Why We Need to Speak Up, Rather than Coddling the Illiberals

There's a big argument raging about what to call this thing. I refer to it as Critical Race Theory because these teachings have their roots in CRT, even  though these teaching have morphed into what we are currently seeing in many classroom.  Whatever you call it, you can find it in all these places. 

Are there other things to be wary of? Absolutely. Climate issues, current and future pandemics, the false narratives of the far right.  Many of these discussions are unproductive for the same reason that we can't discuss CRT: because we can't even agree on the basic facts.  I'm not in the mood for what-about-ism at the moment, because unapologetic woke struggle sessions now inhabit many of our once-schools and universities. Why do I keep "obsessing" about this trend? Because unquestionable facts (e.g., the biological fact that there are two--and only two-sexes) mean nothing to many of those who lead these sessions. They proclaim that striving for excellent and reaping the rewards of hard work is inappropriate.

On racial issues, the leaders of these sessions are smearing the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. When I read their words, I imagine these loud and rude Wokesters throwing rotten fruit or rocks at MLK and jeering him. They claim to be leading a new improved Civil Rights Movement, but they are reversing the gains of the past 60 years. They call it progress when they go into third grade classrooms, dividing the children by color and sow lifetime seeds of suspicion and distrust when they tell the "white" children that they are oppressors of the "black" children. These kids should be freely playing with each other at recess, but now they are being told to fear each other. Further, the "black" children are being fed huge doses of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yet social media bristles with accusations that to have these concerns makes one a "conservative" or a "Republican" and that people like me are paranoid because the new syllabus merely teaches "racial history," as though previous generations of children have not been taught about racial history.

Hell, yes, I'm concerned. And I will keep speaking out as long as larges swathes of social media are motivated to get the facts wrong. I feel the moral imperative to be, if necessary, the only one in the large room to speak up.

Continue ReadingWhy We Need to Speak Up, Rather than Coddling the Illiberals

Don’t Get Lured Off the Trail by Hyper-Technical Definitions of “Critical Race Theory”

It's a mistake to argue whether the poisonous divisive and dishonest ideas being preached in many schools is "Critical Race Theory" (even though it is clear that much of it is very much like CRT). Instead, look at the types of things that are being taught in many schools, things that sound so much like CRT that they are reasonably being referred to as a modern version of CRT. Then simply ask yourself whether it is a good thing to preach this sort of divisive and dishonest drivel to children and teenagers. Just point to the things that are being embraced by schools, such as the recent episode at Julliard, and then ask yourself whether good, healthy school environments like this lead to human flourishing. That avoids intentional obfuscation such as this disingenuous conversation by Joy Reid and Ibram X. Kendi (as pointed out by Wokal Distance).

Continue ReadingDon’t Get Lured Off the Trail by Hyper-Technical Definitions of “Critical Race Theory”

Wide Open Classroom Discussion

A professor at Duke has convinced his students to open up classroom discussions. The project could not happen in the absence of trust. An excerpt from the WSJ:

To get students to stop self-censoring, a few agreed-on classroom principles are necessary. On the first day, I tell students that no one will be canceled, meaning no social or professional penalties for students resulting from things they say inside the class. If you believe in policing your fellow students, I say, you’re in the wrong room. I insist that goodwill should always be assumed, and that all opinions can be voiced, provided they are offered in the spirit of humility and charity. I give students a chance to talk about the fact that they can no longer talk. I let them share their anxieties about being socially or professionally penalized for dissenting. What students discover is that they are not alone in their misgivings.

Having now run the experiment with 300 undergraduates, I no longer wonder what would happen if students felt safe enough to come out of their shells. They flourish. In one class, my students had a serious but respectful discussion of critical race theory. Some thought it harmfully implied that blacks can’t get ahead on their own. Others pushed back.

My students had an honest conversation about race, but only because they had earned each other’s trust by making themselves vulnerable. On a different day, they spoke up for all positions on abortion. When a liberal student mentioned this to a friend outside class, she was met with disbelief.

Continue ReadingWide Open Classroom Discussion

What is “Critical Race Theory”?

Andrew Sullivan keeps noticing the sterilzed version of CRT that the woke-permeated legacy media is promoting.  They often refer to CRT as "teaching history. They can't see it accurately because they don't want to see how CRT plays out in classrooms. Sullivan's article is titled "Don't Ban CRT. Expose It: There's a liberal way to fight illiberalism. And it's beginning to work." Here is an excerpt:

The stories in the mainstream media this past week about the broadening campaign to ban critical race theory in public schools have been fascinating — and particularly in how they describe what CRT is. Here’s the Atlantic’s benign summary of CRT: “recent reexaminations of the role that slavery and segregation have played in American history and the attempts to redress those historical offenses.” NBC News calls it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.” NPR calls CRT: “teaching about the effects of racism.” The New York Times calls it, with a straight face, “classroom discussion of race, racism” and goes on to describe it as a “framework used to look at how racism is woven into seemingly neutral laws and institutions.”

How on earth could merely teaching students about the history of racism and its pervasiveness in the United States provoke such a fuss? No wonder Charles Blow is mystified. But don’t worry. The MSM have a ready explanation: the GOP needs an inflammatory issue to rile their racist base, and so this entire foofaraw is really just an astro-turfed, ginned-up partisan gambit about nothing. The MSM get particular pleasure in ridiculing parents who use the term “critical race theory” as shorthand for things that just, well, make them uncomfortable — when the parents obviously have no idea what CRT really is.

I highly recommend a full read of Sullivan's article. He offers many useful links along the way.

[Added 6/23/2021 - 9 pm CT]

What is CRT? Daily Wire offers this description, which comports with my understanding:

Critical race theory, of course, is not America’s actual history. It is a perverse worldview, unsupportable by the evidence, in which all of America’s key institutions are inextricably rooted in white supremacy; it is an activist campaign demanding the destruction of those institutions. The founders of CRT have written as much. According to CRT founders Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, CRT is founded on two key premises: that “racism is ordinary, not aberrational — ‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country”; second, that “our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.” This means, according to Delgado and Stefancic, that “racism is difficult to cure or address” and that a formal commitment to legal equality on the basis of color-blindness is merely a guise for further discrimination. Furthermore, CRT founders say that whites are unable to understand racism, and that “minority status … brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism.”

CRT therefore holds that racism is embedded deeply in American life, unconsciously into white American psyches, and that it is impossible for white Americans to understand their own racism or that of the system, let alone to remove it. The only solution: tearing away the only systems that have ever provided widespread liberty and prosperity. As fellow CRT founder Derrick Bell wrote, “The whole liberal worldview of private rights and public sovereignty mediated by the rule of law needed to be exploded.”

Are many schools pummeling their students with Critical Race Theory? They are, which is causing many schools to come under increasing scrutiny. As of late, many woke institutions have started claiming that schools are merely teaching "race history," and that those who are appalled by what is going on in many American schools don't understand what Critical Race Theory is. To that, I offer the following: A) I invite readers to check out the leaked teaching materials and first-hand accounts from many schools; and B) Consider that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  I strongly oppose CRT for many reasons, especially these three:

Question: Is Critical Race Theory racist?

Answer: Yes.

Critical Race Theory begins by asserting the importance of social significance of racial categories, rejecting colorblindness, equality, and neutrality, and advocating for discrimination meant to “level the playing field.” These things lead it to reproduce and enact racism in practice. It also explicitly says that all white people are either racist or complicit in the system of racism (so, racist) by virtue of benefiting from privileges that they cannot renounce.

. . .

Question: Does Critical Race Theory advance the vision and activism of the Civil Rights Movement?

Answer: No.

Critical Race Theory refers to that vision as “traditional approaches to civil rights” and calls it into question. The Civil Rights Movement called for living up to the foundational promises of the United States (and other free nations) and incrementally changing the system so that those original ideals were met. Critical Race Theory rejects incrementalism in favor of revolution. It rejects the existing system and demands replacing it with its own. It rejects the liberal order and all that goes with it as being part of the system which must be dismantled and replaced. It is therefore fundamentally different than the Civil Rights Movement (and is explicitly anti-liberal and anti-equality).

. . .

Question: Does Critical Race Theory say that all white people are racist?

Answer: Yes.

More specifically, Critical Race Theory says that all white people are either racist or that they are complicit in a “system of racism” (so, racist) that they wittingly or unwittingly uphold to their own benefit unless they are “actively antiracist” (and usually even then). Those benefits of “whiteness” are labeled “white privilege” in general and are said to be outside of the scope of things that white people can intentionally renounce. The most they can do is “strive to be less white” and to become aware of and condemn “whiteness” as a system.

With regard to Reason #2, "The Woke Temple" coarsely (but accurately) describes it:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWhat is “Critical Race Theory”?