As one that has called himself a critical race scholar decades before it was the ire conservatives, instead of the subject of scorn, such a label is in fact a badge of honor. Indeed, the slew of baseless attacks on CRT should be laughable, if they were not so dangerous. I suspect, or shall I say dread, we will soon learn of a CRT scholar personally attacked by some ill-informed yet headline-focused politician. What I find humorous is the narrative that CRT being used to indoctrinate "our children." Hmmm???? CRT is taught in law school seminars and perhaps some other upper-level graduate school classes or maybe an upper-level seminar at certain universities (I have not found any such course at the undergraduate level, but I add the possibility here out of an excess of caution). The attacks on CRT, like the one in my home state of Florida, which bans CRT being taught in K-12 is powerful tool to silence accurate teaching of history, and is in fact what conservatives believe will be a battle cry for the next election cycle (facts be damned), especially when one realizes CRT is NOT taught in K-12 classes.
It's ironic that those that champion liberty and freedom, often while hugging the flag, are attempting to, through misguided and inaccurate claims, ban freedom of thought, debate, and intellectual engagement. Unlike the portrayals by those who appear to be ramping up their presidential bids, it is not a basic tenet of CRT to hate anyone or group of people, despite Ted Cruz's claims to the contrary. Simply put, CRT is anti-subordination scholarly movement that seeks to address history in an accurate and honest fashion. Specifically, CRT seeks to expose the impact of structural racism throughout this country's past, by examining, among others, events such as slavery, Japanese internment, and more recently Family Separation.
In a recent powerful essay in the Salon entitled, Fighting Back Against the Age of Manufactured Ignorance: Resistance Is Still Possible, Henry Giroux forcefully argues for the need to challenge the attacks against CRT. In one of his more poignant observations, Giroux states, " [i]n this updated version of historical and racial cleansing, the call for racial justice is equated to a form of racial hatred, leaving intact the refusal to acknowledge, condemn and confront in the public imagination the history and tenacity of racism in American society." Ultimately, Giroux, unlike those using their attacks to frame themselves as some sort of thought police, accurately describes "[t]he underlying message of CRT is to dismantle forms of structural racism in order to create a more fair and just society." He further observes, CRT is far from an effort to teach that "America is systemically evil and that the hearts of our people are full of hatred and malice." In that light, one should unquestionably be proud to be a CRT scholar–a title perhaps some only feel they merit after writing dozens of law review articles and several books. Yes, it is possible to be a CRT scholar and passionately love this country, serve it, and even find systems like socialism and communism to be historical failures. One is not unpatriotic by addressing and teaching history accurately. Indeed, as James Baldwin observed, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” While some like myself might temper the point with respect to "perpetually," isn't that the point and power of CRT—not all that examine history must agree—much like Ted Cruz and Liz Cheney assuredly differ a great deal–is one of them thus un-American?
Another important display of the a defense of CRT is worth mentioning: a podcast by the Federalist Society featured a host of CRT detractors and one defender: Professor Daria Roithmayr. For those interested in the CRT debate, this podcast is a must-listen-to event: worth every second. Despite the lopsided numbers, I won't assert Professor Roithmayr wiped the floor with the baseless attacks and characterizations of CRT—oh heck, why change now, of course I am going to say it: she crushed them! By the way, Dan Rodriguez, a self-described federalist, did a fine job as well. Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast–incredibly informative and an utterly masterful display of advocacy by Professor Roithmayr.
One point of contention: why is it that the bulk the characterizations both against and for a movement created by scholars of color are made by those that are not "of color." I have read dozens of attacks on CRT by white men, or at least those that seem to characterize themselves as white. But somewhat surprisingly, most of the defenses of CRT I have read are written by those that are not one of its founders? Why do we not hear more from a CRT founder like Richard Delgado, the legal academy's most prolific scholar (a fact I point out to my students every semester, and a statement that is met with looks of surprise by many of my students, with a few displaying pride upon hearing his last name). Why do we not have leading talk shows and news programs that discuss CRT seek guidance from Kimberle Crenshaw, another CRT founder and developer of a staple of legal and political discourse: interest convergence theory? I am certain Crenshaw and Delgado could do a much better job than my defense here (though I thank Richard Delgado for referring several international reporters to me. I have tried mightily, though likely unpersuasively, to channel them when taking these interviews). When asked about CRT, I often respond by asking the reporters: how often do you recall learning of Japanese internment while growing up? How about the family separation of indigenous children? Or century-long struggle for women's suffrage? These are all CRT efforts: to educate us about our past, not only to avoid repeating its wrongs, but also to not silence important parts of our history with a specific goal towards making us a more just society. Alas, another indispensable value of diversity.
Maybe the problem some people have with CRT is that CRT scholars try to push theories on students and employees that are not only unproven, but scientifically disputed.
1. Implicit Association Test (IAT)
Law Professor Brian Leiter, “It doesn't measure implicit bias, and what it does measure doesn't correlate with discriminatory behavior. It's now well past the point where philosophers should be embarrassed to still be trafficking in this pseudo-science.” Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog
Adam Lamparello, The Flaws of Implicit Bias and the Need for Empirical Research in Legal Scholarship and Legal Education. (SSRN 2020).
“Implicit bias theory, particularly regarding its purported relationship to biased behavior, is utter nonsense. And there is scientific proof.”
"Recent empirical studies by social psychologists strongly suggest that implicit bias is not predictive of biased behavior. As discussed in more detail below, the science regarding implicit bias’s connection to biased behavior is so flawed that social psychologists doubt its validity and question the utility of policies that attempt to link implicit bias to biased behavior. You wouldn’t know this from reading the many law review articles concerning implicit bias or from the orientation sessions where law students are taught to believe that implicit bias is the sine qua non of biased behavior.”
2. Microaggressions
Edward Cantu (Legal Scholar) & Lee Jussim (Social Psychologist), Microaggressions, Questionable Science, and Free Speech, SSRN. 2021.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3822628
“One risk is that, after some claim becomes a popular research topic in another field, but before research establishes that claim as valid, it will take off like wildfire in legal scholarship without sufficient gatekeeping. This is what has happened with microaggressions: educators, scholars, and administrators have accepted the CMC as valid even though psychologists have not established its scientific legitimacy.”
3. See also https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/2021/june-2021/june-21-comment-scott-fruehwald.pdf
Scott, not to be too flippant, but lighten up, Francis.
I get that there are many points of view on the appropriateness and effectiveness of things like implicit bias training, implicit association testing, diversity trainings, and the like, and I get that conversations about microaggressions often abuse the terminology and oversell the point, but…what are you even talking about? This stuff doesn't suggest anything about what our kids are being taught in school nor the merits of either side of the "debate" our society is supposedly having on CRT at the moment.
I mean, when was the last time you looked at a high school history book or spoke with a teacher? I might critique a high school history curriculum for offering a sanitized version of our country's history, or for glossing over important topics or major events too quickly, or for requiring too much memorization and too little reasoning and writing. But…CRT? In schools?
To be honest, I think you are coming off as very…I don't know, overcredulous? Do you really, truly believe that even an outlier high school history teacher has the time, much less the desire, to even lightly touch on CRT? And unless there's a subset of teachers out there who have some kind of weird fetish for getting hassled by angry parents, I would think it's especially unlikely to happen in our current political environment. Still, even assuming that some number of teachers out there are incorporating CRT into their curriculum (again, they aren't), would it *really* be such a bad thing for some kids to hear about it?
I guess the point of my confused rambling is that our current societal debate on this issue is entirely transparent nonsense. I know that a variety of grifters out there are selling a wEiRd, ScArY version of CRT that teaches all the white kids that they are bad and should feel bad, or something, but you are aware that these guys are just making things up right? Anyway, dollars to doughnuts, you won't hear anything about CRT on the news in 2-3 months when the right-wing podcasters, grifters, and Koch think tank guys decide on a new boogeyman. Your mileage may vary depending on your preferred media, but I give it 6 months max.
And, sure, I'll allow that there is probably some legitimate CRT scholar somewhere trying to push bad corporate diversity trainings on people or get some version of CRT incorporated into some curriculum somewhere — but I would hardly attribute that sort of thing to CRT scholars in general. And more broadly, I just can't convince myself that it's at all a big deal.
Dear Scot and Robert–interesting and provocative observations. Scot, obviously, you and I differ. However, your quotes suffer from the exact purported problem you assert is evidently a failure of CRT. You use quotes to somehow prove the purported failed impact of implicit bias — do quotes made in absolute terms end all debate? Further, your arguments evidently made to prove the shortcomings of CRT utterly fail to address the issue I addressed in my original post–the attack on CRT made by politicians purportedly for the purpose of "saving our children." Perhaps on another day? Though I agree, more research is perhaps warranted. Similarly, your quote regarding microaggressions simply claim some observers differ, without much more– I say, well okay, we differ. I do also note, you look to fairly specific topics raised by some CRT scholars in an effort to dismantle the entire edifice–I suspect few people of color would so easily reject the notion of microaggressions. Then again, I love your enthusiasm, especially at this late hour—let's debate the value of CRT one day? I am game.
Robert, powerful response. I could not agree more. That reference of "transparent nonsense," just killed it. Sorry for my own rambling, but reading that turn of phrase at 5:00 a,m., made me smile.
Thanks to Ediberto Roman for this excellent post. One small correction–Kimberle Crenshaw has mounted a very effective counteroffensive recently. See her Nation Podcast, her various op-eds and radio shows, and a range of other interventions. Others in the original founding generation like Gary Peller, Kendall Thomas and Patricia Williams have also been quite aggressive in defense. But as many scholars have acknowledged, the attack on CRT is an attack on anything that focuses a lens on persistent, systemic, historical racism. So the counterattack has been joined more broadly by a wonderful group of historians as well, including my own colleague Ariela Gross, and a wide range of scholars in many diverse disciplines as well. Last but not least, for a more in-depth exploration of CRT, some might find helpful my syllabus on the subject, located here http://www.dariaroithmayr.com/pdfs/Syllabus-for-CRT-USC.pdf.
"Though I agree, more research is perhaps warranted." There has been a mountain of research on implicit bias theory, microaggression theory, anti-racism, and pervasive white supremacy. There is as much scientific support for and evidence supporting implicit bias theory, microaggression theory, anti-racism, and pervasive white supremacy as there is supporting the earth-centered theory of the universe, creationism, social Darwinism, and alchemy. I spend 10 pages listing the cognitive science, social science, and other authorities refuting these theories at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/2021/june-2021/june-21-comment-scott-fruehwald.pdf.
And, please get my name right.
Thanks for the most excellent post, Ediberto. Just a small note–let me point out that Kimberle Crenshaw has mounted quite an aggressive counterattack in the last few weeks. Check out her podcast in The Nation, her Washington Post Op-Ed, her MSNBC appearance and lots of other interventions. Same goes for Kendall Thomas and Pat Williams and other members of the original founding generation. Also in the fight are historians, sociologists, high school educators and others who recognize that the critics are attacking anything that discusses the country's struggle with persistent racism. It's important to note that the critique need not be right or even comprehensible for it to succeed–as has happened many times before, this is backlash to what many whites perceive to be recent gains for people of color in general, and African-Americans in particular. More importantly, the attack is a strategy that the GOP hopes to ride to a mid-term victory. That being said, for a deeper exploration of CRT, some might find my syllabus helpful: http://www.dariaroithmayr.com/pdfs/Syllabus-for-CRT-USC.pdf
Also, The National Education Association has come out in favor of teaching CRT. "In a weekend decision, the NEA approved a plan to 'publicize' CRT and provide resources to fight back against those speaking out against it. The union went so far as to call the divisive ideology 'reasonable and appropriate' for young students."
I'd be potentially more persuaded by Ediberto's defense if he would address the relationship (or lack of one) between CRT and what those on the right (and some on the center) are really reacting to, which is generally not the law-review version of CRT, but the intellectually vapid and, to many, offensive and dangerous (bastardizations of CRT?) that one finds in the works of (self-enriching charlatans?) like Kendi or DiAngelo, or in the propagandistic DEI "trainings" that many of use are increasingly subjected to–hardly a forum for honest debate about controversial, complex issues–or in DEI-related artifacts, such as the rightly infamous Smithsonian guide to whiteness and white culture. I think that if CRT scholars want to claim intellectual respectability, they need to stand up *against* the popular manifestation of (something like CRT?) that seems to be sweeping the country and which is certainly *not* simply a "scholarly movement that seeks to address history in an accurate and honest fashion."
Ediberto's position seems to be–hey, that crazy stuff isn't CRT, don't blame us! But I suspect that CR theorists are very happy to have the crazy stuff shoved down our throats while maintaining, strategically (and dishonestly?), a lack of ownership or interest.
"Simply put, CRT is anti-subordination scholarly movement that seeks to address history in an accurate and honest fashion. Specifically, CRT seeks to expose the impact of structural racism throughout this country's past, by examining, among others, events such as slavery, Japanese internment, and more recently Family Separation."
Except it doesn't aim for honesty or accuracy, otherwise the reasons it offers for race essentialism as a key conceptual lens would be far more qualified. You know who can be counted amongst CRT's most visceral opponents? Unreconstructed Marxists. And rightfully so. Case in point: your family separation example.
If America needs CRT at all, it's because of this: to hear from First Nations/Indigenous voices, to ask WHY the F#$K millions of South Americans, East Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, and others moved to a white settler colony established upon their land. Why these "minority" Americans believe that (1) further diversifying the settler colony class and/or (2) socializing the means of production and exchange will legitimize their even DWELLING upon the land in the first place, let alone that such actions might improve the legitimacy of the settler colonial legal systems and procedures (municipal, state, and federal). That YOUR property deed will somehow be any less of the instantiation of racist colonial law that says it's your land and not that of the Cree, the Iroquois, etc, because the correct critical mass of non-white and non-heterosexual and non-cisgendered folks sit in the legislature and make up the electoral district.
AND WHEN you "progressive" American bozos appeal to the need to live together in harmony, to grow as a community, or to be "truly progressive", or any such other bullshit rationalizations or vacuous claims to try to legitimize your staying put and not fucking off back to the lands of your ancestors, pray realize that you're ultimately just appealing to the same "legal liberalism" quackery that CLT and CRT claim to disavow and transcend, and NOT some communitarian, post-national alternative – one you'd have to have the competency to construct out of cloth anyway. (Of course, who am I to belittle your HLS JDs, two years at a white shoe firm, and federal clerkship training for this grandiose project).
Moreover, your average American whitey is beginning to realize two things. First, she's at the intersection of reviled race and a downward trending socio-economic group. Second, that most of America's minority groups moved to a new country/continent blanketed by a whitey-created legal, economic, and social system, one that was predicated upon land theft and African slave labour, and that those peoples nevertheless moved there PRECISELY in order to make a better life for themselves, i.e., WITHIN the system whitey created. That is to say, when the average whitey liberals, social democrats, libertarians, and conservatives embrace CRT for themselves, you are all in some very, very deep shit. (Your "progressive" media and Blue Team are doing their utmost presently to push them in that direction, in case you haven't noticed).
America is falling into a tribal bog from which you will never recover, which you will not overcome. It is a maelstrom entirely of your own making.
And when you blame Bush, or Trump, or Reagan, ask yourselves whether a Eugene Debs would have dumped millions of poor people into America.
Scott, life is too short to be so angry. Let's chat in person if you need to vent so vehemently. I am sure we can debate the matter civilly, or at least I am sure your tone will change. By the way, in the first sentence to your first comment you state the theory is unproven–that was the reason for my effort to be polite and support what appeared to be a call for further debate and inquiry—I was being kind, despite the tone of your most recent comment. Your efforts to equate CRT with alchemy and other theories you list is not only arrogant and imperial, it's speaks to your bias. Despite your indignation and cites, you utterly failed to contest the point of my original post—CRT is not threatening "our kids."
Jason, you attempt to twist CRT by equating it to "propagandistic DEI 'trainings.'" That is not CRT. CRT is a scholarly movement that examines structural discrimination by examining historical examples of that discrimination. Such examinations were too often absent from our collective psyche prior to the movement. Your suggestion that CRT is "sweeping the nation" is just silly. CRT has been around been around since the late 1980s, and having it taught in law school seminars is a far cry from sweeping the nation, as you inaccurately posit. As I point out in my original post, what is, if anything, sweeping the nation is another trumped-up conservative effort to promote hysteria in order to appeal to the masses over the threat of their new brown scapegoat.
I am not angry, and please don't try to characterize my tone. I am simply stating what cognitive scientists, social scientists, and other experts have demonstrated. If you can show why the science is wrong, please do so.
"As I point out in my original post, what is, if anything, sweeping the nation is another trumped-up conservative effort to promote hysteria in order to appeal to the masses over the threat of their new brown scapegoat."
No. The GOP – who have lost, or are losing, their own base – see the country coming apart at the seams and don't know what to do about it. They, and not the base, are generally committed to legal liberalism. (This isn't at all to claim that they have a principled commitment to free speech, freedom of association, etc.). But thanks for yet another example of how CRT advocates themselves engage in both mystification and vilification. It MUST be an example of "brown scapegoating"…
I am not your subordinate that needs to complete a research assignment. In terms of what "experts have demonstrated," your research is far from definitive or exhaustive. Instead, let's frame a debate in person or in writing, and we can address the matter. Furthermore, I can and will characterize your tone if I deem it appropriate. I thus continue to say: Why you so angry? Go ahead, have the last word—I know you need it.
Bare conclusions are meaningless. Show me how my "research is far from definitive or exhaustive."
Ediberto, I appreciate the post. I am curious what you think of Scott's point that the NEA has said CRT is 'reasonable and appropriate' for young students. That seems to indicate it could affect younger kids.
Also, what do you think of this? https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1407372370814279683?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1407372370814279683%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2021%2F06%2F23%2Fnew-video-shows-university-of-oklahoma-faculty-teaching-how-to-silence-and-punish-problematic-conservatives%2F
No assignments from me! I was just genuinely curious about your thoughts. But of course I realize you have a life and may not want to respond to random anonymous qs!
It always seemed to me that CRT was a form of legal realism: examining the biases and prejudices that might have influenced holdings in cases that purportedly turned only on the facts and law. Ok, that's a worthy effort. I have read this work with great interest.
It is a cheap and superficial argument, in my view, to assert that CRT "explains" something like internment camps. In that instance, there is nothing to "uncover" — such cases turned on explicit and declared prejudices and it doesn't take a CRT scholar to lecture us to learn that sort of obvious point.
What is a issue here, I think, is that tiny but overly influential group of radical thinkers in this country, hard at work and devoted to a project to tear apart the foundations of belief in American ideals (never realized and always aspirational, but real nonetheless). If you argue this point, you are likely a part of this group. CRT is being weaponized, like other perfectly valid observations, to serve a cause. That cause, to the vast majority, is repugnant, but, if all you consume of left wing news sources, you might think otherwise.
Ediberto, you are a scholar of colonialism. That is, what you repeatedly label American colonialism: "the second-class citizen status of millions living on … territories … compared with American legal rhetoric concerning citizenship and its precepts of equality and justice." So, apparently, you think of the US as one really terrible colonial power in the world. Amazingly, you have written about the "United States's Colonization of Puerto Rico" without any apparent sense of cognitive dissonance.
Should you devote as much time and energy, or ANY time and energy, exposing the effects of Spanish colonization in this hemisphere? Or, are you just using your research to demonize what you have called, recently in these pages, "gringos" and "anglos"? (Ok, I get it, Ediberto, it was a burden being around these people in your privileged, private school, because they couldn't dance and all the rest of the dirt you flung at them.)
The point is that some scholars can use their talents to promote knowledge and understanding; some use their talents to sow doubt and discord to serve causes (usually, to seize power from others).
What do you want your efforts as a scholar to accomplish?
And, btw, I didn't see anything that Scott said to provoke your response.
Thanks to Ediberto Roman for a most excellent post. I would only note that Kim Crenshaw and others have been aggressively calling out the attacks on CRT for what they are–backlash–in the Washington Post, The Nation, MSNBC and other outlets.
A couple of additional points to make. First, in whatever way the ideas might get translated by DEI practitioners (and one has to question the practice of conflating the ideas with a translation by third-party consultants), the broader target of the anti-CRT backlash is clear: any discussion of the country's sordid racial history that moves past some intentional individualist description of racism to identify persistent structural and institutional issues. One need only look at the legislation to identify that the target isn't critical race theory per se, or even the consultant's version of it, but rather ideas about the path-dependent persistent effects of things like slavery and Jim Crow. This targeting of such ideas constitutes a backlash against perceived gains by people of color in the wake of the political developments that began last summer.
Second, I find it amusing that a commenter above indicts us CRT theorists because he suspects we are happy to have the consultant's version of CRT on offer for training programs. Besides being a very strange guilt-by-speculative-association, I think this comment concedes that the consultants' version is quite different from the theorists' version, as my debate presentation for the Federalist Society makes clear. TBH, I'd be happier if people hired me to present the CRT critique, not least because I'd love to get consultant fees! 😉 But again, the target isn't the consultant's version of CRT; the target is a broader discussion of persistent racism and its link to our racial past.
That this is the actual target becomes clear when we wade through the squawking about the NEA's resolution. Here's what the resolution actually supports: the "honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society." And the NEA thinks its reasonable that the curriculum "be informed" by a range of frameworks for understanding the persistent impact of these events on our current social landscape. Including but not limited to CRT. A far cry from the descriptions of a "must teach the kids CRT" program circulating on FOX News and the NY Post. But I find it quite illuminating that the critics vehemently object to the NEA's resolution to provide students with an accurate and unpleasant account of our racial history.
Last but not least, I find it highly amusing (and I think Brian would too) that Brian Leiter, a legal philosopher, is being cited as the primary source for casting doubt on implicit bias. To be sure, there are very legitimate and valid questions about implicit bias, acknowledged by the experts on implicit bias themselves, which any responsible discussion of the concept would do well to rehearse (as I do in my CRT class). But Brian Leiter is not the author of those critiques. He's a philosopher. Citing to Brian on implicit bias makes about as much sense as citing to third-party consultants and the least accurate among them for an understanding of CRT. If you are interested in what CRT actually is about, some of you might find helpful my syllabus on the subject: http://www.dariaroithmayr.com/pdfs/Syllabus-for-CRT-USC.pdf.
Daria,
Here is the full NEA Resolution https://web.archive.org/web/20210705234008/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/:
The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:
A. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) — what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.
B. Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.
C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.
D. Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression. Followed by one day of action that recognize and honor lives taken such as Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and others. The National Education Association shall publicize these National Days of Action to all its members, including in NEA Today.
E. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.
F. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.
Also, Brian Leiter is not the only person I cited on implicit bias theory. See https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/2021/june-2021/june-21-comment-scott-fruehwald.pdf
What's missing in all this back-and-forth is the fact that these stupid anti-CRT laws are themselves un-American and probably unconstitutional….
Anonprof101–Scott's NEA point is his best. I need to examine that matter before addressing it. Of course, I will read your citation, as I typically do—but note your request with that of others. Will happily address your citation and arguments–just need some time.
Anon, I am glad you have read some of my work–not all though. I do not simply attack U.S. colonialism. I explore a colonial venture that was largely untouched in law courses, including foundational courses such as constitutional law. While I enjoyed your reference to cognitive dissonance reference, We of course differ–if you read my books and articles on colonialism, I am critical of not only the U.S., but other colonial motherlands. Further, I am actually harsh on my fellow Puerto Rican people for their complicity in the land's colonial stalemate. In the end, you miss my point, and that of many other CRT scholars, if you believe addressing matters not fully previously, or perhaps not accurately explored, are made to promote discord. In my case, the opposite is the case. I seek to expose matters too often are dismissed as not U.S. issues or matters that are about "those people." I nonetheless am pleased my post promoted debate and strong reactions–as I told a friend (he's conservative, by the way), I always enjoy engagement. Happy to address these matters in a formal setting in op-eds, in-person debates, or articles. Not to promote anger or discord, but hopefully understanding and respect.
BTW, I of course differ with you about what Scott said–but that too is okay.
Ediberto
Thanks for your response, but, so unfortunately, it is rather typical that you don't apologize for your slinging derogatory ethnic slurs at others: and, no, it is not ok because you used some of those slurs to refer to people you love.
In a recent post, in addition to referring to people as "anglos" and "gringos" you stated: " “Caribbean people have no reservation with embracing emotions, a character-trait I still struggle with in the Anglo-world of U.S. legal academia.” In other words, "anglos" have no ability to embrace emotions? "they" just are not quite as noble and praiseworthy, right?
How is that we have come to a place where a person feels free to explicitly generalize and put other people down like this, on the basis of race and ethnicity, in a public forum, and then pontificate about "implicit bias"? Bizarre. I was intending to respond when you posted those slurs, but, you were commenting on a subject that was controversial for other reasons.
As for your scholarship concerning "US colonial policies," I fear that you are missing the point about cognitive dissonance.
How much have you studied and written about the the “most reprehensible atrocities” committed after Spanish conquistadors arrived in Mexico in 1521, as Lopez Obrador wrote to Pope Francis demanding an apology? What is the legacy of Spanish colonial policies, e.g., the encomienda system? You seem very ready to blame the "anglos" … Really, sort of ridiculously narrow focus, no?
And, Ediberto, you missed the most important point of all. We don't need CRT theorist to "uncover" the patent, overt racism that thread thru the history of the US. There is nothing wrong with learning about American history, which includes plenty of material for study and plenty of room for constant effort to improve.
But, this study and discussion must also include learning about the efforts over so many centuries of so many good people literally willing to die for the right of others to be free. What people find so offensive about the bigots and racists in the CRT movement (not all, of course, but the vanguard, clearly) is that they pick and choose like lawyers, intending to demonize others.
This is a recipe for endless hostility. I say again: some scholars can use their talents to promote knowledge and understanding; some use their talents to sow doubt and discord to serve causes (usually, to seize power from others).
It is quite obvious to me that the CRT of today seeks to establish a new power structure by tearing apart the very notion of any sense of an American mission to unite people: with the not so concealed purpose to acquire money and power. CRT activists see power possessed by other racial and ethic groups and they want it. Sadly, their notion of acquiring power requires that others be humiliated and stripped of it.
What do you want your efforts as a scholar to accomplish, Ediberto?
"This targeting of such ideas constitutes a backlash against perceived gains by people of color in the wake of the political developments that began last summer."
This is a self-serving, disingenuous normative characterization. Thanks for it.
"…the broader target of the anti-CRT backlash is clear: any discussion of the country's sordid racial history that moves past some intentional individualist description of racism to identify persistent structural and institutional issues."
Yep, 'cause you're going to entrench racial balkanization otherwise. You need whitey to remain a legal liberal whilst all others adopt intersectional lenses. THAT is CRT's biggest flaw, and shall be the reason for its downfall – at least in the USA. (Scholars in most other countries can already see the superficial identity-will-to-power rhetoric and "critiques" for what they are, and so mostly ignore it). Whitey's going to ask what the hell you're still doing in her settler colony. And when you don't have credible answers, it's going to get very ugly.
There's also a real chance that, in a post-Western hegemony, multicultural norms – concocted by whitey – will just wither away anyhow. Certainly in a PRC-led future…
By the by, do you think the BJP should adopt CRT as a lens by which to best understand the history of Islam in India? Should Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Black Africans, and others undertake intersectional critiques of Sharia more generally? Pray tell, when will these be forthcoming out of American law schools?
Anonprof101, finally was able to turn to the OU video you cite–I found it both interesting and disturbing. Here are my preliminary observations: First, I believe the threat posed in the video cuts both ways. It is therefore troubling from both the left and the right. More importantly, the video does NOT address critical race theory. Like many here and in the podcast I cited in my original post, the detractors of what is purportedly CRT are in fact annoyed with what DEI practitioners evidently engage in, and what Professor Roithmayr refers to in her Federalist debate and in her post above. Thus, detractors of CRT appear to be conflating CRT with diversity training by those that may actually not be knowledgeable of the tenets of CRT. Even if they are—let's focus on CRT and not what detractors want to label is CRT–these detractors are simply missing the point and are directing their angst, frustration, and perhaps anger at the wrong target. Thus, I do not believe the video speaks to the CRT issue.
I also finally got a chance to review the NEA statement (after editing a book proposal and lining up television and radio interviews on the tragic surfside collapse–no rest for the pugnacious). While Scott posted it above as if demonstrates a sweeping damming indictment of CRT, the resolution provides, as Professor Roithmayr observed above, "honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society." While the resolution is not an example of CRT, it is an example of an effort to support accurate studies of history. What is so offensive about such an undertaking? And does it perhaps make some so angry?
By the way, was able to look Scott up, I look forward to meeting him one day. Then we can have an open and honest discussion or debate instead of snarky jabs posted in a comment section of a blog (of course, I am being snarky here too). Scott, my invitation to debate you remains open.
Snarky means "critical or mocking in an indirect or sarcastic way." I was not being snarky. There was no mocking, sarcasm, or indirectedness in what I said. I have not called you angry, questioned your tone, called you biased, or called you snarky, arrogant, or imperial,although you have called me all these things. I have not insulted you in any way.
Everything I have to say is at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/2021/june-2021/june-21-comment-scott-fruehwald.pdf. You can debate what I said there.
Thanks for this interesting post and discussion. I'll offer the following observations:
1. The objections to critical race theory are not really objections to critical race theory per se. Rather, the objections reflect understandable and justifiable objections to the ideologically driven, empirically unsupported, and unquestionably divisive statements in books such as "How to Be an Anti-Racist" and "White Fragility." For example, in these and other books, the authors posit, among other things, that all white people are racist, and that the only way to cure past discrimination is through present discrimination. They espouse racist views and promote dangerous stereotypes. But the authors have sure made millions by promoting this nonsense.
2. The approach of many law schools that preach diversity and inclusion — each one stumbling over the other to establish itself as the paragon of virtue — is a joke. Studies show that the vast majority of faculty are liberal. Studies show that these faculties — you know, those who preach diversity and inclusion — discriminate against conservatives in the hiring process. I have been in many faculty meetings, and I can state with certainty that discrimination is alive and well — perpetrated by those who literally trip over themselves to be perceived as champions of diversity. Additionally, studies show that, when drafting answers to exams, students write what they think their professors want to hear based on the professor's ideology. And of course, many schools self-congratulate themselves on being diverse and inclusive while maintaining LSAT medians that mostly disqualify the very people they claim to help. I could go on and on, but I think most people can see the point.
3. Law schools have embraced theories and approaches that ignore facts and science, and that promote ideological agendas. For example, implicit bias and the Implicit Association Test — the latest fad in legal education — have been debunked as pseudo-science because they do not reliably predict biased behavior. And, as studies have repeatedly shown, diversity training — you know, that training taught by ideologically homogenous faculty where diverse (i.e., conservative) perspectives are unwelcome — has been a failure and exacerbated, rather than alleviated, racial division.
4. Law schools and professors like to embrace buzzwords like "systemic racism," "marginalization," and "disparate impact." But I'd like to know, for example, how these law schools and "professors" define systemic racism. Most importantly, I'd like to know the extent to which law schools and professors meaningfully confront and incorporate into the curriculum evidence that systemic racism no longer exists, and that factors unrelated to racism are responsible for economic inequality (hint: they don't). Take a minute to read former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report that was issued in 1965 on poverty in the United States. And maybe read the mountain of evidence suggesting that disparate impacts result from factors entirely unrelated to racism. And stop calling everything and everyone "racist." It has rendered the word meaningless.
5. Vague statements claiming that scholars are "attempting to address history in an honest fashion" are laughable. Many professors promote their ideology in the classroom. They condemn alternative perspectives. They misrepresent science and ignore evidence that undercuts their ideological predilections. And given that most faculty are overwhelmingly liberal, the likelihood that history will be addressed in an honest fashion is about as likely as O.J. Simpson finding the "real killer or killers."
My point is that your post, which criticizes the objections to CRT, misses the broader point. The problem is not with critical race theory per se. It is with the unrelenting focus on race and on group identity as the basis on which to stereotype individuals. That is racism. And it is deplorable. It is with elitist "professors" who think that anyone who didn't go to Harvard or Yale is unworthy (yet they claim to champion the marginalized), and who produce scholarship that is unworthy of the paper on which it is printed. It is with the attempt to embrace ideology over science and feelings over facts.
Anon, you protest too much, so much so, it actually surprises me. I do not claim Anglos cannot and do not express emotions. That is just silly. I have and will continue to point out that Anglo-Saxon legal structures and systems, which is actually how I use the term, stress dispassionate legal analysis, whereas such an approach is different than Caribbean cultures in general, which typically do not shy away from engagement that include emotional pleas. Furthermore, the term Gringo is one used by Spanish speakers to refer to a white non-Spanish speaker–I do not know it to be a slur, but will nonetheless examine it. Also. your claim that I "miss the most important point of all" is simply misplaced. I never once asserted CRT is to be studied to the exclusion of other examinations. Indeed, a motivation for CRT was the stories of people was excluded from historical and legal studies. In attempting to prove your point, you question how much I have examined other atrocities, as if my scholarly focus is somehow devalued by focusing on one era or event(s) versus others. Should I seek your approval over what I write about in the future? Obviously, not. These comments are just silly–and they go further and further away from the actual subject of my post–the attacks against CRT are based on claims that are factually flawed—the primary one being CRT is taught in K-12.
I am done responding to this and similar comments. They miss the point, raise odd and obscure claims, and ultimately are more reflective of the commentator's concern over accurate teachings of history (occurring in law school–despite protests to the contrary) than anything else. So, have at it. I will continue to write and perhaps you and others will continue to be annoyed. 😉
What's unclear to me after this entire thread is this: if critics of absurd, racist DEI training, D'Angelo adn Kendi being required reading in public school, historically inaccurate revisionism a la the 1619 Project, and so on, but did not call it CRT, would Ediberto's objection (a) disappear; (b) be significantly lessened; or (c) be exactly the same, beyond dropping the objection about distorting CRT?
Wow. What a dodge!!!
Ediberto, your responses to my comments and those of Scott above are uncharacteristically shallow and poorly framed; perhaps you are too busy with your media appearances to write coherently: if so, maybe you should get a good night sleep before posting stuff that is really quite light.)
I'll just pick one of the troubling aspect of your response. You like to throw around ethnic slurs like "gringo." You deny. Perhaps you've heard of something called "the google": "considered an offensive term in some Spanish-speaking countries"; "The[] term can be merely descriptive, derogatory, or friendly depending on the context and situation." Ediberto, we know the context and how you were using the term: to put people down and insult and ridicule them.
Another one of your favorites is "anglo." As distinguished from what? You say, "Anglo-Saxon legal structures and systems, which is actually how I use the term, stress dispassionate legal analysis, whereas such an approach is different than Caribbean cultures in general." Actually, that isn't how you used it: you used to mock the way people dance, what they choose to drink at parties, and their expression of emotions and family ties (the latter being particularly disgusting).
But, leaving that aside, "Caribbean" culture, Ediberto? Are you really disclaiming the status as claimed in your recent piece? When you say "Anglo" you seem to refer to the descendants of one European colonial power that you find great fault with. You, and other CRT theorists, obviously think there is something inherently racist in the legacy structures of the "Anglo" world.
Why are you incapable of examining the legacy structures that were the legacy of another European colonial power? Those structures (such as they are) and that legacy is far more consequential for the people you call by a different name: because they speak Spanish and have Spanish sounding names? Why do you not demand from those you perceive to be the descendants of the Spanish oppressors the guilt and shame and humiliation that you seem to see as appropriate for those who appear to be the descendants of the "Anglo" colonists? Because Spain is long gone but England isn't? (All this is really CRT bs and nonsense, but, let's take the CRT argument as we find it and refer to the leftist's official guide to racial and ethnic divisions and hatreds for guidance in this discussion).
Please. The legacy of Spain's dysfunctional colonialism lives on today in this hemisphere. But, you seem to ignore this issue. Why not demand the same study of the atrocities in this country perpetrated by Spain?
What are YOUR implicit biases, Ediberto?
I'm not telling you what to write about. I'm noticing the glaring tell in what you choose to say, and how you say it. I don't like it when people, in a public forum, throw around ethnic slurs and insult the culture and mores of other groups. You seem to think it is just fine to do that, as long as you are teh one doing it.
Can YOU see in yourself what you want others to see about themselves? So much of "CRT" is just this: an excuse to hurl invective at other groups and demand power.
David Bernstein's question is an interesting one. With one or two exceptions, none of the anti-CRT bills actually mention CRT, but instead describe particular arguments about racism that are banned. In those states that have passed bans, teachers arguably could not teach about: (i) the existence of racial disparities in health care, housing, employment, wealth, incarceration etc (violates the ban on teaching about white advantage/privilege) (ii) the country's history of using property law rules like "acquisition based on conquest" to clear indigenous communities from the Mississippi Valley to make way for white cotton growers (violates the ban on teach about the power relationships that lie behind the rule of law and maybe the ban on holding a race "responsible" for past actions); (iii) the importance of 1619 as the year in which the first enslaved Africans arrived in colonial Virginia (violates the ban on the 1619 project); (iv) the racialized history of college admissions categories that prioritize the "well rounded" applicant over those who excel on grades alone (violates the ban on critiques of meritocracy). The bans are vague enough that at the very least, they open the door for arguments that teaching these ideas violate the bans, and they chill teaching about these quite well-accepted facts and histories. As an earlier commenter points out, the bans may well be unconstitutional because they arguably infringe on free speech, which the GOP used to favor. But the bans also are part of the more general backlash against post BLM gains–against moves in public education to teach a fuller history of the US, to examine the contours of racial disparity, to question the rules that govern meritocracy and property distribution, etc. The text of the bans targets much more than CRT per se. Even if CRT had never been mentioned as part of the bans' justifying rhetoric, we critical race theorists would have had MUCH to say about this backlash.
Not even close, let alone "arguably".
You also don't get to invoke the indigenous people and then insinuate that the 1619 Project has any credibility. 1610 Antedates 1619, for example. America's original sin isn't the one the American media and that project's founders keep hammering on about.
Nor do the anti-vilification rules proscribe questioning the rules about meritocracy and property distribution. Indeed, they're perfectly compatible with questioning the very validity of the law-creating institutions and the perpetuation of the USA as a going concern. They're also compatible along with scrutinizing the concepts, motives, and claims of right & justice advanced by scholarly movements which engage in "critique" of the system's rules even though they've not a leg to stand on in terms of justifying their continued presence in the country. For example, could you imagine if, for even one moment, you CRT charlatans actually applied the Indeterminacy Thesis to your own core norms? Where you ceased to (feign to) be moral formalists?
This headline and article in the New York Post illustrates your problem: "Critical race theory author headlines AFT conference on educating kids." Everyone who reads the Post now thinks that Ibram X. Kendi is a critical race theorist. I thought Ibram X. Kendi was an antiracist rather than a critical race theorist, but that is not what this headline is saying.
As a couple of posts have noted above, if CRT wants to end the attack on CRT, it must define the field and disavow scholars like Kendi. They also need to tell the world that antiracism, the IAT, microaggressions theory, white fragility, etc. are not part of CRT. As long as CRT is associated with Kendi, you are going to continue to be criticized in the popular press.
Anon, I promised I would not continue with what has become absurd, namely, the comments concerning a post I made addressing the attacks on CRT. However, your recent personal attacks force me to respond. First, in-high brow fashion, you suggest I am too busy being a some sort of celebrity (no need to be jealous of anything, trust me), then you state I get some sleep, then you ask if I have ever heard of Google. Really? Don't be so petty. I know who you are, by the way.
Then, you to take the mantle of victimhood by mischaracterizing a post I made a few weeks ago concerning the film, In the Heights. While you characterized what I said in the most negative light possible, you did not actually use the quotes, nor did you attempt to place them their true context, other than with a sophomoric attack. I, unlike you, address the facts here. Your attempt to prove otherwise is inaccurate, irresponsible, and frankly reprehensible. Despite your accusation, I did NOT refer to "Gringos" in any negative light, including not being able to dance or anything of the sort, as you suggested. I made the point, without referring to the term "Gringos," that at the school where I first attended college, the term "party" was different than what I had grown accustomed to growing up in a largely minority community in NYC. The only reference to the word "Gringo" was mention of my sons, because they do not speak Spanish, and to poke fun of myself and the classic shorter and smaller stature of my people—Specifically, I mentioned how I stopped playing college football in part because my white counterparts were massive individuals–it was not a slight, and your efforts at characterizing it as such is dishonest. Here is what I wrote:
"Much like Nina in the film, when I moved away I carried with me the beautiful dreams so many family members and neighbors held, it weighed heavy on me–but one learns to get by. After not fully embracing the private school life–with so-called parties where no one danced and everyone was drunk, where the music was largely terrible and could not be danced to, where fun seemed to be watching and avoiding college wrestlers getting drunk and picking fight with larger football players–just too weird for me. I eventually transferred from the snooty place–I was the only student of color not on an affirmative action scholarship which actually made be more isolated, and I was on the school's football team that had no Latinos and only one or two blacks (who were older and stars; I was a walk-on that had to "dress" in a basement–a football right of passage)–But I quickly learned I loved the wrong sport; those Gringos were giants–I should have tried baseball (sadly, I couldn't see, let alone hit, a curveball)."
Referring to white football players as giants, though using the term "Gringos," was simply not an insult. You also conveniently failed to mention I used the term "Gringo" when referencing to my own children: "I could not even get my Gringo sons to finish viewing it…" I would never use a slur to refer to the most important people in my life. How could you make such an accusation?
Then you proceed to ramble on in an incoherent fashion about Spain and England and some fault on my part–if any of us needs some sleep, you would certainly be part of that club. Perhaps you were just venting???
In any case, I would appreciate it if in the future, your comments concerning one of my a post focuses on the post.
Ediberto
You have become angry with me and with Scott and perhaps others. So, it is time to shut this thread down. I would just urge you to think a bit about labeling and generalizing about others, and how your attitudes might be felt them. And, then broaden that analysis to critical thinking about the theme of CRT – selective vilification of certain races and ethnicities while excusing others – and ask whether "justice" demands that the entire picture be painted fairly.
Anon Bosch, you argue that the legislation is sufficiently clear so as to allow the things I listed, including teaching about the racial history of meritocratic standards in colleges and the power struggle over property law in the context of the launch of the US cotton economy. But your saying it doesn't make it so. And a federal judge, ruling on the language that appears in all of these state bills, disagrees with you regarding the language's clarity and constitutionality. This judge, ruling on the language when it appeared in the Trump executive order, held that the language was likely void for vagueness and unconstitutional, in no small part because it did not clearly define what conduct was prohibited. The court also ruled that the government's explanations and definitions made matters worse not better. https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/diversity_ca_20201222_order-granting-part-nationwide-preliminary-injunction. The opinion supports my central point that these bills are problematic because of the discussions they chill, owing to their lack of clarity. I found the rest of your post cryptic and full of specious assertions, like the assertion that because the US is guilty also of indigenous genocide that slavery isn't an original sin worth "hammering on about." A first-year logic student would spot the flaw in that argument. One last thing. In my CRT class, we discuss at length the critiques of CRT offered by folks like Richard Posner, Dan Farber, Suzanna Sherry and others. We discuss the critiques of implicit bias (offered by folks who are actually empirical scholars, unlike Brian Leiter). I posted my syllabus above and am happy to send you a copy personally. I am sure you would learn much. Indeed, one of the CRT critics, after our debate on the Federalist Society, reached out to ask me for a copy. I'd be happy to tutor you in CRT and in Logic as well! 😉
I'll just offer one point that renders much of this discussion moot. Children, regardless of race, who are raised by two parents who stress particular values, such as hard work, resilience, grit, responsibility, and self-discipline, are overwhelmingly successful. Young people of all races should read Thomas Sowell and listen to the inspiring graduation speech by Denzel Washington. In sum, your choices, not your circumstances, determine your destiny.
Adam
That isn't always true. "Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" wasn't a truism for the enslaved.
Discrimination by law was real, to some extents it still is, and the lingering effects of it persist and disadvantage millions of people. Those obstacles are real, and can't be dismissed by just saying "Hey, I made it, and you can too if you behave properly, like I did."
What the "CRT" movement of today (this isn't CRT, as most have realized, but something else using that label to legitimize hate) doesn't realize is that injustice doesn't justify hating "white people" (of whatever European derivative) and that truth of inequities in society doesn't justify teaching our people that some races are inherently racist and evil.
Those dirty lies are poisoning America and American culture.
THere are those who are so accustomed to hating America and "white people" (that is, the descendants of certain European countries) that they no longer hear themselves or understand their own attitudes as exemplifying what they are supposedly against.
CRT started as a worthy effort to uncover latent biases and prejudices embedded in the law. Now, it is a tool wielded by some true haters (so hateful that they no longer even realize their attitudes are hateful) to acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal for all people of the world to come together.
These ever-so-noble folks don't want to work toward that future: they just want to insult and threaten others and try to humiliate "white" people to gain power by default.
It really is a sad thing we are seeing the unraveling of the American ideal in real time by reason of the failure of the American academy, especially the legal academy, to use some rational thought and avoid supporting race baiting for teh sake of virtue signaling.
A law prof who signals racial or ethnic hatred, or who impliedly threatens others for expressing ideas or criticism of ideas, is not signaling virtue.
Daria,
I would love to read your syllabus, but your link isn't working.
Adam Lamparello has written an excellent article on what's wrong with the IAT test. He does a great job of summarizing the science. The only conclusion that one can draw from his article is that no one should be applying the IAT test to anyone until there is fuller testing. The article is to appear in the Journal of the Legal Profession, but you can currently find it on his SSRN page. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3557041
There have to be at least 100 utterly ridiculous statements in this thread already, but I have to pick on these, from a couple posts up, in particular:
"injustice doesn't justify hating 'white people'"
"inequities in society [don't] justify teaching our people that some races are inherently racist and evil."
"[CRT] is a tool wielded by some true haters … to acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal…"
"we are seeing the unraveling of the American ideal in real time by reason of the failure of the American academy, especially the legal academy, to use some rational thought and avoid supporting race baiting for teh sake of virtue signaling."
What voices are advocating for the hatred of white people as a response to injustice? Who is teaching anyone that some races are inherently evil? What does it even mean to "acquire power by attempting to undermine the notion of America as an ideal"? And isn't it rather childish to pretend that the America we actually live in has actually fully lived up to those ideals? How on earth is the legal academy — and a niche element thereof in particular — powerful enough to cause the "unraveling of the American ideal"? What race baiting? What virtue signaling? What does any of this have to do with CRT?
Again, this is just an incredibly ridiculous discourse. Just pulling nonsense out of thin air, and conflating a bunch of unrelated strawman with a tiny subset of legal scholars. It's like a Chewbacca defense in defense of…what? Pretending that racism isn't that bad? Generating a moral panic to help elect Republicans? Projecting some sort of pent up anger that's been marinating since your first employer made you sit through a tedious diversity presentation when you were younger?
I continue to not get it.
Daria,
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't invoke the Indeterminacy Thesis, crit views about judicial decision-making, and then pretend that what the judge did in the VERY case you cite was REALLY establish the law's vagueness, rather than use such language to simply advance a thinly veiled political agenda.
Relatedly, consider your own syllabus here: CRT "concedes" the Indeterminacy Thesis to CLS – a thesis that is demonstrably FALSE, by the way, as Duncan Kennedy has himself begrudgingly half-admitted – but then perpetuates rights discourses because of the rhetorical potency. Do you understand that that's idiotic and disingenuous, or must one flesh things out in terms of the "contradictions" inherent in CRT dogma for you to pay attention? Do you not see that there's no discernible reason why moral or social norms, or your preferred legal alternative norms, would be subject to the same difficulty if the thesis is true? And since you aim for your interlocutors to believe that you either believe that thesis, or at least find it useful to advance for strategic reasons, why they hell would they lend any credence to your proffered alternatives – since they'd be NOTHING more than cheap veneers for your prejudices? In part, they'd need some higher-order reason to think the concept of the rule of law is passed its sell date.
I noted that the original sin is stealing Indian land, not slavery. It's both the temporally and logically prior sin. (In the contemporary jargon, claiming that slavery is America's ORIGINAL sin is a form of cultural erasure). It's thus YOU who would benefit from a first-order logic class. There's a reason why most philosophy departments deem critical theory to be sophomoric bunk; of course, your American JD taught you both "critical reasoning skills" and how to be a scholar… (Additionally, could you imagine if Crits actually deconstructed the concept of "a contradiction"?).
You have no right to socialize/nationalize what is ultimately indigenous lands and resources. Any law passed, whether in Washington DC or in Sacramento, is settler colonial law. It doesn't matter how many non-white, non-straight, non-cisgendered Jacobins you put into office. Moreover, all your talk about different views about rules about property distribution is a form of rationalization of your continued interest to live on stolen land, to legitimize your presence of living in a system entirely devised by whitey, because your life is better in the USA than it would be elsewhere. In other words, you continue to live on the land solely out of rational self-interest, and your claims of "social justice" – belied by your championing the importation of millions of unskilled illiterate labourers whilst the American middle class shrinks and its poor get poorer, in defiance of everything the left ever fought for – are merely a veneer for that. The explanation for all of this, in turn, is simple: ressentiment.
So, you can continue with your self-promotion on this blog (in the finest of American capitalist traditions), but in no sense are you a genuine epistemic, moral, or even legal authority.
Bobert
Apparently, you aren't following the discourse that is being peddled night and day under the guise of "CRT." And, if you don't understand efforts to destroy the foundational notions of a society in order to "transform" it (read much history, Bobert?), then I would say, you are so right! You just don't get it.
I count precisely zero answers to any of my questions, anon. And I think they are pretty straightforward questions given the weird level of alarm over oOoGy BoOoGiE sUpEr ScArY cRiTiCaL rAcE tHeOrY.
But maybe you're right. For example, I don't have the slightest clue what you mean, specifically, when you refer to the "foundational notions of a society," nor am I aware of any efforts whatsoever to destroy them somehow, whatever they are.
Perhaps you can help me. I repeat one of my questions from above, with a couple of follow ups: Who, specifically, is teaching anyone that some races are inherently racist and evil? Any actual evidence whatsoever that this is some kind of widespread problem? Or is all this stuff just made up nonsense?
I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that last one.
Does socialism now mean that others must do your homework for you, Bobby McGee?
Got it. Making stuff up. Thanks for confirming.
Bobert, I bet you really do take that to constitute a bona fide confirmation, rather than your merely engaging in schoolyard rhetorical tactics. And I bet you also think you're a mature, professional scholar engaged in the pursuit of truth and justice too, don't you? 🙂
I am not the one making the claim that students are being taught that some races are inherently racist and evil. Extraordinary claims, such as that one, require extraordinary evidence.
But you have come up with a grand total of nothing. Not even a single, isolated case, much less something suggesting some sort of widespread problem. Nor anything connecting such issues – were they to exist, which they do not – to CRT.
Absolutely nothing.
You don't need to be a scholar of any kind to see that. Not that you really believe what you're saying anyway.
OhHhHhH nOoOoOoOo CrItIcAl RaCe ThEoRy Is GoInG tO dEsTrOy ThE fOuNdAtIoNaL NoTiOnS oF a SoCiEtY tHrOuGh uNsPeCiFiEd AnD pUrElY iMaGiNaRy MeAnS!
Anyway, as a mature, professional scholar, I shall now retire from our discussion. Mature, professional scholarship awaits.
Here are some resources for those who are oblivious to the newer versions of CRT, or who claim that these versions of "CRT" do not identify as a problem any particular "race" or falsely claim that these advocates are not pressing for widespread "teaching" of their views:
https: [//] nmaahc [dot] si [dot] edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
https: [//] www [dot] aei [dot] org/op-eds/theres-some-truth-in-those-bizarre-charts-about-whiteness/
Hey, Bobert, do you agree that "Facing [one's] whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear"?
Of course you do, Bobert. "Whiteness" is shameful, is it not?