exact same thing
Except that whether the Nazis killed 6 million is a yes or no question of fact. They either did or did not, and there is only one right answer (ignoring minor quibbles, like what if the real number was really 5.9 or 6.1 million).
That's not true of philosophical and academic questions like CRT.
Well you'd be wrong there, actual number of victims ranges between 11m to 17m, with a definition of holocaust victims as "Holocaust victims were people targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, and/or sexual orientation."
Which seems a reasonable definition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
I'm sorry what is being 'denied' in CRT? Surely it's *about* or in relation to a kind of Holocaust, in the sense of a monstrous crime or series of crimes carried out against a particular group of people.
I don't know where people got the idea that CRT is primarily about American history. It's not. That's why the "T" is there, for theory, and not an H for History.
You do realise the conflation, exaggeration and distortion were entirely deliberate, right?
Theory is entirely appropriate to describe approaches to teaching history.
"Great Man theory," "historical determinism," "Marxist theory," etc. They are all ways to approach and explain history. In my experience, great man theory is more prevalent at lower levels of education and more prevalent in older historiographies. Marxist theories are generally disfavored these days, but still exist as well. But "theory" is entirely appropriate in the discipline of historical study.
The notion of historical theory—as opposed to theories of historical practice—is less accepted than previously. Historiographers including especially Oakeshott, but also others, have weakened the notion of historical theory on philosophical grounds. They have also battered it by demonstrating how little distance it leaves between, for instance, Marxism and Libertarianism. For an example, read Oakeshott's, Rationalism in Politics.
The question has a false premise — that CRT is actually being taught in schools, in the sense critics use the term —. which derails the discussion we should be having.
The problem here is that critics can point to proof that CRT, as the critics understand it, actually is being taught in some schools. Take for example that notorious Smithsonian flier on what is "whiteness"; What replaced it wasn't much better.
But that's hardly the only example.
as the critics claim to understand it
FIFY
It's your culture, though.
The problem is that the adherents lie about everything. So it doesn't matter if you walk them through the foundings of the theory and how it's applied or walk them through their own speeches on how to implement it, they lie and say none of that is true or matters.
Oh yes, it's taqiyya all over again. And as with the Muslims, the only solution is civil war!
Note that the question asks "where is CRT being *implemented," not "where is it being taught."
Note that the question asks “where is CRT being *implemented,” not “where is it being taught.”
What does "implemented" mean in this context? How does one "implement" a theory?
Seems obvious to me that the question is using "implemented" while meaning "taught" or discussed or examined.
No, implemented would be putting the principles into the teaching which needs to have nothing to do with teaching what those principles are.
CRT IS being taught, just not being called that.
Yes, I agree.
Its much like the fact communism was blamed for the deaths of around 60 million, but of course none of those regimes were true communism, just imperfect versions as implemented by mistaken understandings and compromise and unforseen events.
The people pushing CRT like initiatives in schools are like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot giving true communists a bad name by not implementing true CRT, whatever that is.
On this side you have people calling themselves Communist and citing Marx and whatnot.
On this side you have people not calling what they do CRT, while people you ignore call what they do CRT.
Your analogy sucks, dude.
Alternate title: "Critical Race Theorist Lies About CRT"
or: "Critical Race Theorist's Are Entirely Divorced From Reality"
CRT is just an even dumber and more noxious version of Marxism. It simply replaces the economic determinism of Marxism with racial determinism. Marxism, in a nutshell, argues that “the system” (“the means of production”, to use its lexicon), has been designed since time immemorial to keep the upper class on top and the lower classes from bettering themselves. CRT just co-opts all the Marxist jargon to argue the “system” is designed to keep whites in charge and non-whites oppressed. All the miseries of racial minorities are the fault of “the system”, not of any individual failings. The solution in CRT, as in Marxism, is to blow up “the system”, which, naturally and inevitably, involves a lot of violence and destruction.
So basically it's not at all like Marxism?
Like ice cream at Baskin Robbins, Marxism comes in 38 flavors. It's all ice cream.
And thus you get to call everything you don't like Marxism.
When it IS Marxism...
When the workers sieze the means of production, if I recall correctly.
Sarcastro's one of those "no true Marxist" types.
In fact there's a straightforward line of descent from Marxism - the idea that modes of production determine social classes, and the dominant economic class rigs the game in its favor; through the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory - deftly shifting the model from an economic driver (after several decades of miserable failure for Marx's economic prognostications) to a cultural driver, but still with the central idea of social structures being (a) all there is (ie no place for individuals) and (b) all about power. And from there it's just a short and obvious hop to Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory.
If they didn't want us to notice that it all comes from a load of German commies fed up with the uselessness of Marxist economic theory, but still eager to rip down existing social structures so that they can be replaced by.....said German commies and their disciples, they should have changed the name, and not left "Critical" in there as a big red neon sign.
They shoud have called it Cuddly Bunny Theory and I guess that'll be the next move.
'And from there it’s just a short and obvious hop to Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory. '
Step 1 - Marxism
Step 2 - ????
Step 3 - CRT!
You're obviously not much of a reader, Nige.
Step 1 – Marxism (19th century and early 20th century)
Step 2 – Critical Theory (from 1930s,40s et seq)
Step 3 – Critical Legal Studies (1970s et seq)
Step 4 – Critical Race Theory (1970s, 80s et seq)
Each is an obvious derivation of the previous step.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean they're all Marxism. By your logic, you might as well insist on calling Christianity Judaism.
Christianity is a Jewish heresy and still considers the Tanakh to be part of its holy bible.
That settles it, Christianity is Judaism.
Yes, and CRT is heresy against Marxism, because it centers something other than class as an explanatory variable.
"CRT is heresy against Marxism,"
Yes, but like Christianity, it has substituted something in place of the old ways but retained much of the old structure.
Racism instead of class. Marxists hate the non-worker classes and CRT-ists hate non-blacks.
And Christians hate Jews.
Only in the sense that chemistry is a derivation of alchemy. But one can believe in the principles of chemistry without also believing that you can turn lead into gold.
The ideas that (1) people with power tend to abuse it; (2) the legal system tends to be written for the benefit of people with power; and (3) people with power did not include blacks (and mostly still doesn't) all strike me as self evident. They also strike me as not needing Marxist theory. You can find some similarities between them and Marxist theory, but that doesn't make them Marxist.
Of course you can turn lead into gold. Nuclear transmutation is perfectly possible to pull off, it's just not cost effective.
Well chemistry IS derived from alchemy, just as 21st century chemistry is derived from 19th century chemistry, despite being as different from 19th century chemistry as 19th century chemistry is different from alchemy. But even though the difference between alchemy and 21st chemistry is yuuge, ultimately it's all about the same idea - how substances transform into other substances.
It's not like chemistry is derived from poetry, or the principles of the usage of cavalry in warfare.
But unlike the alchemy-chemistry derivation, the Marxism-criticalista derivation is :
(i) of much more recent origin
(ii) therefore leaving much less time for deviation
(iii) not mediated by the scientific method - except to the extent that Marx's economic ideas had become embarrassing, having been comprehensively refuted both by reality and the emergence of the marginal revolution in economics, before Kapital was even completed,
(iv) so that quite unlike chemistry which is still firmly rooted in the idea of falsifiability, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School were not. They were engaged in a rescue operation - save the political program, by junking the economic boat that had sunk.
There's nothing falsifiable in critical theory. We've seen the critical theory motte advertised in this very thread. "People like to wield power and things can be tough on the folk at the bottom of the heap." Falsify that !
Thus chemistry with hundreds of years of "idea-experiment-falsified-new idea please" algorithmic advance behind it, is by now enormously different from alchemy. But Critical Theory, and its recent puppies, have not had that long to diverge from Marx, and have not - apart from that dang falsifiable economic crap - really tried to.
The divergence is rhetorical - which is what Marxists and their children are best at -
"let us think of a new name for
put us in charge so that we can wield absolute dictatorial power in the name of the oppressed, and until we achieve that, tear down EVERYTHING
because "Marxism" seems to have developed a bad smell. How about something sounding anodynely academic ? "
It's just a paint job.
But saying chemistry IS alchemy would be dumb.
Which is exactly what you are doing with Marxism.
Saying that in 2024 would indeed be dumb. For as I explained 2024 chemistry is very different from 19th century chemistry, which in turn was very different from 12th century alchemy.
But it would not have been at all dumb to say that “chemistry is alchemy” in say 1624. Paracelsus wrote :
“Many have said of Alchemy, that it is for the making of gold and silver. For me such is not the aim, but to consider only what virtue and power may lie in medicines.”
in the early 1500s, long before any formal distinction between alchemy and chemistry was developed. There was always more to alchemy than merely trying to turn base metals into gold.
Meanwhile, the Critical Theory paintjob started a mere half century after Marx’s death. And though Marx had his antecedants in for example Hegel, Marxism was less than a century old by the time the Critical Theory guys got out the paint spray.
You’re complaining that it would be foolish to say that horses are a kind of fish, albeit that horses are plainly derived from fish. But there’s been a loooong time for a laaaarge separation to develop between horses and fish.
But it would not be foolish to say that a McDonalds burger is a kind of sandwich, even though the eponymous Earl might not have recognised it as such. The McDonalds burger has not fallen far from the Sandwich Tree.
And thusly with Critical Theory and Marxism.
But not with horses and fish, or 21st century chemistry and alchemy.
Ah yes, the derivation is both obvious, and still entirely unexpressed or described, but seems to rest on the notion that the concept of structural inequality was entirely unknown before Marx, as if no-one ever noticed what a good deal aristocrats had compared to peasants.
Krychek and Nige pretty well nail it.
the idea that modes of production determine social classes
That is not really the primary concept behind Marxism.
And this is just nuts: 'deftly shifting the model from an economic driver to a cultural driver'
So basically it's utterly different, but thanks to a conspiracy they're actually the same!
CRT comes from Germany?! And it's about how social structures are all there is?!!
Unsourced nonsense.
You're making shit up. And then, as with many who make shit up, you're saying anyone who points out you made it up is just in on the coverup.
CRT comes from Germany?! And it’s about how social structures are all there is?!! You’re making shit up.
Just label it theory!
Fixed it!
"Unsourced nonsense"
You should correct the wiki articles titled 'Critical_race_theory' and 'Critical_theory', which agree with the lineage Lee Moore outlines.
Lee Moore is saying a lot more than 'there is a timeline.' He posits the timeline is a conscious effort to launder the same ideas. That is unsourced nonsense.
Thus CRT is a German theory, and essentializes social structures rather than just examining them.
Martinned2 put the 'all things on a timeline are the same' to bed quite well above.
Exactly. And being about social structures generally, it goes beyond just race, and the umbrella term "cultural marxism" is apt.
But leftists really don't like it when their (or for a moderate leftist perhaps, their compatriots') theories are laid bare and discussed in these terms - they don't have the strength of their convictions, it seems. So they get all wild eyed and loony, and start doing strange things like claiming it is a "conspiracy theory" to describe their ideology in an accurate way.
'the umbrella term “cultural marxism” is apt.'
A term a Nazi came up with to describe the influence of the Jews, but go on.
'they don’t have the strength of their convictions, it seems.'
Not having the strength of convictions others attribute to you and which are not your actual convictions is common enough, actually.
'like claiming it is a “conspiracy theory” to describe their ideology in an accurate way.'
'You secretly believe this' might not always amount to a conspiracy theory, though 'Marxist professors are indoctrinating our kids' is common enough, mostly it's just a way of arguing with straw men.
I don't know what you believe, but there are plenty of people espousing it.
Espousing what, though?
Marxism or cultural marxism or whatever is just 'thing conservatives don't like.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2021792152/
(adopting a Nazi term is a helluva tell tho)
'I don’t know what you believe'
That would just get in the way.
Gramsci was a Marxist who laid down the path adopted by the Frankfurt School that is the root layer of all post modern critical theory (of which CRT is but one branch).
Personally, I push the blame back on Hegel and Rousseau for their combined idiocy - but Marx kapitalized on that and thus is the one most commonly cited.
So you also don't know what Marxism is.
of course! Only true believers know for sure.
I can point you to some actual sources on what it is, if you want.
But this? This is just taking something and calling it Marxism:
Marxism, in a nutshell, argues that “the system” has been designed since time immemorial to keep the upper class on top and the lower classes from bettering themselves.
Marx doesn’t go after some inchoate system, and his criticism of capitalism (which has not been designed, and is not from time immemorial) does not rely on a systematic bias at all – it’s all inevitable stages of history.
What is your point? Are you saying Marxism/communison has some good points, but they just haven't been recognized or properly implemented? Are you recommending communision?
My point is don't know what Marxism means.
That is not the same as saying it's cool and good.
Right. So state in one sentence what it means.
One sentence? No.
Marx's (the flavor you are using at least) first notes that in the enlightenment quest to use science to design a moral political system, you can't just talk power and justice, you need to include economics.
Marx starts at the micro level and asks what makes profit possible. How is it that management paying labor adds value above just the exchange for the labor? And that value, does it all belong to management?
Marx believes no, there is some exploitation of labor happening here - there is surplus labor time that the workers would rather spend doing something else, but cannot because management is paying them less than the labor's actual value and so they must work more.
So it's all voluntary, but it's also exploitative.
Then he gets macro, and says this imbalance (along with some other critiques he has) dooms Capitalism. Which will give way to socialism (each worker receives the actual value of their labor, minus taxes), which will in turn become communism (to each according to their needs etc.)
Explaining is not agreeing - this is a reductive and flawed theory. But that's Marxism in a nutshell.
The Frankfurt School jettisoned the bad economics and substituted it with a bad cultural framework. If I'm not mistaken, they did still call themselves Marxists; certainly Marcuse did.
From ze wiki:
"What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project of human emancipation, theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of the Marxist tradition, psychoanalysis, and empirical sociological research."
That seems...a bit of a wander away from Marx.
I will admit to ignorance over Marcuse. He seems...weird in a very '1960s New Wave sci fi dystopia' sorta way:
"Marcuse evolved a theory over the years that stated modern technology is repressive naturally. He believed that in both capitalist and communist societies, workers did not question the manner in which they lived due to the mechanism of repression of technological advances."
" management is paying them less than the labor’s actual value"
Which he proceeds to define in the stupidest way possible, of course.
Value's definition isn't Marx's problem, it's labor's definition.
And how he defines science.
And everything he says about post-capitalism.
Yet you pontificate a lot on Marx. Of course you often do that with legal topics, and you know nothing about those.
Yeah, this website throwing around the term made me interested. I took a Yale Open Campus course on political philosophy, which is where I learned everything from Marx to Nozick.
and followed up with Talking Politics: History of Ideas, which touches on Marx as well.
Similarly, I checked out Will Baude's series on CRT to learn what that is.
I took a Yale Open Campus course on political philosophy, which is where I learned everything from Marx to Nozick.
And, just out of interest, did you think you were getting your course on political philosophy from folk who were, on the whole, more sympathetic to Marx’s ideas or to Nozick’s ?
"...a systematic bias at all – it’s all inevitable stages of history."
Hahaha - that's a pretty systematic bias right there, the teleologic unveiling of history, right to it's inevitable outcome. Which is so dumb that only intellectuals could fall for it.
Eh, it's just the converse of the great man theory of history.
Neither is going to be completely correct, but if I had to choose I'd say the Marxist paradigm is more correct.
Not quite, the presumption of great man is all in looking back at what they accomplished (or better, what was accomplished while they were at least nominally in charge). The teleologic fallacy is what gives us "the right side of history" and other assorted nonsense. It isn't just looking back, it is looking forward - which is hardly history in any sense of the word.
I don’t think you need to inject a right or wrong here.
But just because someone believes that the wax and wane of larger societal forces being the dominant creator of history, that does not mean that their outcomes are strictly determined.
It’s just saying that if there were no Adolph Hitler, then a Shadolf Shitler would have risen in his place. Doesn't mean that without hindsight we coulda seen WW2 coming in 1920.
I’m not 100% on board, but I’m also not going to rage if someone thinks like that.
Don't be silly. That was the dominant trend in social and philosophical thinking for quite some time, and people still talk like that about world events, even outside academic settings.
Opposition to the Bailey is correlated with ignorance of the Motte, essentially.
A lot of CRT defenders retreating to the motte in the comments.
Just for an example ..
"The ideas that (1) people with power tend to abuse it; (2) the legal system tends to be written for the benefit of people with power; and (3) people with power did not include blacks (and mostly still doesn’t) all strike me as self evident."
People with power tend to exclude everyone not of their own small segment of the population. This again goes to Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent - the rigged game he describes is airtight, but ultimately he can't abide that and so pleads special circumstances to get a more palatable outcome.
Maybe the study doesn’t correlate opposition to crt and ignorance of crt but a study isn’t needed to show that. The extent to which critical race theory is a “well-publicized” political issue is limited almost exclusively to the anti-crt propaganda first dreamed up and pushed by Chris Rufo, which spread like a wildfire on a dry twig plantation. Pretty much all attempts to explain crt were drowned out and ignored by ostensible opponents of critical race theory.
I'd say that the extent to which proponents of CRT have been outraged by laws banning what opponents of CRT understand it to be, actually confirms the opponents' understanding. If CRT weren't what its opponents think it is, the proponents wouldn't be concerned about those laws, because they'd have no application to actual CRT.
What those laws are banning isn’t CRT, even using the critics’ definition. They’re much broader.
Yes, if you're going to ban obnoxious racism in public schools, you're not going to limit the ban to one specific flavor of obnoxious racism.
It's incredible how conservatives keep acting like the cartoonish villains they insist liberals are.
Call it racist and legislate against it? What could possibly be authoritarian about that?
Sarcastr0, I've repeatedly provided you links to the actual text of what gets denounced as "Anti-CRT" laws, and uniformly, they actually ban the worst sort of racist indoctrination.
And advocates of CRT denounce banning that racist indoctrination!
If you want to paint yourself as reasonable, it helps to not object to attacks on obviously unreasonable conduct.
I've repeatedly pointed out to you that it cuts off discussion of quite a few subjects, from intersectionality to affirmative action.
You never seem to remember that.
it cuts off discussion of quite a few subjects, from intersectionality to affirmative action.
And that's a bad thing?
And I've repeatedly pointed out to you that the language of the law expressly only prohibits advocacy, not discussion. It's the difference between teaching about racism, and teaching racism; The latter is what's banned.
'It’s the difference between teaching about racism, and teaching racism'
We've seen the books banned from libraries because they're 'grooming' kids. We know the difference here will be whatever the same people who ban those books decide it is.
If the bill wanted to say 'don't teach these as true' it could say that.
That's not what the text says.
It DOES say that. And by now you know it does, too. What the hell do you think, "espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts" means, if not "teach as true"?
At this point it's just stupid obstinacy to keep misrepresenting the law, when the text is out there for anyone to read.
If they wanted to say teach as true, maybe the shouldn't have written 'espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels'
Different words mean different things. They chose different words; that means they wanted to say something different.
If you can't espouse that affirmative action might be good, how the heck are you going to have a discussion in class?
“If they wanted to say teach as true, maybe the shouldn’t have written ‘espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels’”
Which of those do you feel is not synonymous with ‘teach as true’?
“If you can’t espouse that affirmative action might be good, how the heck are you going to have a discussion in class?”
My wife was a biology teacher, and of course natural selection is as fundamental to biology as the atomic theory is to chemistry, so the concept came up all the time. And she would have maybe one student every two years who had (my reading between the lines here) been primed to object that their religion disagreed with Darwin. And she neatly sidestepped this by being careful to always phrase things as ‘what does natural selection predict for …’; no student of hers was ever required to *believe* it; they just had to *understand* what it said.
And generally speaking, I think Brett has the better reading of the law he linked than you do, but even taking your reading the part that says “Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts” pretty clearly allows a discussion of “what are the arguments for and against affirmative action”.
1. You can tapdance like that, but whether you succeed is in the eyes of the beholder.
2. The legal test for 'training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts' is impossible to implement.
This is a law that stifles debate.
Yes, you can insist that it will be implemented in such a way that it'll be fine. But you can as easily argue it will be implemented otherwise. Or that the mere chilling effect is enough.
Populist bills going against speech espousing a viewpoint are bad news.
"This is a law that stifles debate"
Well, that's an assertion.
OTOH, maybe it's a law that prevents the stifling of debate by forbidding the government from ... espousing ... one side of the discussion as true.
You can disagree with me on the most likely reading of the law. I hold that it opens the door to plenty of mischief.
But Brett's thesis is not just that he's right, it's that the only reason one might oppose that law is if you subscribe to 'what opponents of CRT understand it to be' i.e. hating on white people.
I think I'm right; I may be wrong. I don't hate white people.
Which of those do you feel is not synonymous with ‘teach as true’?
Let's start with "advances." From Cambridge:
advance: to suggest an idea or theory
suggest: to produce an idea in the mind
It's hard to imagine how you could teach about a theory without advancing the theory. Is that how it works now?
Well kids, I can't actually tell you what Communism is because that would be illegal. I'm forbidden from producing the idea of Communism in your mind. So here's what you're allowed to know about Communism: it's an economic theory, there were wars fought over it, and... it starts with a C. Any questions?
Yes, turns out that stifles debate.
Where is noscitur a sociis when you need him ?
“advance” has a number of related meanings in the Cambridge dictionary (and in real life.) You selected the third in the list “advance = suggest”
But you skipped right on by the first one in the list , “advance = move forward” :
“to go or move something forward”
which comes with some usage examples including this neat little one :
“advance the cause. Her study has considerably advanced (=helped) the cause of equal rights.”
Old noscitur having at last arrived, we can try to ascertain whether Randal might one day make a reasonably competent judge, or will have to remain an excitable – though sometimes interesting and amusing – polemical firebrand. So here’s the list in which “advances” appears :
“espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts”
Is “move forward” the noscier reading of “advances” ? Or “suggest” ?
Sarcastr0's position here is basically, "Stop confusing things by citing the actual text of the law, it means what I say it means, not the words they actually enacted."
Yes, if you beg the question I sure do look wrong!
The telepathic finding of bad faith is just Brett's usual bonus.
a reasonably competent judge
That's the whole point. A lot depends on assuming how a judge will interpret it, which leaves room to chill a lot of speech -- as we've seen -- since by its terms, it could apply to "advancing" CRT in the sense of suggesting it.
Shouldn't you be arguing that yeah, the law would be better if "advancing" weren't in the list, given the ambiguity it imparts? What scenario is it capturing that isn't already covered by the other terms?
A lot depends on assuming how a judge will interpret it
Well, even the best drafted law is not immune to a poor judge interpreting it poorly, even excluding bad faith, which we cannot of course exclude. But this is a pretty clear noscitur a sociis case, and even if a foolish or even knavish judge were to misinterpret it, there are, I believe, courts of appeal.
What scenario is it capturing that isn’t already covered by the other terms?
Well, just off the top of my head….let’s amend Brett’s law so :
“espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts”
becomes :
“espouses, promotes, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts”
Now “compels ” is a special item in the list since “such individual to believe” goes with compels alone – espouses, promotes, inculcates (and indeed advances) do not fit with that phrase. So we’re really looking at :
“espouses, promotes, [or] inculcates …specified concepts”
Each of those carry a flavor of open or avowed indoctrination. But “advances” in the “move forward” sense does not. The advancing may be other than open or avowed. It can be deliberate, but sly.
Let’s look at that usage that the Cambridge dictionary provided, and which I quoted :
“advance the cause. Her study has considerably advanced (=helped) the cause of equal rights.”
Thus I could “advance” the specified concepts by, for example, introducing into class a “study” which purporting to be a proper scientific study, backed up the conclusions of the specified concepts. But which was actually a highly tendentious faux study. Indeed something very much along the lines of the study that Prof Bernstein criticizes in this very post – where the “correct” answers are often no more correct than the “incorrect” ones, and sometimes even less correct than the lures.
Without doing anything that openly or avowedly trumpets the specified concepts, my faux study slyly advances them (in the move forward sense.) If the law were limited to espousing, promoting or inculcating I would likely get away with my sly little faux study. But with “advances” in there, I’m on much dodgier ground. My study had better not be easily exposed as a Potemkin study.
I think your petard is showing.
Thus I could “advance” the specified concepts by, for example, introducing into class a “study” which purporting to be a proper scientific study, backed up the conclusions of the specified concepts. But which was actually a highly tendentious faux study.
Why does it depend on the tendentiousness of the study? If introducing a tendentious study counts as "advancing" the theory, then certainly introducing a rigorous study counts as "advancing" it as much or more. And hence would be illegal.
As you've now fallen victim to yourself, it's really really hard to draw a line, in practice, between the two definitions of "advance" that you're hanging your hat on. There's a general presumption in human communication that if I'm telling you something and providing the evidence for it, that by itself counts as espousing, promoting, and advancing it. The endorsement is implied, 99% of the time.
If you are introducing rigorous studies that support the specified concepts, you have the “objective manner” defense that Absaroka mentioned to fall back on.
Thus teaching from a phoney study will get you into trouble. Also teaching from a ( or more than one) rigorous study that supports the specified concepts, if there are also rigorous studies that go the other way, which you ignore.
But teaching from a rigorous study that supports the specified concepts, when there’s nothing rigorous going the other way is going to keep you in the warm and comforting embrace of that “objective manner.”
In short the laws as drafted fit the distinction between indoctrination and objectivity pretty well.
Moreover the evil that Sarcastro purports to perceive – that objectivity is impossible and some things might fall off the table if they have to be taught to a standard of objectivity is a perfectly acceptable “evil” in my book.
If it can’t be taught objectively then it can be taught if at all outside the government schools.
If that means less history in government schools and more math, I can live with that.
An even more elegant and beneficial solution to this conundrum is to have government entirely exit the provision of education, except for the provision of content neutral finance.
" intersectionality" = the best left-handed Jewish pitcher since Sandy Koufax.
Another of the magic words to avoid addressing substance.
You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not a thing.
You could, you know, look it up.
.
Their purpose is to protect white kids from racism. White kids don't experience much, if any, racism. So it's to protect them above and beyond non-white kids, who do experience racism. The defintion of racism relevant to protecting white kids is one that dismisses and downplays the racism experienced by non-white kids and exaggerates and even invents the racism experience by white kids. We know this because we listen to what the politicians responsible say about CRT and 'wokism.' Easy to see where all this is headed.
BULLSHYTE!!! WHY DO YOU THINK WHITE MALE SUICIDES ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF????
Not because of racism.
"Their purpose is to protect white kids from racism."
Yes, it is. And shouldn't we be protecting ALL kids from racism, especially officially sanctioned racism in their schools? Why would you object to protecting white kids from racism, unless you want them subjected to it?
I refer you to the part of my comment you seem to have skipped over:
‘The definition of racism relevant to protecting white kids is one that dismisses and downplays the racism experienced by non-white kids and exaggerates and even invents the racism experienced by white kids. We know this because we listen to what the politicians responsible say about CRT and ‘wokism.’ Easy to see where all this is headed.’
I ignored it because it's the usual: Redefining racism so that you can dismiss racism against whites. The left have been doing that for a generation now, and nobody is buying it.
White people in America have it tough...
[single tear dripping off my cheek]
I can think of some working-class white people that might help remove that tear, and the smug, from your face. Heck, you might even find some like that amongst Dutch farmers - they no doubt have equal appreciation for your intellectual conceits.
Oh, poor people in America definitely have it tough. And many poor people in the US are definitely white.
Dutch farmers, on the other hand, are definitely not poor. One reason for that is that farmers (across Europe) receive fully one third of the EU budget in subsidies. And that's before we add the subsidies and special privileges they receive at the national level. Why is that? Because tractors make for a very persuasive argument against abolishing any of that.
It’s not me redefining racism, though. It’s white people suddenly declaring themselves not only experts on racism, but the primary victims of racism. We’ve seen that the worst examples of racism against whites is a scheme targeted to help black people get into college and thinking they’re supposed to feel guilty because other white people were evil.
Who said anything about "the primary" victims of racism?
It's true that whites are probably at this time the primary victims of legally sanctioned racism, here in the US, but that hardly exhausts the field. I really don't know how it nets out once you take into account ALL forms of racism.
Nor do I care, since I object to racism with a total disregard to who it's directed against. I gather your ire about racism is, instead, selective?
'It’s true that whites are probably at this time the primary victims of legally sanctioned racism'
Again, you have to have a very decontextualised and cynical defintion of racism for this to be a thing.
'I gather your ire about racism is, instead, selective?'
In the sense that it's generally associated with actual racism instead of white grievance.
Brett, you're assuming that most critics of CRT actually know what CRT is (which is unlikely given that its proponents don't seem to be able to agree on it either). It's basically become a buzzword for anything that enrages social conservatives.
Also assuming they care. They've moved on to DEI anyway. They're burning through the codewords for sheer unadulterated racism at a faster and faster rate.
I'm assuming that most critics of "CRT" actually know what they're criticizing, even if the people defending "CRT" insist on claiming that it's something else. Since what the critics are complaining about is monstrously offensive, what else can the defenders do?
It's just your standard motte and bailey, like claiming affirmative action is just about non-discrimination, and then pushing quotas.
‘Since what the critics are complaining about is monstrously offensive, what else can the defenders do?’
Point out that they’re ‘criticising’ a version of something that not only doesn’t exist, but which was explicitly created to act as a lightning rod for the racial animus of white people.
'like claiming affirmative action is just about non-discrimination,'
It was entirely about discrimination - racial discrimination against non-white people. Your bailey has no motte.
But the Klan purported to be Christians
The Klan *were* Christians.
Oh, I think the proponents of a theory are entitled to define it. I'm not, i.e., going to tell Catholics that they really believe in reincarnation whether they admit it or not.
I have no problem telling Muslims that killing infidels is unacceptable.
Wow. If I was doing a textbook on Logic & Rhetoric, this would be my example for non-sequitur. It totally misses the target in (at least) three independent ways.
That tends to happen when people push a political agenda disguised as teaching history.
How’s this comment for correlation, Professor? This joker has no idea what crt is. But I’ll be damned if he ain’t opposed to it, whatever it is. Sure he’s one data point, but there are several others just in these comments alone. Extrapolate away.
Or when teaching history some people would prefer left untaught.
Like Black SlaveOWNERS....
Ah yes, the significant number of slaveowners who were black.
The most significant one was the one who's case established American chattel slavery (as opposed to term servitude).
So the CRT researchers are ignorant of the actual teachings of CRT? Sadly, that is a wholly anticipatable finding.
I personally would prefer schools teach historical facts rather than a lot of theory.
But there are plenty of really damaging historical facts out there. And opponents often do not limit themselves to theory; they would prefer a curriculum that teaches everything from slaves were happy under slavery to the civil rights laws solved all problems and made society perfect, and ommitted things in between that used to never be taught in public schools, from the Wilmington coup to the Tulsa massacre to South Carolina’s argument before the Supreme Court that a one-room school with no heating or toilets or new books satisfied separate but equal because after all black people will always be poor and pay less in taxes.
1. History isn't facts; it's narratives. That kind of critical thinking is important to learn, and seeking how a different point of view will change history even keeping the facts constant is a great way to teach it.
2. CRT is a legal theory; it is not taught in high school. It is, in other words, taught at the point where theory is appropriate.
History isn’t facts; it’s narratives. That kind of critical thinking is important to learn, and seeking how a different point of view will change history even keeping the facts constant is a great way to teach it.
Nope, history is facts, Facts about what happened in the past.
Of course, the facts are innumerable and also incomplete, so there is much to be done by way of digging out previously un or little known facts, and sifting through the pile of facts for the ones that are most illuminating.
Narratives are op-eds - string of facts (and imaginary "facts") that are curated to support the narrative. They are a presentation of history, sometimes reasonably honest, more often not.
But history is the facts, out of which the narratives are composed, plus those facts which have been brushed aside as inconvenient to the narrative.
I agree of course that presenting competing narratives may be a good way to help young, and even old, minds to weigh fact and fiction with discernment. But that, alas, is not what goes on in history classes.
Actually it's both. That the Civil War lasted from 1861-1865 is a fact. Whether it was about state's rights, slavery, economics, or some combination is narrative.
"Whether it was about state’s rights, slavery, economics, or some combination is narrative."
That is not a narrative either. It is not just one or another group's story. It is an assembly of more or less accurate descriptions what what were argued and debated and ultimately fought over.It
That's narratives. You're describing narratives.
Yes it is narrative. Southern apologists want it to be about states rights and economics; Lincoln wanted it to be about slavery. Depending on how you define things they may both be right. But whichever position you adopt, you're telling the story of the group that wants that narrative.
"Lincoln wanted it to be about slavery"
When? Not in 1861 when it started. He moved to slavery as the defining motive mainly as a war measure.
That the Civil War lasted from 1861-1865 is a fact.
Is it though? There's an awful lot of interpretation happening in the claim that a group of events were, for example, a "war" (as opposed to any other kind of conflict), "civil" (as opposed to a conflict between two different sovereign states), and one single series of events that lasted for four years (rather than a series of events that happened in different places at overlapping times).
It's all narratives. If the South had won, nobody would have called it the civil war.
Of course, the facts are innumerable and also incomplete, so there is much to be done by way of digging out previously un or little known facts, and sifting through the pile of facts for the ones that are most illuminating.
Thus, Lee Moore advocates cherry-picked presentism, and pronounces it a method to conduct historical research. I don’t much blame you Lee. You count yourself among so many like-minded others that you all get pickled together in the same barrel of historical error. How would you know anything different?
Here is a more thoughtful method of historical analysis, cribbed and paraphrased by me from Oakeshott. See if you can understand it:
The evidence relied upon for historical analysis consists of all the historical survivals of every kind—including texts, artifacts, archaeological records, artworks, architecture, etc.—which by happenstance escaped time’s winnowing, and thus arrived in the present for our consideration. None of those survivals, not any of them, brings with it into the present the context of its creation. Invariably, past contexts of creation disappear almost as quickly as they become manifest, in a kaleidoscopic series of evanescent transformations. One leads to another, down through the passage of time. Each is a product of particulars associated with times, places, events, and persons. All give historical meaning to some artifact created in specific context, but which thereafter continues through time after its context of creation has been first transformed, and shortly thereafter vanishes, taking with it most of the historical meaning.
Those missing contexts of creation are chiefly what historical analysis seeks to recover. Without them, each historical survival exists only in present context, without valid historical meaning. Inevitably, present-minded analysts substitute present-minded contexts for what is missing. When that happens, they thus create made-up history while pointing to a few survivals as if they somehow justified mis-attributions applied to them. That is what, “sifting through the pile of facts for the ones that are most illuminating,” really means.
So we must begin instead by acknowledging that we encounter historical survivals initially only in a historically irrelevant present context. We find them, for instance, in archives, museums, private collections, or sometimes in situ, but thus in every instance in present context, not in their vanished historical context.
What is the reason that present context cannot offer means to attribute meaning to a historical survival? It is because we can be certain the people who created the survival in historical context (which we do not yet know, but seek to understand), knew nothing of our present. Our present could not have affected their thinking, their culture, their intentions, or the course or outcome of any passage of history of interest to us now. So the first task of historical analysis is to sever from the survival any misimpression that its meaning in present context—whatever we presume that to be—has any relevance to understanding the survival historically.
With that indispensable first step accomplished, the would-be historical analyst clears the way to begin a task of historical inference. The objective of the task is to recreate by valid methods of inference—based entirely on items which have survived—a forgotten passage of history which has not survived. Any valid method to do that must stay mindful to keep present context out completely, for the reasons mentioned above.
What method has power to do that? A method to make the survivals critique each other, with an eye to put each survival back into an inferred context of creation, and to do so based only on that process of mutual critique among survivals, and without reference to any presumption derived from any understanding, occurrence, discovery, invention, cultural change, or other manifestation of insight which post-dated the historical period under consideration.
By that method an inferred passage of forgotten history can be shown by historically legitimate reasoning at least to be consistent with all the historical survivals with which it might be associated. Or conversely, it can be shown a poor match for some or all of those survivals, and thus suspect.
That is a notably simplified description of a more complicated analysis which always must account for exceptions, special cases, and systematizations of abstract concepts such as change and causation. It is a style of analysis laborious to do, and hard to learn. It is almost never attempted, except after years of academic training. And it almost never has power to enlighten or justify any present-minded purpose at all. It is, however, the right method to answer with reasonable chance of legitimacy the question, “What happened in the past.”
Have you ever read a history book that was only or mostly facts? It's so tedious and boring. Any good history book tells a story out of those facts. History (the good kind anyway) takes a point of view. This isn't inherently bad, but you do need theoretical tools for telling that story or parsing it.
"Have you ever read a history book that was only or mostly facts?"
Sure! From here I can see several volumes of Oman's 'History of the Peninsular War'. Yes, it's dry as toast. But good military history often is. I want to understand what Rommel or Forrest did. I know they were serving evil regimes, and I don't really care if they had happy childhoods; I just want to understand their strategic and tactical choices.
There isn't anything wrong with entertaining history, of course. If Montgomery of Alamein's massive ego is because of an over indulgent nanny, that can be interesting, and perhaps explains his blundering with Market Garden, but not all history has to be that way.
Tactics require context, especially if you want to understand the why behind it all.
And then oops you've slipped into narrative.
I haven't studied Rommel, but I did a dive on Eisenhower and thus did a lot of WW2 discussion. Personalities, and how they interacted, were an integral part of Allied tactical choices.
"Tactics require context, especially if you want to understand the why behind it all."
Well, sure. Massena eventually retreated from the Lines of Torres Vedras because he was out of food. I don't think I'd call that narrative, though; it's a fact that his army was starving.
And I agree personalities matter; one of the reasons that Wellington succeeded in the Peninsula was that the French marshals were prone to view each other as rivals rather than cooperate.
The German Panzer divisions didn't get released until the afternoon of D-Day, because Hitler had taken a sleeping pill and left orders not to be disturbed.
I call those facts. If you think they are narratives, have at it.
I would wager that once you dug down into the specific blunders the French marshals made, you would not be able to keep it so objective.
Plus once you get far enough back, you begin to have omnipresent unreliable narrator issues.
I think this is a cute way of showing how narratives creep in even at high levels of historical abstraction:
https://x.com/JohnWakefieId/status/1767760292568584468?s=20
"I would wager that once you dug down into the specific blunders the French marshals made, you would not be able to keep it so objective."
I'd take that bet. The Napoleonic era is recent enough that we have pretty good documentation. Multiple memoirs, the official records, etc. I mean, you can argue that Massena really retreated because he was lonesome for his mistress[1], but his soldier's memoirs all say they were starving. That he got all the memoirists to cover up his amorous issues by falsely claiming starvation seems pretty far fetched.
[1]I don't recall off hand whether Massena had his mistress along on the campaign; many of the marshals did.
"Plus once you get far enough back, you begin to have omnipresent unreliable narrator issues."
Maybe in Roman times, but there are lots of first hand accounts and official records of the Napoleonic Wars. Even more so WWII; I heard some of that first hand from my father and uncles.
Absaroka, how are you at rating the influence of factors tacitly influential in historical accounts, if such factors ceased to be influential now, because of changed conditions which occurred in the interval between then and now? Do you suppose the habitual thinking of times gone by remains habitual now, if changed conditions mean it no longer serves any purpose?
For instance, Grant won campaigns because he was more accurately mindful of the state of fodder his adversaries could rely upon to keep armies on the march. How alert to that factor do you expect a modern reader to be if it never turns up specifically in the historical record under consideration? As alert to it as Grant was?
How about germ theory of disease during the Napoleonic wars? Do you think it is second nature for a modern reader to grasp the interpretive change subtracting that insight from a centuries old record implies? Alert enough to grasp as intuitively as a historical general the range of decisions that factor would influence? Or alert enough to anticipate in detail the chaos an inattentive general risked creating?
During the early 1770s, colonial governors appear in the contemporary record to be hapless bumblers, endlessly frustrated by the antics of the likes of Samuel Adams. Why was that? Why did authorities seem so indecisive? Why was Adams so successful? Is it possible that an answer obvious at the time escapes modern scrutiny? What if changes in conditions since then work against notice now of what may have been so self-evident then as to escape mention?
I think that happens. For instance, I think lack of real time communication between the apex of political power in the colonies—which was nevertheless obliged to remain subordinate to higher powers across the Atlantic—had a lot to do with lack of governmental energy and agency in America. But how likely would anyone at the time have been to put that in the record, given that existence of real-time trans-Atlantic communication remained unimaginable?
The historical problem always includes not only encountering a factual recored; it also includes subtracting tacitly assumed modern context from the encounter. And the latter remains a greater challenge than the former.
When you read a military history, work of that sort has been done for you by a historian author—maybe done well, maybe not. But unless you make yourself the historian, and undertake the labor and challenge to discard modern sources altogether, and write exclusively with an eye to original context, and a mind trained to recognize anachronism instantly, you are unlikely even to become aware of commonplace analytical errors created by default reliance on present-minded analysis.
"if such factors ceased to be influential now"
I am indeed operating under the notion that starvation mattered at Torres Vedras, but if you want to share a few thousand words about how armies requiring food is a recent development I'd be grateful.
It will be helpful if your analysis also explains why the accounts from the participants at the time are wrong.
Absaroka, accounts from a subset of participants are what they are—which is historical survivals bereft of the context of their creation. It is what you make of them which is potentially right, wrong, or equivocal.
Of course, if you are getting all this courtesy of an author who predigested the record for you, instead of doing the historical research for yourself, my comment does not really even apply to you. Take it instead as a caution about using your present-minded priors to put a gloss of plausibility on someone else's work.
I know. Like how do I know the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on 7Dec41, or the Holocaust happened? I wasn't there myself! All I have to go on is the predigested words of people who purported to be there!
Not to mention the moon landings!
Psychometric theory is taught on the doctoral level -- but the SAT is based on it.
CRT is a legal theory; it is not taught in high school. It is, in other words, taught at the point where theory is appropriate.
Then, States banning if from High Schools is not a problem.
It wouldn't be if the law was narrowly drafted.
All of it needs to be replaced by civics, every other year from 6th grade on.
Fix the ignorance of how the govt is structured and operates, goes a long way to address any problems.
Do we want to be teaching "how the government is structured and operates" or "how the government is structured and SHOULD operate."?
Because I'm old enough to have encountered actual 'civics classes' in school. They were a heady blend of patriotism, exceptionalism and some aptly-named "whitewashing". Fortunately for me, I'd identified as a contrarian and iconoclast since I'd learned the words, and I was able to reject that crap.
Sadly, the knee jerk, hateful anti-Americanism spouted by the current generation of students proves their own cynicism to be inadequate to the current task.
I'd give long odds against any agreement on the content of a modern-day Civics, or America 101 class.
Except the marxists have embedded CRT in the teaching materials and then claim it's not present in the materials because they're not teaching it as an explicit subject matter.
"they would prefer a curriculum that teaches everything from slaves were happy under slavery"
I'm not saying you're wrong; simply that I'd like to see some examples of people who believe this.
Does this work for you, or would you like to move the goalposts in a different direction?
https://thenewjournalandguide.com/fla-s-anti-black-history-slant-resurrects-happy-slave-myth/
If the headline is true, then the people who designed the curriculum do in fact believe in happy slaves, which is wrong.
But at least, according to the article, they include some of the bad parts of history:
"The new curriculum will teach high school students about events like the 1920 Ocoee massacre, the deadliest Election Day violence in US history that began when white poll workers prevented Moses Norman, a Black landowner, from voting.
"The rule stipulates that instructions also must include details about the Atlanta race massacre, the Tulsa race massacre, and the Rosewood race massacre."
I'd have to read the curriculum to see how they shift gears from happy slaves to black people being massacred by white people. It sounds like they did a total 180, if the article is to be believed.
"If the headline is true"
Its not true. It equates an alleged "enslaved people developed skills" teaching with Happy Slaves.
That is usually part of the 'happy slaves' myth.
No the happy slaves was a Fire-eater argument and was positioned against the wage slave misery of the capitalist north. You see, the plantation owners believed they were more benevolent than the factory owners.
Owners are usually protective of their property.
Does this work for you, or would you like to move the goalposts in a different direction?
Oddly, that piece contains nary a single citation of any of the actual content of the FL curriculum being criticized, only slanted and vague characterizations of it. It's also amusing that the agenda-driven nature of the publication...as well as the title beginning with...
Fla.’s Anti-Black History Slant...
...didn't serve as any sort of clue to you that it might not be an authoritative (or even unbiased) source on the subject.
"any sort of clue to you"
Be kind. English is not his first language. English words often confuse him, judging from his comment history.
Given how many people in this thread seem to struggle with the word "Marxism", you should probably keep quiet. Glass houses and all that.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise bias troubled you. Feel free to find an unbiased source if you don't like the one I gave you.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realise bias troubled you. Feel free to find an unbiased source if you don’t like the one I gave you.
I know you can't help but rely on childish dishonesty, but could you at least make an effort to do so in a slightly less transparent way?
Bias in and of itself doesn't trouble me at all. What I object to is citing vague abstract claims by an agenda-driven source about something as though they were authoritative references regarding the substance of the thing...because doing so is both dishonest and stupid. I realize that dishonesty and stupidity are your rhetorical meat-and-potatoes, but I'm on a stricter diet.
To quote the great delinquent Johnny Bender from the 1985 film The Breakfast Club: "Well, I don't know any lepers either, but I'm not going to run and join one of their fucking clubs."
Hollywoods idea of a noncomformist truth teller. Actually he was just a rude jerk.
Great flick, my favorite Bender line was “What’s the difference between a clever midget and a woman with VD?”
It is notable how many on here's response is 'I know what CRT is, and anyone who says I am wrong is lying.'
Partisanship as substitute for expertise allows for some truly pathetic worldviews.
Luckily, this kind of nonsense seems to have a short half-life among the public at large. But like Vince Foster and Benghazi, I fully expect the REAL CRT to last forever among the truly committed.
What "expertise" would you accept? AFAIK, there is no doctorate program in CRT. The duly anointed experts of CRT are black political activists like Nikole Hannah-Jones, or Ibram X Kendi.
People who do CRT describing what they do would seem to be the experts.
That you *don't even know who the experts are* is a tell. Black activists may talk about CRT, but they're not going to be the go-to for defining it.
But they do piss you off, and so does CRT, so let's gooo!
"would seem to be" - so you don't know either
So what's the fuss over CRT which when I first heard about "CRT" thought was Cathode Ray Tubes which were Discovered by (2) Germans, but so were X-rays. Like playing Video games? First gaming console invented by Ralph Baer (German Jew, immigrated to Amurica in 1938), First guy to determine the distance to a Star? Friedrich Bessel, Inventor of the "D" part of the DPT Vaccine? Emil Behring. And just to show it's not a total Sausage-Fest, like your filtered Coffee, Frau Amelie Bentz developed the first Coffee Filter in 1908.
Frank
Anyone who has any knowledge of CRT not tainted by politics would easily ace this quiz (except for maybe the Intersectionality question).
The commentators on this post demonstrate the validity of this study.
Also CRT is not complicated to understand. For example it is clear that the old practice of redlining black neighborhoods has a lasting effect today. Same with demolishing black neighborhoods to build highways.
CRT not tainted by politics
Wine not tainted by water.
You didn't parse correctly - MG means the knowledge is not tainted by politics, not that the CRT isn't tainted by politics.
I wonder where that pile of refuse known as the 1619 Project fits into this latest academic gaslighting?
Criticism of, e.g., demolishing black neighborhoods to build highways and predicting or elaborating upon the negative consequences well predates CRT, and has nothing directly to do with it, specifically. The notion that just pointing out historical examples of racist policies that have lingering effects is CRT is just flat out wrong. I should know, I wrote an entire book discussing exactly that, https://www.amazon.com/Only-Place-Redress-Reconstruction-Constitutional/product-reviews/0822325837/ and the influence on CRT on my writing was nil.
'The notion that just pointing out historical examples of racist policies that have lingering effects is CRT is just flat out wrong.'
This is correct. But that doesn't matter to the people who have appropriated and monstered the term for their own purposes. Racist policies towards black neighbourhoods will soon be just another example of CRT, and racist against white people, because they're supposed to feel guilty about it, and any suggestion that white people benefitted from their neighbourhoods not being treated like black neighbourhoods means they're calling all white people racist.
Criticism of, e.g., demolishing black neighborhoods to build highways and predicting or elaborating upon the negative consequences well predates CRT, and has nothing directly to do with it, specifically.
Predating does not mean irrelevant to the theory.
Just about all I know about CRT I learned from Khiara M. Bridges appearance on Will Baude's podcast:
https://www.podparadise.com/Podcast/1562902209/Listen/1651161600/0
You use a single source and claim to lecture everyone here?
Feel free to dig up some more sources, instead of complaining about people who are kind enough to do your research for you free of charge.
Not entirely apt to this discussion but read Derrick Bell's 'Silent Covenants' sometime. It's tough going but well worth the effort. And a must read for anyone who wants to understand Critical Race Theory.
For readers who don't know, Bell is the guy who kicked the whole CRT thing off.
Is it even remotely suprising that people who like CRT know more about it than people who don't? On average, I assume that's true for pretty much any body of knowledge, whether it's Constitutional Originalism, Jesuit philosophy, or Neoconservativism. If you let the people who like it write the test, that will exacerbate the effect, but even with a fair test, more fans than critics are going to put in the time studying whatever it is.
Is it even remotely suprising that people who like CRT know more about it than people who don’t?
I’m not seeing any compelling evidence that your premise is true.
On average, I assume that’s true for pretty much any body of knowledge, whether it’s Constitutional Originalism, Jesuit philosophy, or Neoconservativism.
Similarly, I don’t see any compelling evidence to support that assumption. Take many areas of science, for example. You’ll find a great many enthusiastic proponents of many scientific theories among the IFLS (I Fucking Love Science) crowd that they have next to no understanding of at all. They like them because it’s “cool” to love science and parrot what much of the scientific community has to say on a given topic whether you know anything about it or not. or because it satisfies some confirmation bias on your part. Climatology would be the most obvious example (on both sides of the anthropogenic global warming issue). Virology and medicine in general are also good recent examples. Others would be genetically modified food items, biological evolution, etc.
The other side of that coin would be examples of eminently qualified individuals who understand a widely accepted scientific theory as well as anyone else, and who are quite critical of it. The multiple “crises” in physics and cosmology provide multiple examples of that.
My point isn't that everyone who likes a body of knowledge will know a lot about it, but that the people who take the time to get a degree in that subject will on average both (1) know a lot about the subject and (2) like it and they will move the average. (You also have some very knowledgable ex-mormons or psychiatrists or whatever, but I suspect not nearly enough to outweigh the first effect.)
For example, I oppose Marxism. But I have to agree that on average, most of the people who study Marxism in depth are pro-Marxism, because people study stuff that interests them. You get an occasional anti-Communist or ex-Marxist who's done all the work, but if you gave me and a random Marxist of similar intelligence a test about the finer points of Marxism, I'm pretty sure the random Marxist would win 9 times out of ten.
But I have to agree that on average, most of the people who study Marxism in depth are pro-Marxism, because people study stuff that interests them.
Saying, "People who like X tend to be more knowledgeable about it" (what you originally claimed) is VERY different from saying, "People who are more knowledgeable about X tend to like it" (what you're now arguing). I'll let you decide what it is that you're actually trying to argue before responding further.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean to say that I would expect knowledge of an esoteric body of information to correlate with approval of it, on the theory that people who don't like it are less likely to continue studying it.
I don't know of any "crises" in physics or cosmology. There are things that are still unexplained.
I don’t know of any “crises” in physics or cosmology.
Then you're exactly the sort of individual I was referring to (likes to talk about science-y stuff about which you are fundamentally ignorant). And you weren't even bright enough to Google those terms to learn what I was talking about.
Uh, even dismissing the soft science "reproducibility crisis", misuse of experimental data (p-Hacking) and the clear mis-incentivization towards quantity over quality and positive results over disproofs, the latest observational data (esp. from JWST) is doing a lot more than "filling in the blanks". Indeed, the amount of things observed that defy our current "understanding" of the cosmos seems to be growing faster than observations that confirm, reinforce or solidify it.
This is the way science has to work sometimes. But it looks like a crisis from the outside and I doubt it's coming from the many multi-million-subscriber YouTube physics channels grifting for clicks with hysterical video titles.
Just motte and bailey. The defenders are well informed about the motte, the attackers don't give a damn about the motte, they're attacking the bailey.
You're really driving that metaphor up the wall.
Everything that doesn't fit your worldview is liberals lying.
And thus, you have a closed world nothing can challenge. Way to go.
His world view would change if liberals stopped lying all the time.
When did you stop beating your wife?
1. Which of the following is suggested by Critical Race Theory?
White males are personally responsible for all the evil in the world.
"In their paper, the authors describe the lure as white people are born racist, but that's not necessarily what "naturally" means.
Bullshyte. Words mean what they mean, not what the Queen says they do.
2. What group is credited with creating Critical Race Theory (CRT)?
Academic scholars [correct]
Political radicals [lure]
The media (i.e. newspapers)
Elementary school teachers
It was created in 1968 by Jane Elliott, a third grade teacher in Iowa.
The Harvard Law folk plagarized the idea 20 years later.
3. Where is Critical Race Theory generally implemented?
Elementary schools [lure]</iIMPLEMENTED not discussed. It is behind much of Common Corpse and a lot of other K-12 foolishness.
4. A survey of African American adolescents found that 50% of them reported having experienced what at their school during the last 3 months?
Being called racial slurs by other kids at school [correct]
Bullshyte.
CRT is essentially "Hate Witey" and the converse of the Klu Klux Klan hiding behind academic legitimacy.
Always a good time when Ed tries to help.
Has he blamed the Key Bridge collusion on Critical Race Theory yet?
DEI. DEI cut the power in the ship, DEI hit the bridge.
With whom was the Key Bridge colluding, and on what?
(touché)
They leave out that the African American Adolescents were called the N-word by other N-word Adolescents.
Academic gaslighting on a grand scale. Impressive.
When your first, and presumably best, criticism is that they use the term "naturally" in a way that conforms to a dictionary definition but not your preferred one, I don't see any reason to read further or take this seriously.
When your first, and presumably best
Making baseless assumptions isn't really a good way to be taken seriously yourself...nor is a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to English:
criticism is that they use the term “naturally” in a way that conforms to a dictionary definition but not your preferred one
Apparently the point being made, which is that the word in question can (and likely will be) interpreted by different test takers to mean different things (all of which are also standard dictionary definitions thereof) was just too nuanced for you.
I think we need to stop with the racist indoctrination. If the CRT folks assure us that they don’t believe in racist indoctrination, then all the better! They can join in the fight against such indoctrination.
Racist indoctrination includes teaching that punctuality is a white characteristic, that we need to eradicate “whiteness,” etc.
If that’s not Critical Race Theory, then that’s great, these misunderstood activists can now join with other people of good will and put a stop to racist teachings like these.
By “stop racist teachings,” I mean that the government and large corporations shouldn’t single out particular races for demeaning racist “instruction.”
It would be an excellent confidence-building, bridge-building measure for the CRT believers to go beyond routine disavowals and actively fight against racism *no matter who the target is.*
I say this because, if they're actually antiracist, they would naturally be indignant at racist teachings in society, and would have an incentive to oppose such teachings.
'I say this because, if they’re actually antiracist, they would naturally be indignant at racist teachings in society, and would have an incentive to oppose such teachings.'
Which racist teachings are they not being sufficently indignant about or opposing the teaching of sufficently to satisfy your demand that they meet the people who loathe and despise them halfway?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/17/smithsonian-african-american-museum-remove-whitene/
"meet the people who loathe and despise them halfway"
You're ceding to "people who loathe and despise them" a monopoly on concern about troubling things like the above.
And really, that chart looks more anti-other-races than anti-white.
Yes, this chart, removed, seems to be the apex of anti-white racism. White people will talk on and on about 'black culture' but holy moley they do not like being seen.
"White people will talk on and on about ‘black culture’"
Perhaps you hang out with different whites than I do.
Well there you go, then, can't be a thing. Have you encountered Brett, perchance?
Whatever he said, he’s not “white people.” He’s one specific white person.
And I suspect you're white as well, though I wouldn't blame all white people for the stuff you say.
It's funny you think I do 'blame' all white people. But hey, if you're ignorant about something, you must be right.
I'm blaming you for attributing something to whites in general, and backing up your assertion with a single example.
No, you're blaming me for your feigned ignorance.
Amid all your sputtering, spittle-flecked indignation, it’s difficult to figure out exactly what your accusation is.
State the accusation more clearly, so I can more easily mock it.
You seem to be claiming white people don’t talk about ‘black culture.’ I’m not even saying it’s intrinsically racist to talk about ‘black culture,’ it’s pretty clear their different historical experiences have led to the development of cultural indicators that people identify as ‘black.’ The blues, rap, a style of speech, various forms of dance.
I don’t know why you’d claim to think this, or object to the idea so strenuously. Guess it’s a hot-button issue.
Either that or you were just literally pleading ignorance.
Your claim was “White people will talk on and on about ‘black culture.'"
I questioned this, and your creative paraphrase was "You seem to be claiming white people don’t talk about ‘black culture.’"
You seem to like rewriting stuff to make it more interesting.
What an amazing rejoinder it was and is, it succesfully derailed the conversation, this vital distinction between talking about something and talking on and on about something, based entirely on your supposedly never encountering the phenomenon. Truly, when it comes to race and racism, you have a fine grasp of the essentials.
"your supposedly never encountering the phenomenon"
I never made any such claim, dillweed.
So you have encountered the phenomenon and the comment about 'hanging around with different whites' was a non sequiter.
You said “White people will talk on and on about ‘black culture.’”
Maybe they do this in *your* circle of white people, but I guess I’ve never met anyone in your white circle.
"this vital distinction between talking about something and talking on and on about something"
You seemed to think those things were worth conflating.
You seem to think they were worth derailing the entire conversation, mostly by acting offended and obtuse.
They could at least offer the olive branch by showing, through practical action, how misunderstood they've been.
If the evil right-wingers persist in the misunderstanding, that wouldn't be the CRT people's fault, would it?
You can't offer an olive branch to people who don't want peace.
You're blaming the current 'misunderstanding' of CRT, in fact a deliberate and cynical tactic of appropriation and distortion that the right performs over and over and over again, on the people who keep pointing out that's not what CRT is?
As usual, I have to start out by pointing and laughing at your straw man.
If the evil right wingers are in fact evil, then offering them an olive branch would be tactically useful because it would expose the evilness of their evilitude. They’d reject the olive branch, thus showing that they’re not open to reason.
And anyway, the CRT people don’t need the consent of the evil right-wingers to oppose racism – no matter the target of the racism. Even if nobody praises them for it, it would still be a good thing to do. And in any case, moderates would be impressed and would be less likely to accept the right-wing narrative.
So what do they have to lose? They should go ahead and make clear that by “antiracist,” they mean anti-*all* racism.
Well, let’s try it.
Yes, the Smithsonian poster was racist and it’s a good thing it got taken down. It was antithetical to CRT.
But who produced it, and then replaced it with an only moderately more subtle version of the same?
"Being white does not mean you haven’t experienced hardships or oppression. Being white does mean you have not faced hardships or oppression based on the color of your skin. We need to be honest about the ways white people have benefited from racism so we can work toward an equitable, fair and just society."
That's a piss poor attempt at being honest. Like whites are always and everywhere in the majority, like groups that are in the minority of the nation as a whole can't locally be the majority, can't ever be racist and act on it themselves. You'd have to be mad to believe such drivel.
Or a stone cold racist.
See? The very idea that NOT being subjected to centuries of massive racism and racist policies might be advantageous and beneficial is more racist than, say, that Goon Squad who tortured the black people.
Ah hahahahaha lol Brett. You did exactly what Nige predicted when offered an olive branch.
You can’t offer an olive branch to people who don’t want peace.
Well, it's true: I don't want peace with racists, I want them crushed.
You totally crushed affirmative action.
Azilia said it best:
If the evil right wingers are in fact evil, then offering them an olive branch would be tactically useful because it would expose the evilness of their evilitude. They’d reject the olive branch, thus showing that they’re not open to reason.
"You totally crushed affirmative action."
Not yet, but we're getting there.
Never mind the Goon Squads.
There we go, a CRT denunciation of that racist exhibit.
We need a term other than "CRT" for this sort of thing. I believe the term "racist" should suffice.
So now you're saying CRT is racism? Full circle, or something.
Dear Lord, try to keep up.
I don’t have the slightest idea what CRT is, except that it’s against this racist exhibit (if Randal is right). So all I know is that it’s apparently against racism. If someone has better information, let me know.
I think racism should be called racism, without automatically dragging CRT into the issue.
If the exhibit is racist, I'll call it racist, and if CRT is anti-racist, I'll call the exhibit anti-CRT as well, as Randal did.
If you want to explain CRT to me, please cite some book by one of their recognized authorities. I can get it from the horse's mouth - if I'm interested enough.
This Chris Rufo guy in Florida wants to tie everything to CRT. Maybe he's full of shit (oops, I shouldn't criticize the right). It's tough enough to persuade people that racism is wrong (except against them), without getting into the weeds of academic theory.
'I don’t have the slightest idea what CRT is'
Fuuuucking hell. It's an elective course about contracts in some law schools. Please don't pretend you don't know what the right is currently *claiming* CRT is.
'I think racism should be called racism, without automatically dragging CRT into the issue.'
Who, exactly, is dragging CRT into the issue?
'Maybe he’s full of shit (oops, I shouldn’t criticize the right)'
You didn't.
I think racism should be called racism, without automatically dragging CRT into the issue.
Yes, please! The only people dragging CRT into every issue are the likes of David and, as you say, Chris Rufo.
"Please don’t pretend you don’t know what the right is currently *claiming* CRT is."
You're like a straw-man factory.
It's hard to tell from that reply whether you are or are not denying it. Just another way of avoiding confronting how incredibly and uniquely fucked-up the right is at the moment.
You want to attribute a straw-man position to me and then demand I disprove your fantasy. I'm not going to play along with that sort of thing.
The only thing I’ll point out is that it’s a straw man.
If you’d asked, in good faith, about my positions, maybe I would have “answered your questions.”
That wasn’t attributing anything to you, you pleaded ignorance of CRT, we’ve established that there are two versions of ‘CRT,’ I was asking if you were ignorant of both the real CRT and the fake CRT. You don’t know what a straw man is, you should stop pointing them out until you do.
“we’ve established that there are two versions of ‘CRT,’”
We’ve established no such thing. For all I know there could be many versions.
Why were you so eager to admit ignorance of academic CRT but so cagey about culture war CRT?
What voice in your head are you confusing with mine *this* time?
So long as we're reading minds, I can safely say that you're a hack, regurgitating talking points from the left wing of the duopoly.
And you're still being cagey.
No, I just don't think your random spittle-flecked accusations are worth answering, even if I could understand them.
Let someone ask in good faith, and the odds are that I'll answer.
Affected hypersensitivity as a tactic when avoiding a question is kinda your trademark, I just wonder why this question.
‘would be tactically useful’
No it wouldn’t. But wait. Who is designing these tactics, who is deploying the troops to execute them, who is in command?
‘They’d reject the olive branch, thus showing that they’re not open to reason.’
And you’d say, ‘well if you were really anti-racist, you’d simply present them with an olive branch they *would* accept!’ You never, ever, ever, hold the right responsible for what they do.
‘Even if nobody praises them for it, it would still be a good thing to do’
Everything about this CRT-appropraition shows that not being praised isn’t the problem; being actively opposed, smeared and silenced is.
‘And in any case, moderates would be impressed and would be less likely to accept the right-wing narrative.’
Weird that the right-wing narrative is treated as true by default, no matter how absurd, nasty and obviously bad faith.
‘So what do they have to lose?’
Republicans passing laws aganst teaching their versions of CRT in schools, books accused of being ‘CRT’ removed from libraries and schools, and having their college courses removed, defunded and generally suppressed. And that’s just so far.
‘Moderates’ are honestly like children.
“You never, ever, ever, hold the right responsible for what they do.”
In this very site's comment section I’ve denounced both the right and left wings of the duopolist bird of prey.
But you’re determined to fit everyone into “we” and “not-we.”
You work extremely hard to obscure any real differences between the two. Here, for example, you're completely suspending judgement on the actions of the right until whatever subsection of the left you're referring to act in a certain way, non-specified, but you'll know it when you see it. Only then will you suddenly be able to see that the right are acting in bad faith. You seem to think that being a self-declared moderate makes you a moderator.
I never called myself a moderate.
And your original claim was “never, ever, ever;” you didn’t confine your accusation to this one particular discussion.
I stand by it. 'They're both just as bad' lets the right off the hook. It's almost always the right doing really bad stuff, but it's all the fault of the left who must have done something to cause it or whose responses don't make enough concessions.
Oh, sod off, I've even said there should be judicial hearings into the Art. 3 questions around Trump's qualifications for ballot access. In saying this, not only am I more "liberal" than the Supreme Court's conservative justices, I'm also more "liberal" than the *liberal* justices.
Hey, do you think the guy who tried to illegally overturn an election he lost in order to stay in power is more or less of a threat to democracy than the guy who didn't?
I didn't even mention your boyfriend Biden, why are you so hung up on him?
QED
"I’ve even said there should be judicial hearings into the Art. 3 questions around Trump’s qualifications for ballot access."
The Court said, essentially, that if you want "judicial hearings" for that purpose, they need to be a criminal trial for insurrection. Not just any old "hearings".
Again, I out-liberaled the liberals.
You advocated something no liberal advocated, and called it liberal.
Cute. But of course, no.
If you bring forward a measure to prohibit government schools from teaching very specific things that CRT folks claim until they are blue in the face aren't CRT, they blow a gasket. Curious, that.
Only to the extent that the measure is clearly intended to whitewash history.
I love how despite being relatively well informed on the topic Bernstein still chomps down on the lures with great force.
My first thought goes to my favorite Voltaire quotation 'If you would speak with me first define your terms'.
My second thought is the fable about blind men describing an elephant. The first felt the side of the elephant and said it was a wall, the second grabbed the elephant's leg and said it was a tree, and the third grabbed the tail and said it was a snake.
DB points out that while the CRT test labeled answers as correct he did not agree with all of the labels. I suspect not all the posters here would agree with both the CRT correct test answers or DB's correct answers.
I have spend way too much time reading both pros and cons of CRT but have to admit I still don't feel comfortable defining just what it is. Part of my problem is that like most peeps I am not a fan of slavery I am also not a fan of what is sometimes called reverse discrimination. I see some truth on both sides of the issue but also see things I don't like on both sides of the issue.
Maybe what bothers me most is the claim that CRT only exists as something taught in law school courses.
Anyone who cares to look can see CRT -> wokeness -> DEI.
It's all the exact same bating, just moving from label to label.
Indeed. I was surprised to a see a return of CRT here as rage bait. That was so, what, 2021? Then the fuel became wokeness and cancel culture somewhere in there. And the past year it's been DEI. All grievance, all the time.
The clingers at the Volokh Conspiracy seem committed not only to going down with the ship but also to playing all the hits as their political and ideological coalition submerges.
Yeah funny to see this hobby horse recycled. You can almost taste DB’s frustration upthread: “I should know— I wrote a book about it!” Truly a shame CRT didn’t have a bit longer in the sun, DB, but the rage bait cycles seem to churn ever faster these days.
On that note, I suspect that “DEI caused the ship to crash” is going to be the high water mark (please excuse the naval metaphor) for that particular chicken fucking party. As always, the huckleberries have taken it too far (“more like DIE hur dur”) and pushed it into self parody which has the effect of revealing it to be what it always was: fundamentally unserious, cynical trolling from the very-online Right.
I think that these questions and the answer choices are great. Prof. Bernstein’s criitque of them and his insistence on many of the “lures” and other wrong choices being correct is just revealing his own biases. These questions and the choices remind me a great deal of the Professional Education Test I had to pass to be a certified teacher in Florida. I didn’t need to actually have studied for it to pass. I just had to read the questions and choose the answers that I would imagine school administrators would want me to pick. The distractors (lures) were choices that would only seem reasonable to someone that you definitely would not want teaching kids.
I saw questions like this:
You have a student in your content area class (I.e. not a language arts class) that recently arrived from another country that has very little proficiency with English. How might you adjust your teaching to help this student?
A) I wouldn’t adjust anything. Immersion is the best strategy. The child will learn English faster if forced to do so.
B) I would make sure that the student has access to Google translate and then proceed as normal.
C) I would find a student that speaks the same language but knows at least some English to show the new student how to do the assignments.
D) I would use well researched strategies to scaffold the lessons so that the English learner students in my class can digest and master smaller amounts of information before moving to the next step of knowledge acquisition.
Anyone have any doubts about which choice education leaders would think is correct?
JasonT20 wrote:
"Anyone have any doubts about which choice education leaders would think is correct?"
Yes I have doubts. Even though you posted the question was to get certified to teach in Florida as a long time Florida resident I have seen real differences in how 'education leaders' view issues both over time and geography. I basically view Florida as three states; the Miami/Dade area extending up the East Coast, the Orlando middle of the state area, and the Panhandle/North part of the state (which in something of a surprise includes the Florida Keys to some extent) with all three areas having different 'correct' thinking.
Hmm, that can happen, sure. But for my specific question and choices, I can’t imagine any administrator or education official in Tallahassee that would have written the question pick anything but D. The reason why the other choices are obviously wrong is in how the teacher is describing what they would do. Notice that A),B), and C), all have the teacher minimizing their own effort and responsibility. One teacher isn’t going to do anything, the next is going to offload all of the work to Google, and the last offloads it to another student.
Expanding on what I wrote here and in my reply to Timothy:
Prof Bernstein is arguing about which choices are correct from his point of view. Now, he might know a decent amount of what CRT actually is about since it is something that originated in law schools. So, for him and other law professors, and maybe lawyers and law students, the quiz could end up giving some skewed results in comparing knowledge of CRT to opposition of it.
But for the general public, it is clearly going to be media portrayal of CRT that matters. And that means the quiz should be evaluated on that basis. And I see an obvious choice of what someone that works with CRT academically would say is correct vs someone that listens to conservative talking points about CRT
But for the general public, it is clearly going to be media portrayal of CRT that matters.
Fortunately we can rely on the US media to report things accurately.
Fortunately we can rely on the US media to report things accurately.
You do know that “the US media” includes FoxNews, Newsmax, and even people using internet platforms to reach large audiences (think Tucker Carlson on the platform formerly known as Twitter), don’t you? The right-wing media sphere (and Trump himself) took Chris Rufo’s plan and ran with it. He doesn’t even try to hide what his plan was all along, as you can see that the tweet is still up after 3 years for everyone to see. For those that don’t want to follow a link (added emphasis mine):
We have successfully frozen their brand—”critical race theory”—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.
I don’t think Prof Bernstein could possibly be unaware of this. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he was simply falling victim to this “CRT = everything ‘the left’ ever says about race that conservative white people are afraid of” narrative. Maybe he really is pushing that narrative intentionally.
[edit: trying to fix the link]
But for the general public, it is clearly going to be media portrayal of CRT that matters.
It couldn't be funnier that you then went on to assert that, for the general public, "media portrayal" equates to "conservative talking points".
Who else is talking about CRT except Fox News commentators and blowhards on all the media to the right of Fox News? So yes, when it comes to CRT "the media" means "conservative talking points".
MSNBC is right of Fox?
Or the Grey Lady?
I didn't realize Fox had shifted that far left.
Uh... those are responses to Fox News. Just like the CRT supporters here are responding to David, not just showing up to talk about CRT at random. The people showing up to talk about CRT at random are 100% conservative blowhards like David.
Remember, Randal. Like Bob said below, you are defending Marxism if you argue against someone being called Marxist inaccurately. Same thing applies here. MSNBC was defending the 'CRT' that exists in conservative world by pointing out that FoxNews was misrepresenting what CRT is.
As with most multiple choice tests, the goal is to choose the most correct answer even though there might be a plausible argument that more than one could technically be correct. So this exercise isn't as hard as Professor Bernstein makes out.
Moreover, his criticism of the answers consistently take the least charitable view of the actual positions of the theory. Which is the whole point of the survey--people who believe that the lures are true have generally not been given a very accurate impression of what the theory says.
Multiple choice question are often a case of putting yourself in the head of whoever wrote the test. In this case, once you know that the person who wrote the test was defending CRT, you could just pick the answer that makes CRT look as good/innocent as possible, and ace the test without any sweat, just from knowing that it was Critical <Race Theory.
That doesn't mean those would the the accurate answers, just the ones the test writer wanted.
We're at the 'actually it's just as right if I think it's right as the actual right answer' stage of destroying truth and the possibility of verifiable facts.
I don't think Professor Bernstein is making the case that in any of the examples provided the "correct" answer isn't objectively the most correct except maybe in the case of the Marxism question. He's just trying to make the case that there's some plausible basis for (some of) the other answers.
Don't get me wrong: liberals have a lot of dumb ideas, including many about race. But everyone on the right seems to just think "the dumbest idea I can imagine a liberal having about race is what CRT is" which is neither objectively correct or helpful to the conversation.
There is no dumbest idea I can imagine a liberal having about race. The idea space stretches out to infinity, and each dumb idea spawns dumber ones.
Thus proving jb's point.
I could listen to you, or I could trust my own lying eyes and ears.
If this really is how you say, then pray tell where the instructions to "remove whiteness" come from? The training where you must admit your racism? The demand for segregated benefits?
Are these but a few bad apples? Sorry, but they spoil the whole barrel and have clearly become the outspoken face of the CRT movement.
If that's not what you wanted I'm sorry, but you've lost control of your political movement. I would refer you to how Karl Marx himself declared that he was not a Marxist.
Did you ever notice that every "Composite Drawing" of a criminal looks like Jesse Jackson?
I don't seem any Jackson-Netanyahu resemblance.
"I don't seem"??
is that some kind of code that you're getting bu-fooed at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.asp???
Too bad we don't have a leader with Net n' Yahoos Matzo Balls, he orders his Air Force to kill an Iranian General, our POTUS tells the Iranians we didn't do it...
Frank
In which David once again reveals himself to be a bad faith troll embedded within academia. Worse than not understanding CRT, he actively participates in spreading lies about it intended to stoke white grievance. Let’s dig in to his malfeasance! The post is replete, but here’s a typical example:
With regard to "guilty and ashamed," there is a whole line of CRT scholarship, especially in psychology and anthropology, arguing that whites must develop "white racial consciousness" to recognize their privilege, and then become woke based on that recognition. Seems to me one can reasonably interpret this as saying white people should first feel guilty about their privilege, and then ashamed if they aren't using that privilege in anti-racist activism.
No, one cannot reasonably interpret it as saying white people should first feel guilty and then feel ashamed. That’s the whole point of the quiz! It’s telling you that you’ve internalized a partisan anti-CRT talking point. (You should feel guilty and ashamed about that.)
Saying that people must develop “racial consciousness” as part of a solution to racism is like saying that people must develop “fire safety consciousness” as part of a solution to fire safety. It’s just a factual step in a process, not a casting of aspersions. If you have some sort of aversion to knowing about fire safety, like, no one cares. No one’s trying to guilt you into knowing about fire safety.
David’s critique of each question follows this same pattern. He demonstrates a pretty good understanding of CRT, but then goes on to endorse the anti-CRT talking point anyway. That can only be explained as a partisan con. Pretty sick behavior for a professor.
Always great to see a white, male, cranky, fringe right-wing law professor lead, and the downscale fans of a white, male, bigot-embracing blog expand, a discussion of racism in the modern America that these clingers despise.
Carry on, whining, disaffected, white, male clingers.
Came across this. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight
In 1989, as the Soviet empire was crumbling, The New York Times noted an interesting new development: While millions who had lived under the brutal rule of communism for decades were finally throwing off their yoke, Marxist professors were taking over American academia:
As Karl Marx’s ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders. It could be considered a success story for the students of class struggle, who were once regarded as subversives.1
Felicity Barringer, “The Mainstreaming of Marxism in U.S. Colleges,” The New York Times, October 25, 1989
So began the article, which ran under the headline “The Mainstreaming of Marxism in U.S. Colleges.” ...
Indeed, communism’s defeat in the Soviet Union and its captive nations behind the Iron Curtain seemed not to faze the Marxist academics Barringer quoted. “I’m very happy with what’s happening in these countries. I think it’s going to save socialism, rather than kill it,” said John Roemer, professor of economics at the University of California, Davis...
Heritage does some red baiting in 2022, and digs up a single 1989 NYT article to do it.
What an honest broker those Heritage folks are.
Red baiting is good.
Ever notice how the lefyy non-Marxists here always rush to defend Marxism?
No.
Case in point: defending schools against being tarred as Marxist is the opposite of defending Marxism.
Lefty non-Marxists always rush to defend Marxism.
The white, male, right-wing Volokh Conspirators and their white, male, right-wing fans always rush to defend bigots (and, in most cases, are bigots). Racists, misogynists, antisemites, xenophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, white nationalists, white supremacists, Christian dominionists . . . all are welcome, and represented, at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Where is the hope for America?
Wait a minute Bob... Does that mean that any time someone cries foul at comparing Trump to Hitler, they were defending Hitler?
"Heritage does some red baiting in 2022, and digs up a single 1989 NYT article to do it."
You didn't even click the link, did you. Tsk Tsk.
Actually, that was just the beginning of a 17,000+ word article with numerous quotes and 122 (!!) footnotes. Here's a few others just from the NYT.
Samuel J. Abrams, “Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators,” The New York Times, October 16, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/liberal-college-administrators.html (accessed September 15, 2022).
Jason Barker, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” The New York Times, April 30, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html (accessed August 10, 2022).
Here's the summary:
The United States has successfully confronted Marxist attempts to derail it from its historic path of liberty and order. The multifaceted effort to defeat the enemy, generally referred to as the Cold War, concentrated many of the best minds in the country. In 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved, many Americans and others around the globe justifiably believed that communism had been defeated. However, American Marxists, making use of the complacency that victory often produces, have gained more influence than ever before. Cloaking their goals under the pretense of social justice, they now seek to dismantle the foundations of the American republic by rewriting history; reintroducing racism; creating privileged classes; and determining what can be said in public discourse, the military, and houses of worship. Unless Marxist thought is defeated again, today’s cultural Marxists will achieve what the Soviet Union never could: the subjugation of the United States to a totalitarian, soul-destroying ideology.
Unless Marxist thought is defeated again, today’s cultural Marxists will achieve what the Soviet Union never could: the subjugation of the United States to a totalitarian, soul-destroying ideology.
Redbaiting drama that debunks itself.
This is just 'Race Mixing is Communism' with more words.
It is remarkable that the Volokh Conspirators and their followers have managed to get through this much of this exchange debate without publishing at least one vile racial slur.
Prof. Volokh may have been shamed into keeping his trans (anti-trans) fetish to himself lately. Could we see similar improvement at the Volokh Conspiracy with respect to vile racial slurs?
You've admirably demonstrated that you don't know what CRT is either, David. What a load of crap this post is.
Know what CRT is?? I thought it was something made up by "MAGA" supporters?
"Being called racial slurs by other kids at school [correct]"
Most likely by someone of their own race.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of Color-Blind White Males.
(just ask 'em)
Parkinsonian Joe doesn't see Color, only Legal/Illegal
"Laken Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That's right. But how many thousands of people being killed by legals? To her parents, I say, my heart goes out to you, having lost children myself. I understand," Biden said.
Frank
Hm. The National Organization for Women seems to have joined the Anti-Defamation League in the category of advocates whose over-the-top and threatening accusations of racism can only be explained by being fundamentally racist themselves.
Here is some sort of CRT canon. It's your homework, I'll be expecting a full report.
https://bookriot.com/critical-race-theory-books/
I enjoyed the summary that the I’m just an honest broker, “staying in my lane” Education Prof plucked from the ABA :
CRT is not a diversity and inclusion “training” but a practice of interrogating the role of race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship…It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers…CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.
Note the cascade of begged questions, all tucked neatly into one short paragraph :
1. that race is a social construction
2. that racism is institutionalized
3. that there is a racial caste system
4. that is perpetuated by 1 and 2
5. that racism is not a bygone relic of the past
6. that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation
Not a “whether” or “if” in sight. Not even a "how much."
It reminded me of that scene in Planet of the Apes where the prosecuting ape grills Charlton Heston on ape-ish scripture, to prove that humans can't think.
I feel sure that if I bothered to dig into her reading list, I could get up to a full Thirty Nine Articles by the end of the afternoon.
This reminds me of similar studies on climate change, where they deliberately scrambled “knowledge” with “agreement with conclusions”.
When you define all disagreement as ignorance or evil, it's no wonder you see that only smart and good people agree with you.
It’s fun watching people like Ben justify their ignorance. Are you an out-and-proud flat-earther, Ben?
At least I know that ad-hominem is a falacy.
When we are determining the fate of billions, including supressing economic development in the third world for the sake of the environment, is it too much to ask that computer modeling be looked at critically? But that's neither here nor there.
I do find it odd how quickly and vindictively so many new accounts were created just for this post. All of which ignore the main point, that the quiz directly and deliberately mixed the topics of agreement and understanding. After all, we know very well that this is a political subject, and framing means everything.
At least I know that ad-hominem is a falacy.
A what now?
is it too much to ask that computer modeling be looked at critically?
At least you know one thing: how to build strawmen.
A new academic study by Brianna Richmond, et al., purports to show that opposition to Critical Race Theory is correlated with ignorance of CRT.
It's worth noting, en passant, that such a showing, even in a properly designed study :
(a) would not be remotely surprising, and
(b) would tell us precisely nothing about whether CRT is intellectually solid or flimsy.
Consider a population of 300 million people, of whom 6 million have a reasonable understanding of the content of creationism. The vast majority of these would be pro-creationism - why else spend any time and effort at all trying to find out about it ?
Only a small minority of those who had expended any effort to understand it would be likely to be hostile - those who were sufficiently annoyed by it to bother with trying to debunk it.
Thus amongst those who knew something about it, we might find over 99% in favor. But virtually none of the 294 million who knew nothing about it, would be likely to be in favor of it - else they would have spent a bit of time on it.
Thus the statistics would show a correlation between ignorance and hostility, and between knowledge and support.
But obviously that would not demonstrate that the odds were in favor of creationism being right. It might well be that the 10,000 critics who had bothered to learn enough to debunk it actually knew way more about it than the 5.99 million who understood it and approved of it.
So quite apart from this CRT study being decidedly flimsy, even if it were not flimsy, it would tell us nothing about whether CRT has any intellectual value.
Consider a population of 300 million people, of whom 6 million have a reasonable understanding of the content of creationism.
This is a poor example. As something studied in academic settings, CRT has a record of academic writing by people with relevant expertise to read that someone interested to learn about it could search out.
Creationism is defined by "God did it." To learn about the various flavors of creationism, one reads religious texts, religious apologia, and religiously motivated attacks on the scientific theory of evolution written by non-biologists. Also, since "God did it" is entirely sufficient to qualify as creationism, the different texts that attempt to support creationism have no need to address each other. They only will if doing so suits the specifics of their own arguments. They will completely ignore anything contradictory at all. Therefore, someone that is pro-creationism from the start only needs to learn as much as they need to gain a sense of superiority over 'evolutionists'. In fact, simply knowing the story of the Garden of Eden and The Flood might be enough for many of the fundamentalist devout to agree fully with creationism. Knowing a few of the cliche arguments creationists use against evolution wouldn't go far at all to developing knowledge of creationism in any meaningful sense.
I get that you find CRT more convincing than creationism.
But you make no point in contradiction of my statistical or psychological points. Any political (including religious) theory will be understood by more of its adherents than its detractors, for the simple reason that people tend to gravitate, with their time, towards things they find attractive and away from things they find repulsive. Spending time on what you regard as tedious nonsense requires a real effort of will.
Thus any correlation between ignorance and rejection of such a theory is entirely to be expected, and not in any way predictive of the value of the theory.
The value of such theories is demonstrated by analysing them logically by reference to evidence, not by opinion polling.
The correlation is highly negative. CRT is based directly on the assumption that black people who suffer economic failure did not behave in ways that earned it. It doesn’t take academic credentials to know by experience that most of them did and still do.
Bernstein's article is a waste of space because it unjustifiably assumes non-malice on the part of the elitist gimme-ists who pulled CRT out of their backsides.