"... justifying discrimination against those deemed racial oppressors. His goal, ultimately, is to get the Supreme Court to rule that school and workplace trainings based on the doctrines of critical race theory violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.... Rufo insists there are no free speech implications to what he’s trying to do. 'You have the freedom of speech as an individual, of course, but you don’t have the kind of entitlement to perpetuate that speech through public agencies,' he said. This sounds, ironically, a lot like the arguments people on the left make about de-platforming right-wingers. To [Kimberlé] Crenshaw, attempts to ban critical race theory vindicate some of the movement’s skepticism about free speech orthodoxy, showing that there were never transcendent principles at play. When people defend offensive speech, she said, they’re often really defending 'the substance of what the speech is — because if it was really about free speech, then this censorship, people would be howling to the high heavens.' If it was really about free speech, they should be."
From "The Campaign to Cancel Wokeness/How the right is trying to censor critical race theory" by Michelle Goldberg (NYT).
Here's a good comment over there: "The problem with your argument is that Critical Race Theory is presented at schools and workplace sessions as the TRUTH, not just an (unprovable) social science theory. And it would be very uncomfortable (if not career or social suicide) to question this theory in front of one’s bosses and peers."
That makes me think of Justice Jackson's famous line, one of the most important points about freedom of speech: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
The problem is compelled speech. To be compelled to assert belief in what you do not believe is a severe intrusion on individual free speech, and that seems to be what is happening in these workplace training sessions. Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?
Posts
155 comments:
They deliberately use ambiguous terms like “whiteness” which can mean anything from wide variability in hair and eye color to a tendency to fight wars with advanced weaponry of their own invention.
If they were really doing “critical analysis” of “whiteness” they would break it down to its separable components. They know that, they have made a conscious decision to try to create an indelible stain, like the damned spot on Lady MacBeth.
This is the spot in Gulag Archipelago where the people of Russia had the opportunity to stand up to it before it was too late.
The issue is the size of corporations.
If a small business does this all their good employees filter out and they are left with a workforce that will fail.
But if you want an entry level position in many professional fields you have to start in a behemoth that has the size and inertia to grind individuals down.
If you use the government to stop critical race theory then you are making the same mistake conservatives made using the government to define marriage.
I think we could test Michelle Goldberg's view of how free the speech against CRT trainings really is if they were made optional or people were allowed to speak against the training as its going on.
We could also question what the motivation of actually even having the training is.
It started this way in Canada:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
If you use the government to stop critical race theory
But what if it is the government perpetuating the critical race theory?
Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?
Nope, that would be missing the point. These aren’t ideas to be debated, they’re ideas to be indoctrinated.
How can a theory be the TRUTH?
Agree that CRT is the new Marxism.
Remember when loyalty oaths were so bad even Rachael Maddow didn’t like them?
Now they are mandatory and Maddow would never risk her perch by uttering a peep against them.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-gops-affinity-loyalty-oaths-msna31209
That’s an interesting question, whether these ideas can be debated. The answer is no, they are just raw political weapons the left adopted directly from Mao, and they never were intended to be debated.
MayBee said...
If you use the government to stop critical race theory
But what if it is the government perpetuating the critical race theory?
That is my point.
Do you want elections to determine whether or not Critical race theory is the law of the land?
Or do you want to focus on systemic and societal arrangements that make it impossible to implement and ultimately suicidal to any organization that pushes it?
Government is downstream from culture.
It seems like this is conflating and confusing a lot of different things -private companies, government workplaces, schools. What was being taught at Coca-Cola was ridiculous and deserves to have a light shone on it, but Coke (while bound by civil rights laws) has free speech rights, too (and we have the right to complain about it and perhaps decide not to do business with Coke). What happens in a government workplace with taxpayer dollars is different, and what is taught to kids in a school even more different still. It’s not purely an issue of free speech verses not.
The problem is the size of government, not what it pushes.
Achilles: the government is involved in enforcing this weapon against us already. The DOJ and DOE use critical race theory to warp the enforcement of civil and criminal laws and to warp young minds. We don’t have the choice to avoid doing something to stop them. We are literally paying for them to oppress us.
Do you want elections to determine whether or not Critical race theory is the law of the land?
Do I want it? No. Is that already the case? Yes.
So I'm not sure how the theory of keeping government so small this can't happen works, when it has already happened.
The theory is to keep the barn door closed. But the horse has already left. We've got to think of a better plan that's relevant now.
Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?
No. Because if you weigh CRT against other ideas it quickly and obviously becomes apparent just how absurd and illogical CRT is. It must be imposed by fiat instead.
Lyssa said...
It seems like this is conflating and confusing a lot of different things -private companies, government workplaces, schools. What was being taught at Coca-Cola was ridiculous and deserves to have a light shone on it, but Coke (while bound by civil rights laws) has free speech rights, too (and we have the right to complain about it and perhaps decide not to do business with Coke). What happens in a government workplace with taxpayer dollars is different, and what is taught to kids in a school even more different still. It’s not purely an issue of free speech verses not.
These are all accurate distinctions.
But they will get you nowhere.
The government will always attract a certain type of person to work for it or get elected to run it. This will never change. They can't do anything productive and they want to tell people what to do. Productive people have many avenues open to them that are more fulfilling that the life of a government employee.
You can argue with this type of person all you want. But it will get you nothing. They will find some way to put the boot to you.
The only way to stop them is to remove their power entirely and reduce the power of government as a whole.
Lyssa said...
Good point.
I think it's also helpful to figure out *why* Coke and companies like it think it is a good practice to have such trainings.
MayBee said...
Do you want elections to determine whether or not Critical race theory is the law of the land?
Do I want it? No. Is that already the case? Yes.
So I'm not sure how the theory of keeping government so small this can't happen works, when it has already happened.
The theory is to keep the barn door closed. But the horse has already left. We've got to think of a better plan that's relevant now.
You have a goal.
Now you need a strategy. And tactics that match.
Fighting over critical race theory in the courts is better than not fighting it in the courts.
But it will not work if it was part of a broader strategy that takes the core issue into account.
Once they have defined any opposition to them as beyond the pale, they intend to completely de-anonymize the internet so that all content can be traced to its author. So if you utter a word online against them, they can destroy you.
Shortly after my meetings in Davos, I sketched out a back-of-the-envelope solution to address media authentication and provenance. We’d need watermarking to tag content, combined with strong security and a means of storing and tracking allowable changes to content over time. I reached out to tap the expertise of long-term Microsoft Research colleagues: Henrique (Rico) Malvar, an expert in signal processing with a long history of contributions to rights management and compression technologies, Paul England, a security and privacy specialist who developed the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) technologies to encrypt devices, and Cédric Fournet and Manuel Costa, who led efforts on the Confidential Consortium Framework (CCF), an open-source framework for building a new category of secure, performant blockchain networks.
I love the “Davos” part. And they will have the microprocessor vendors on board so there will be no way around it. You won’t be able to write your own code to scrub your jpegs or video.
This is their goal anyway, I am not sure if they can just make all old content on the internet non displayable. But it speaks to a totalitarian instinct.
Diversity training and participation in bringing diversity to the workforce of the company I work for is not mandatory. Yet. I get the emails inviting me to the events, the follow-up emails with the recording of the event, and so forth. I never participate, usually delete the emails without opening them. I have no doubt that I am on a list, and that it is probably not a good list. I'm 63 years old, about 18 months away from retiring from this job, so I don't care.
Odd that lefties always assume as a starting premise the need to mold people in their special ways, using threats of punishment ... in free people born in a free country.
The Right only views the criminal minority like this, while the Left views the entire Right like this.
"Coke and companies like it think it is a good practice to have such trainings.”
The Coke training has been disappeared from LinkedIn. Too bad I had already stopped drinking coke after one kidney stone too many so I can’t really boycott that particular form of poison.
Well, Althouse, how did the Legal Crits do it at Wisconsin? At Chicago, we talked a lot about the Legal Realists, but it was always a theory that we argued about.
I think the real problem is that employers are forcing it onto their employees. It has crawled out of the tank of discussion and dropped into the tank of “this we believe”. And if it were still in discussion, no employer would tolerate it, because it is so divisive.
Hell is not other people. Hell is Human Resources training.
I'm no con law expert, but it seems to me that this should be an easy win against federal/state entities pushing CRT training. It makes sense to pursue it first. I wouldn't consider that "using government" to stop CRT; it is preventing government from pushing it onto us.
Boycott is a powerful weapon that they have been using against us to great effect. We can’t disdain from using it in our defense.
MayBee said...
Lyssa said...
Good point.
I think it's also helpful to figure out *why* Coke and companies like it think it is a good practice to have such trainings.
There used to be dozens of drink bottling companies. Now there are 2.
Did those companies all disappear? No. They were all moved into a corporate shell. Even the original Coca-Cola Company.
Do they do anything different that they once did? Not really.
They just have a layer of overhead that lives over the top of them all. Does that layer of overhead provide any benefit to society? Not really. So they need to shape society in such a way that they remain in their position.
They are people that are more focused on themselves and their power over others than producing things people want. That is why they take positions in government and why big government and big business are a team.
People who are distinguishing between government and private business are making a distinction that while true incorrectly defines the two different sides of this conflict.
The good news is that Trump executive order sought to operate through existing federal laws against racially hostile workplace environments, which means individual lawsuits should remain an available remedy, a framework that should also apply even in private employer settings that were outside the direct reach of Trump's original executive order governing federal agencies, contractors and grant recipients.
On September 22, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” (the “Order”). The Order applies to federal agencies, federal contractors (including “sub to prime” contractors), and federal grant recipients. The Order seeks to “foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics” and eliminate “un-American” and “divisive concepts” from Diversity and Inclusion trainings. The Order is effective immediately, and as explained below, creates new requirements for federal contracts executed on or after November 21, 2020.
Purpose of the Order
The Purpose of the Order is to prohibit federal agencies, federal contractors, and federal grant recipients from providing workplace training to their employees that “inculcates” any form of blame-focused training such as race or sex scapegoating or stereotyping. According to the Order, blame-focused training only serves to “reinforce biases and decrease[] opportunities for minorities.” The Order’s stated goal is to end the perpetuation of “racial stereotypes and division” in the workplace.
Key Definitions in the Order
Race or sex stereotyping is defined as “ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.”
Race or sex scapegoating is defined as “assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.”
The Order also identifies the following nine prohibited training concepts that are derived from race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; and
Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
Trump Executive Order 13950
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping
tim in vermont said...
"Coke and companies like it think it is a good practice to have such trainings.”
The Coke training has been disappeared from LinkedIn. Too bad I had already stopped drinking coke after one kidney stone too many so I can’t really boycott that particular form of poison.
If you buy anything bottled in a super market it is Coke or Pepsi.
Exactly Althouse: compelled speech is wrong. Full stop. If I can’t lead my class in the Pledge of Allegiance because little Johnny don’t wanna say it I can’t make him or punish him for it. Just as I cannot be forced to repeat any of their CRT bullshit statements or agree with them. Period.
"Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?"
There would be if the goal was debate, but it's not. CRT is used as a hammer to bludgeon out your individual thoughts and keep hammering until you agree and submit. There is no room for debate with this operation. There is no compromising with a brutal dictator.
Once we realize that CRT is working arm in arm with the government, and your employer or school, to hold you responsible for your individual thoughts and denounce or penalize you for those thoughts, we might take action to stop it. But to watch the flocks scurrying to get in line while flagellating themselves and shouting "Me too!" is both worrisome and painful.
This is a battle of collectivists using race as their weapon to rip up and reorganize society in a manner that gives them the power seat while we police each other to meet their demands. We have an overabundance of white guilt and they are using it for fuel. This is about submission and power. It is no more about race than a street light.
CRT is unconstitutional, period. Lawsuits against hostile work environments should make progress/work to put an end to it, as companies won’t want to pay the price. Right now the companies fear being sued for racist practices if they don’t try to eliminate racism among their ranks. But they are actually being racist by doing so. Trump’s EO is spot-on.
Scotus rules on compelled speech long ago (WWII?) about the pledge of allegiance.
"Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?"
No... because they can't have these ideas debated. They are foolish ideas that will be laughed at in a serious debate, so no one can be encouraged to question their legitimacy-- they have no legitimacy. That's why the primary method of adoption is indoctrination and severe consequences if you question them. They need you to profess your belief and think about it as little as possible.
Coca-Cola was ridiculous and deserves to have a light shone on it, but Coke (while bound by civil rights laws) has free speech rights, too
But do/should Coke's free speech rights be forced upon its employees, who have no "free speech rights" to oppose CRT at work because Coke is a private industry?
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Exactly Althouse: compelled speech is wrong. Full stop. If I can’t lead my class in the Pledge of Allegiance because little Johnny don’t wanna say it I can’t make him or punish him for it. Just as I cannot be forced to repeat any of their CRT bullshit statements or agree with them. Period.
2/26/21, 7:44 AM
THIS!!!!
So, does Michelle Goldberg admit that she and her friends do not value freedom of speech? Or is she saying that she and her friends value freedom of speech, but the people they wish to silence don't?
Althouse asked: Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?
Yes! Present it as such -- as an idea to be weighed and debated against other idea. And if it fails, so be it. The problem is that the CRTers can stand to see their ideas fail. That's another why it's akin to Marxism.
Coke is brown. Their cans are red. The only white I associate with their brand is the logotype. Do they really think punishing employees for being “white” is good corporate policy? Doubtful. But the strange trend in hiring foreign CEOs to run iconic American brands is that they have no idea how much independence and freedom mean to Americans.
Blogger MayBee said...
I think it's also helpful to figure out *why* Coke and companies like it think it is a good practice to have such trainings.
2/26/21, 7:33 AM
That's an easy one. There is a corporate legal department. It's filled with progressive women and beta male drones. Their mission is to protect the company from threats real or perceived. Ritual humiliation of white employees looks good in a discovery process in the event of a Title 7 action. Plus, the little maggots probably think they are striking a blow "for good".
CRT, like Marxism, is also a religion.
There can be no weighting of competing beliefs.
Heretics will be ostracized.
@Althouse - in 1972, my Biology II high school teacher brought in a Creationist to present to the class the case against evolution. It would be wonderful to see Critical Theory presented side by side with a century of data on IQ, ethnicity, and life outcomes.
But do/should Coke's free speech rights be forced upon its employees, who have no "free speech rights" to oppose CRT at work because Coke is a private industry?
Would they have the same "free speech rights" if they were teaching that black people are guilty and fragile, that their flaws are because of their skin color, that there is something inherently wrong with them?
The effort to promulgate CRT as received wisdom, ISTM, is happening in the corporate sphere, not the governmental one, Trump's EO notwithstanding. And the reason is at-will employment (which of course I support). CRT enthusiasts seem to have realized that they can't compel speech through government (pesky First Amendment) - but there's nothing stopping them from making it deeply unpleasant, and perhaps expensive, for a corporation to permit freedom of expression among its employees.
So - start big and move toward small, getting the Cokes and Apples that are already quasi-governmental in terms of bureaucracy to mandate CRT training as a condition of employment, using group shaming to get the smaller companies to start doing the same thing, lather, rinse, repeat, until it becomes unacceptable throughout society not to profess CRT as Truth. No need to legislate it.
As Maybee said, government is downstream of culture. As we've seen, you don't have to pass a law criminalizing use of That Word if you've successfully changed society to cause its use to brand the user as Unclean - a lesson the CRT people are putting to good use now.
If “you need to be less white “ doesn’t violate civil rights laws, what does?
CRT is used by liberal white supremacists to advance authoritarian leftist tyranny.
We were endlessly reminded by the elite how 9/11 had nothing to do with the worlds Muslim population and the main point was NO GUILT BY ASSOCIATION and NO SUCH THING AS COLLECTIVE GUILT and don’t assume bad things about people from Muslim-majority countries and regions. It is a religion of peace, was the mantra.
Same goes for any alleged whiteness (and how do “they” even know my ethic makeup since I don’t even know it all?) I may possess:
1. Being white does not imply any guilt.
2. Being white does not make me or my friends bad people.
3. Being white is not a crime.
4. Being white is a 99.9% peaceful endeavor.
5. Being white means never having to say I’m sorry I’m white.
I want all the little children white or not to grow up untouched by CRT hatred foisted upon them.
"The Campaign to Cancel Wokeness/How the right is trying to censor critical race theory"
Cancel wokeness?
"Canceling" requires institutional control.
Gina Carano could be canceled because the woke have institutional control of the entertainment industry.
"Wokeness" is a statement about power, not political ideology. The people who defend it are defending institutional power.
The collective left have become the creepy MINISTRY OF TRUTH
"Well, Althouse, how did the Legal Crits do it at Wisconsin?"
All of the CRT people quoted in that column — Crenshaw, Delgado, Haney-Lopez — were at Wisconsin in the 80s/90s. I remember them well. It was a very exciting time to be talking about these issues, a time of flux and ferment. What we've got now, I am not experiencing first hand, but I don't think ideas like that should become the new orthodoxy and jammed down the throats of everyone in a workplace.
7:45 - Temujin
Everyone should read that.
. "Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?"
Without compulsion? No. It either "my way or the highway" it is therefore invalid since it cannot pass the free speech test.
Progressivism is simply a new way to say fascism.
"@Althouse - in 1972, my Biology II high school teacher brought in a Creationist to present to the class the case against evolution."
In my 1960s biology class we were taught the theory of evolution, and when I said something reflecting a belief in the theory, the teacher snapped at me: "You're not a good Christian."
So - start big and move toward small, getting the Cokes and Apples that are already quasi-governmental in terms of bureaucracy to mandate CRT training as a condition of employment, using group shaming to get the smaller companies to start doing the same thing, lather, rinse, repeat, until it becomes unacceptable throughout society not to profess CRT as Truth. No need to legislate it.
I'll just add that the baffling thing to me is getting the Cokes and the Apples to mandate this training. Getting this kind of training into big companies-- when this isn't really something with any kind of critical mass of support behind it- is what interests me. What is in it for them to just not say "nah, no thanks". It wouldn't hurt them to pass on the opportunity to bring this training in.
Who is being *pleased* by it, and why do these companies care?
It was a very exciting time to be talking about these issues, a time of flux and ferment.
I think it seemed exciting to you, because you liked theoretical discussions and big ideas. I think it was exciting to them for an entirely different reason.
Rufo does great work, heroic in fact, and I tip my cap to him. I’ve heard him on a podcast, very impressive, centered, reasonable-middle kind of guy.
Standing up to the mob like this is tremendously challenging and far more than most people can take.
I'll just add that the baffling thing to me is getting the Cokes and the Apples to mandate this training. Getting this kind of training into big companies-- when this isn't really something with any kind of critical mass of support behind it- is what interests me. What is in it for them to just not say "nah, no thanks". It wouldn't hurt them to pass on the opportunity to bring this training in.
Who is being *pleased* by it, and why do these companies care?
HR departments are full of women who've been steeped in this crap their entire lives. Additionally, you have the DOJ and Labor Department who can exercise a lot of pressure as well. A couple of complaints about racial bias, a hostile workplace lawsuit, and *boom* companies are tripping over themselves to provide internal training since it's cheaper than fighting in court.
“... Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated...?”
That’s your problem, right there: that word: “insights.” There are none in CRT. Just poison. Unfalsifiable poison, which is to be swallowed straight as your keepers watch. Every morning before breakfast. Then off to the fields or the workshops, singing an approved work song.
tim in vt,
Who are you quoting in your 7:36 a.m. comment?
Owen wrote;
"Unfalsifiable poison, which is to be swallowed straight as your keepers watch."
Twice in the past month I have read critiques of science that focused on its "falsifiable" characteristic. Both of these critiques were written by non-scientists with PhD's in the humanities.
This was one of them: https://aeon.co/essays/how-popperian-falsification-enabled-the-rise-of-neoliberalism
Both articles try to identify "falsifiability" with "popperism" as an intellectual fad. Both essays go out of their way to mention Poppers Jewish background.
"Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory..."
What insights would those be? If you're white you're racist? Ironically, that central formulation is why they are experiencing such pushback from liberals. If the pushback was solely coming from the conservative side, the battle would already be over. De Angelo says in White Fragility that she believes white liberals cause the most daily harm to POC. Of course what she really means is that white liberals most resist the racist label she tries to pin on them.
DavidUW said..."CRT, like Marxism, is also a religion."
Exactly. Not science, just feel-good (or bad) religious mantras. Separation of church and state alone should be enough to keep CRT out of government institutions and schools.
Progressives have been busy de-religioning schools for decades and now seek to fill the void with a religion of their own. What's that saying of Insty's often bandied about here?
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Ann Althouse said...In my 1960s biology class we were taught the theory of evolution, and when I said something reflecting a belief in the theory, the teacher snapped at me: "You're not a good Christian."
I wonder how many people see a parallel to employees questioning CRT "training".
Lewis Wetzel @ 8:43: Interesting comment about “falsifiability.” It’s a term I find very useful and I’ve used it freely for years. I am no scientist but my heroes are people like Feynman and Popper, because for me science is a *method* and falsifiability is its middle name. It tests our thinking by slamming it against the hard surface of reality, constructing an endless series of hypotheses with testable predictions. And then testing them. And recording the results. And if the results do not match the prediction, as is almost always the case? Abandon or amend the hypothesis based on the new data and try again.
If somebody wants to attack that method as being “Jewish?” That’s a dumb hypothesis and it won’t survive long. We know that; and in fact we don’t bother trying to falsify it, we can tell it’s just a marker for somebody suffering from unreasoning bigotry. If they say such things, it’s a good tool for ignoring them and their poisonous “ideas.”
There is no criticism of CRT from outside of CRT. This is explicitly stated as part of CRT--"you can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house." In other words, the point of CRT is to "dismantle" society; and therefore, it must stand outside of logic, reason and other "tools" of white supremacy. Those tools are inapplicable to CRT, by definition. The adherents of CRT will simply refuse to debate it.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/02/22/deepfakes-disinformation-c2pa-origin-cai/
Mr Wibble said..
dditionally, you have the DOJ and Labor Department who can exercise a lot of pressure as well. A couple of complaints about racial bias, a hostile workplace lawsuit, and *boom* companies are tripping over themselves to provide internal training since it's cheaper than fighting in court.
Yes, thank you! That's what I was trying to get to. The government has to be doing something to encourage this, because companies aren't really into spending money for no reason.
So there's the push to CRT training. Much like during the Obama administration the universities decided they needed to restrict due process rights for men accused of sexual assault on campus, and push for ideas like "affirmative consent" laws. They didn't just decide on their own to do it. The government incentivized it.
Even all the people in HR steeped in this is a byproduct of government making sure there is equity in hiring practices. You might not fill your engineering department with Women's Studies majors. But if you need more women in your company, you might stuff them all into HR where they can make work for themselves all day.
Many Democrats are currently pushing to make Corporate Boards more diverse-- minimum requirements for women, for gay people, for racial minorities. This will do more of that, too.
Think of the woman at Pinterest who decided her important work was to make sure the under represented in the company had a stronger voice. She had been chosen in part because Pinterest wanted the diversity of having a woman high up in the company.
My oldest son was a Communications major — yes, right, I know — at a medium sized public mid-tier university from 2010-2012. It quickly became nothing but CRT training, essentially, and he was wise enough to play their game and baffle ‘em with their own bullshit to get through it.
<>Communications!
CRT grotesquely abuses what constitutes a “theory”.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"@Althouse - in 1972, my Biology II high school teacher brought in a Creationist to present to the class the case against evolution."
In my 1960s biology class we were taught the theory of evolution, and when I said something reflecting a belief in the theory, the teacher snapped at me: "You're not a good Christian."
My biology teacher did it expressly so that the kids in class could savage the Creationist. And so we did. But we had to listen respectfully before we did it.
"f you buy anything bottled in a super market it is Coke or Pepsi.”
Just don’t tell me if they own Fiji water.
I've read elsewhere that CRT is just cultural Marxism that substitutes Race for Class in the Class War theory.
Since Whites are being made to feel ashamed of their race and humiliate themselves in public quasi-official settings, and since one of the goals seems to be forcing Whites to acknowledge they are an unworthy minority, why don't Whites just move past this phase and start getting uppity?
What would happen to a CRT classroom packed full of Whites if they just stood up and started pointing at the instructor and shouting in unison: "Racist....Racist...Racist...RACIST !!" Would the class be dismissed? Would anybody be punished? How?
Where do Asians fit into this? How about the mixed-race kids that populate TV commercials?
HR departments full of people that hate the productive elements of a company can only be absorbed by giant corporations that have their competition suppressed by a big government ally.
“What would happen to a CRT classroom packed full of Whites if they just stood up and started pointing at the instructor and shouting in unison: "Racist....Racist...Racist...RACIST !!" Would the class be dismissed? Would anybody be punished? How?“
This could happen in a normal sized company.
If you do it at Disney you get to train your H1B replacements in exchange for your severance package.
MayBee @ 9:14: good points about government pressure on corporations to “invest” in this crap but I would add that the pressure on management comes from all directions. Look at the way crybully students can push college management to spend wildly on yet more and ever more diversity. Look at the newsroom rebellion at the NYT or the insurrection at Google when James Damore was foolish enough to argue against the PC credo. Look at the pressure by billionaires acting directly or through their pet NGOs and foundations, to reward the obedient and starve the dissenters. Look not just at government investigations and prosecutions —hellishly distracting, humiliating and expensive— but at the civil cases brought by private plaintiffs and activist groups against corporations for alleged “toxic workplace culture” and discrimination in hiring and promotion of the favored subsection. Look at the bad media coverage that results, hurting the stock price and embarrassing the board of directors, who then look to replace a contumacious management.
It’s 360 degree 24/7 pressure. Even corporate managers are human; and will tend to succumb. Because nobody ever got fired for going along.
Anyone who believes in the validity of Critical Race Theory is genetically inferior.
No.
Critical race theory can not exist if it’s forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
And any attempt to prove that it should is only proof that it shouldn’t.
The problem with presenting any of the "systemic racism" ideas as just one perspective among many is that the adherents see the ideas as explanatory in full, AND as ideas that white people can never fully comprehend. Meaning disagreement from white people can be dismissed, except as evidence for how correct the ideas are.
For the disciples, acknowledging other perspectives amounts to defeat.
We think of free speech as the prevention of govt to limit personal speech.
Does "free speech" prevent the govt from prescribing speech?
If you do it at Disney you get to train your H1B replacements in exchange for your severance package.
So that's what happened to Disney's IT department!
No? You mean they did it to them anyway?
I am so fucking happy to be retired and reasonably rich : )
All of the CRT people quoted in that column — Crenshaw, Delgado, Haney-Lopez — were at Wisconsin in the 80s/90s. I remember them well. It was a very exciting time to be talking about these issues, a time of flux and ferment.
Progressives discussing CRT gets you excited, but Libertarians discussing states' rights drives you to tears?
That says all that needs to be said right there.
Michelle Goldberg. There’s one problem right there.
As we illuminate how such pudding-headed morons, with bad ideas, came to be in positions of some authority and influence, it might make smarter people come to attention.
It won’t change the smarter people’s ideas right away, and never fully. Too much pride.
It will make make many of the smarter people howl and gnash about blaming those who never played the game. Too deep the convictions.
But it’s vital to keep the morons and venal idiots with bad ideas away from positions of authority and influence.
I really don't understand the parallel she's attempting to draw. De-platforming is pretty stupid because you can always ignore Nazis or whoever. Let them speak and expose themselves to ridicule or hatred or whatever. Trying to silence them only makes them seem like victims, and people naturally wonder if those who are being silenced are telling dangerous truths.
CRT proponents have a right to speak, too. They can shout from the rooftops that America is a vile, irredeemably racist country. They can harangue and berate and get their point out there. And I should be free to ignore them.
But I'm not free to ignore them if I'm in a workplace or school that requires me to listen to them. Are Nazis similarly being given captive audiences?
tim in vermont said...
"Once they have defined any opposition to them as beyond the pale, they intend to completely de-anonymize the internet so that all content can be traced to its author. So if you utter a word online against them, they can destroy you."
Link to quoted article:
A promising step forward on disinformation
"Shortly after my meetings in Davos, I sketched out a back-of-the-envelope solution to address media authentication and provenance...."
CRT is always cathode ray tube to me.
CRT
A metaphor that cannot be avoided deserves closer attention. If we examine the mirror more closely, we may find that the metaphor actually serves the sociology of literature in unexpected ways. The marvelously revealing mirror in Hans Christian Andersen's ``The Snow Queen'' offers a case in point. In this tale a demon invents a unique mirror : it does not reflect, it systematically misreflects. Andersen's mirror shrinks and distorts every good and beautiful thing, and it magnifies everything evil or ugly. In this glass pleasant landscapes look like boiled spinach, normal people appear hideous, and kind thoughts become wicked grins.
The demon creator appears mildly amused by his invention, but his students, simple reflectionists, take it very seriously :
[quoting The Snow Queen]
All the pupils in the demon's school - for he kept a school - reported that a miracle had taken place : now for the first time, they said, it was possible to see what the world and mankind were really like. They ran about everywhere with the mirror, till at last there was not a country or a person which had not been seen in this distorting mirror.
Eventually the mirror breaks. Shards of glass fly through the world and lodge in people's eyes and hearts. These shards retain the peculiarities of the mirror, so that everyone sees the world through bent, distorted, and misshapen images.
Editors' introduction to the ``Sociology of Literature'' issue of _Critical Inquiry_ v.14 n.3 (Spring 1988) p.428-429
Paul From Minneapolis said...
The problem with presenting any of the "systemic racism" ideas as just one perspective among many is that the adherents see the ideas as explanatory in full . . .
This is what it shares with other totalitarian ideologies. Commies saw class conflict as explanatory of ALL of human history. Nazi's saw conflict between the races as explanatory of ALL of human history.
Compelled Speech in Canada is the event that put Jordan Peterson on the map.
It's interesting to back and watch his testimony to the Canadian Parliament regarding C-16. A lot has changed since then.
unlike these details
https://technofog.substack.com/p/new-fbi-memos-on-stefan-halper
I see five lights,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/china-rushes-to-crush-pro-democracy-movement-in-hong-kong/
Oddly enough, CRT suffers from the exact same problems as class-based Marxism. And creates the exact same problems as class-based Marxism. It is almost as if Marxism has problems and causes problems, in and of itself, that are solved by recognition of individual rights as holding precedence over collectivist needs, and limits on authoritarian reach of government.
Maybe if we stopped judging and treating people by the color of their skin, we could solve this racism issue!
Ann, It’s my recollection that the “crits,” as they were then called, were for the most part forced out of law school faculties ( or never hired) about 30 years ago. There were famous fights over crits at Harvard. I think that most law professors thought that critical theory was inconsistent with law school because it rejects reason and evidence and is unwilling to debate. Did anything similar happen at Wisconsin?
It also violates the 14th Amendment by requiring actions that are based on race.
Rufo has read his Hicks on evolving socialist/marxist strategies in 20th century.
You change the ethical standard from "need" to "equality," and you can see clearly the lineage of CRT in marxist strategies.
"Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?"
No. Because once they are understood, weighed, and debated, they will have a "no sale" in the marketplace of ideas. They can survive only if they are dictated.
Is there some way to present the insights of Christianity, say the concept of the Trinity or Jesus Christ, to be understood and weighed against other ideas...
CRT is largely comprised of religious concepts and maxims rather than ideas. Comparative studies are possible, but inevitably they must irritate the believers.
they wanted their lumpen proletariat, like the nationalities, azeri, chechen, ukrainian against the czar, that was the reason for the communist embrace of african americans,
Lewis Wetzel said...
Owen wrote;
"Unfalsifiable poison, which is to be swallowed straight as your keepers watch."
Twice in the past month I have read critiques of science that focused on its "falsifiable" characteristic. Both of these critiques were written by non-scientists with PhD's in the humanities.
This was one of them: https://aeon.co/essays/how-popperian-falsification-enabled-the-rise-of-neoliberalism
Both articles try to identify "falsifiability" with "popperism" as an intellectual fad. Both essays go out of their way to mention Poppers Jewish background.
2/26/21, 8:43 AM
That article is complete and utter garbage! The whole premise is built on a straw man principle. And as you point out, devolves to - because Nazis, that's why! And then devolves further into the current favorite for arguing that 'falsifiability is bogus': Climate Change(tm).
"Blessed Mysteries" such as the unitary nature of God and the Trinity are usually not considered the insights of Christianity (hence the phrase describing them). How about we bring up the Golden Rule, and compare and weigh it against other ideas about how to interact with others? That might prove fruitful.
"How about we bring up the Golden Rule..."
Those who have the gold make the rules.
agree Mike, but that's my point: the "insights" of CRT are closer to blessed mysteries in which you believe, or not. They are not playing around in the idea space.
Free speech doesn't apply to workplace harassment (creating hostile work environment) or discrimination in the workplace. CRT does both. It labels all white people as racist and demands things such as they "stop acting white." Would anyone doubt if there was a required workplace program that insisted that black people "stop acting black" that it would be deemed illegal racial discrimination? That's exactly what CRT does.
Worse, it categorizes people into hierarchies by race (whites on top, blacks on the bottom) but labels them oppressors with power and powerless victims. There can never be any change because these labels are not based on reality, but on past events, that also can't change. By inserting the power components into the definitions of racism and bigotry, it attempts to absolve itself of any charge of racism by its opponents. The idea is thus that a black person can't be racist because historically black people had no power. This argument can never be overcome because the history in which black people were slaves and then segregated in our country is unchangeable history despite the fact that black people have and do assert power in our society and we overcame slavery and segregation. thus, whites are placed into this power structure as if they had anything to do with it - people today aren't responsible for acts hundreds of years ago by their ancestors.
CRT and "anti-racism" seeks to justify all sorts of racist anti-white discrimination and conduct as deserved for historical grievances that can never be remedied. I really don't see how it is legal if imposed as part of a corporate training or government training for employees or students.
What a completely dishonest article! No one is calling for banning the teaching of the THEORY of Critical Race Theory. No one is advocating that the ideas can't be discussed in general.
The problems boil down to compelled speech (unconstitutional) and clear violations of the Civil Rights Act. It's wrong to compel speech/demand agreement with the asserted TRUTH of a theory of race relations and societal power dynamics. And it's wrong to subject one race to harassment in the workplace/school/government by singling them out in a negative context.
Forcing the acceptance of Critical Race Theory in schools, workplaces, and government entities could literally bring about the destruction of the US---and it's intended to do so if you take the slightest look at its origins and underpinnings. I wish I were exaggerating.
yes indeed,
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2021/02/25/the-thing-and-the-whole-of-the-thing/
yes it is mandating this as an organizing principle, like institutional malware,
Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs?}}}}
In practice, absolutely not. These theories are part of a totalitarian worldview that seeks to overthrow what they view as a 100% corrupt and villainous society.
A big part of this cuckoo worldview is that language is the main weaponry that the powerful use to maintain this continual oppression. Therefore, THERE CAN BE NO DEBATE or discussion or dialogue. The "truth" that "all of society is completely racist/sexist/etc etc down to its every particle" is foundational to this worldview. To debate or discuss would be, to them, to literally participate in this oppression.
See James Lindsay's article, "No, the Woke Won't Debate You. Here's Why." https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/
I've observed over the last 10-12 years that Michelle Goldberg is one of the more stupid, unthinking commentators out there.
I don't think she's stupid. She's a careerist, and she's perhaps that not broadly read, but this isn't stupidity. This is intentionally designed and likely effective propaganda.
Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations. Sending employees to Critical Race Theory classes is quite a bit cheaper. The people who have to attend those classes are not the people who would have to pay the reparations, as a sum that large would have to come from the very wealthy. But the attendees are getting paid for their attendance.
stevew said...
Diversity training and participation in bringing diversity to the workforce of the company I work for is not mandatory. Yet. I get the emails inviting me to the events, the follow-up emails with the recording of the event, and so forth. I never participate, usually delete the emails without opening them. I have no doubt that I am on a list, and that it is probably not a good list. I'm 63 years old, about 18 months away from retiring from this job, so I don't care.
**********************
Have you considered that "they" know you're close to retirement, and know that "they" can deny you any retirement benefits you would get from your company?
I know that few companies have pension plans anymore, but would nudging you out the door a year early cause you some financial pain? If "they" believe that, you might get that "nudge", to punish you for not surrendering to the Borg.
that's ridiculous, on whose authority
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/what-reporters-arrest-blm-riot-tells-us-about-daniel-greenfield/
Jeff Weimer said...I've observed over the last 10-12 years that Michelle Goldberg is one of the more stupid, unthinking commentators out there.
I'll never forget the bloggingheads wherein she debated Althouse and wound up tying her hair in knots with her fingers. I nervous tic or something.
Left Bank of the Charles said...Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations.
From whose ass did you pull that figure from?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations.
>>>So much stupidity. should every country in the world that has ever experienced slavery be handing out reparations to descendants of former slaves? 85% of all New World slaves went to brazil: should that country, still relatively poor, be taxing its citizens for sins of the past?
Sending employees to Critical Race Theory classes is quite a bit cheaper.
>>>> Utter inanity. WHO decides should be sent? AA explains the problem of the government compelling speech. What private companies have not---according to leftist doctrine---not benefited from slavery long ago? Should all their officers and shareholders be sent to CRT struggle sessions? WHO will send THEM?
The people who have to attend those classes are not the people who would have to pay the reparations, as a sum that large would have to come from the very wealthy.
>>>Oh, so you would send people who won't have to pay reparations to classes to force upon them your theory about why they too are guilty?
>>> And why should the wealthy bear the brunt? How did Gates or Bezos benefit from slavery that ended 150 years ago?
But the attendees are getting paid for their attendance.
>>>No. They are being COMPELLED to attend something that they didn't sign up for when they accepted employment.
You've obviously been drinking too much of that dirty water.
"How the right is trying to censor critical race theory"
WTF? The right is meekly challenging the dominant ideology of the ruling class. In the so-called marketplace of ideas CRT would be a minor contender. Under prog hegemony, it is the prime tool of indoctrination. Resistance is not "censorship."
"The problem with your argument is that Critical Race Theory is presented at schools and workplace sessions as the TRUTH, not just an (unprovable) social science theory. And it would be very uncomfortable (if not career or social suicide) to question this theory in front of one’s bosses and peers."
Exactly. But then, the discomfort is part of the strategy. They intend to turn us all Ito Havelian greengrocers.
Left Bank of the Charles said...The people who have to attend those classes are not the people who would have to pay the reparations, as a sum that large would have to come from the very wealthy.
Why target the wealthy who have the best legal resources to deflect paying such sum? Why not just print the money and inflate the currency? Why not appoint yourself as leader of guilt-ridden whites and go-fund it?
$1 Trillion is too low. The real number is about $500K per family. ~$5 Trillion
Howard said...$1 Trillion is too low. The real number is about $500K per family. ~$5 Trillion
Why not just make shit up? Make it even higher, fool.
Diversity dogma (i.e. color judgment) under the Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. "ethics" or relativistic, politically congruent morality) brayed in Progressive Churches/Synagogues/Temples/Mosques/Offices/Clinics etc. denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination. The concept of "white privilege" is a reused, recycled conception of the once popular "Jew privilege" favored by National Socialists. Diversity dogma, not limited to racism, breeds adversity. One step forward, two steps backward. That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #BabyLivesMatter(BLM)
An unprededented reparation in blood and treasure to end slavery and diversity, "our [unPlanned] Posterity" that stands up to diversity dogmatists (e.g. racists) and other similar classes of bigots.
Woke and drowsy. Diversity dogma is a thinly veiled fascist (i.e. collusion between public and private domains in pursuit of single/central/monopolistic management of capital and control) revival of bigotry (e.g. color judgments) by contemporary left-wing ideologues. #HateLovesAbortion
@Left Bank: Why not just use the voter rolls and target any registered Republican for Reparations? When Biden signs whatever is left of HR 127, why not target the master list of registered firearm owners for reparations? They after all can be most directly connected to Black murders in Chicago.
@Howard and Left Bank: I may sound like I'm just making things up, but why not? You two certainly are.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations. Sending employees to Critical Race Theory classes is quite a bit cheaper. The people who have to attend those classes are not the people who would have to pay the reparations, as a sum that large would have to come from the very wealthy. But the attendees are getting paid for their attendance.
This is how stupid you have to be to vote for democrats.
Or Mitch McConnell
Howard said...
$1 Trillion is too low. The real number is about $500K per family. ~$5 Trillion
Do descendants of Chinese slaves get 500K too?
Or just black slaves?
Why?
This is the spot in Gulag Archipelago where the people of Russia had the opportunity to stand up to it before it was too late.
In Germany, too. In China. In Zimbabwe. In Rwanda. In Libya. In post-apartheid Progressive South Africa. In forward-leaning America as Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall. Anywhere diversity dogma took root and progressed.
well the gulags came on in earnest after dzerzinskis red purge after lenin was shot by a social revolutionary, fanya kaplan, but if you weren't a social revolutionary or white russian you didn't have any worries, until it came to the mensheviks trotskyites, and plain old bolsheviks,
It's the perception game again. One imposes an orthodoxy without making it look like one is imposing an orthodoxy. It's science or professional standards or just the way things are. In this way, if one's opponents want to get rid of the orthodoxy, they have to call it out by name and they are the ones in favor of censorship.
So far as I know, critical race theory is a form of activism with a theory tacked on to justify the activism. When political activism comes in it doesn't leave much room for purely intellectual examination of theories. Purely intellectual study and discussion come to look like a dereliction of pressing moral imperatives. You could see the same tendencies at work in the Thirties and then again in the Sixties.
The Crits of the Eighties and Nineties were ahead of their time. The universities weren't as intellectually impoverished and thought they had other, more promising fields of study. Today, other approaches have fallen away and left race/gender/sexuality/environmentalism as the only thing going on.
A-hem.
Not to play the law professor here (our host is one of the best), I think that if there is to be a solid rejection of Critical Race Theory, one needs to engage with its critique seriously, and not just denounce it blindly. The Critical Legal Theory types, from which Critical Race Theory sprang, looked at legal structures and analyzed them from the point of view that the law and the legal system were designed to and had the effect of supporting the incumbent ruling class. It was a neo-Marxist, class-based criticism of the legal system. Critical Race Theory uses the same sort of analysis to demonstrate that the power structures of society are designed to and and have the effect of maintaining white people in power...and people of color out of power. CRT offers some real insights on social structures that can and should be addressed. They are matters for debate. As she says, it can be exciting to talk about these issues in a seminar. They lead to flux and ferment.
Under normal circumstances, most employers and most employees do not want their workplaces to be full of flux and ferment. As Althouse points out, and as most here agree, ideas like CRT should not become the new orthodoxy and jammed down the throats of everyone in a workplace. Among other things even the premises of CRT are highly debatable and therefore divisive.
CRT should have stayed on campus, where evidence might be marshalled to shred it. Instead, campuses have become places of groupthink of the most stifling sort. Unfortunately, there are few debates about these issues at most universities.
It is a crime to drag CRT into the workplace.
CRT is racism. You may think that it is a brand of racism with merit, but it is still racism.
As to reparations, the billions (adjusted for inflation) sunk into the Civil War, and the trillions sunk into Great Society programs have squared the financial account, as far as my tax-paying family is concerned.
All Americans need to take responsibility for building their own human capital. There is nothing more we can do for those who won't help themselves.
I don't know what European, Hispanic, African, and Asian American families that came here after 1865 think. I doubt they feel much obligation.
Critics did indeed engage with the 1619 project and question its assumptions and findings.
I suspect they also engage with CRT's claims, but those claims are so big and overarching and hard to prove or disprove factually that the debate doesn't get very far.
CRT is immune to criticism and they are demanding that white people do a BLM salute or take the knee or admit their racism. It is a political litmus test for non-political jobs, like a loyalty oath but much worse. When you say BLM you are implicitly supporting an arm of the dem party. It is not just a slogan but an organization.
As to reparations, no $ amount would ever be enough. It would be like the danegeld.
You change the ethical standard from "need" to "equality," and you can see clearly the lineage of CRT in marxist strategies.
There are a few things I might tweak on Hicks' socialist strategies schematic, but he nailed the concurrent attacks on our epistemological foundations and sleight of hand used to undermine if not invert our ethical ethical standards. I'd say the sudden predominance of substituting the word "equity" for "equality" nicely represents this two-pronged, and highly effective, mode of attack.
CRT is immune to criticism
This is not really true. Its popular practitioners may be adept at jiu-jitsu in terms of ignoring criticism, parrying with piquant attacks that divert attention and totally avoiding intellectual debate. They won't engage with criticism, but that's because they are not what they pretend to be, and easily revealed as intellectual imposters. At best the lack of engagement, an effective tactic but not a strategy, will keep this bullshit going longer than we'd like. They are not immune, they are being cautious.
Some of the better critics of CRT and CRJ on twitter, say James Lindsay and the rest of the grievance study hoaxers, are criticizing it very effectively. They're getting a ton of pressure applied on them in the form of organized and huge campaigns to smear them. Some foolish grad students and junior academics actually engage in debate once in a while with these characters. It's a very revealing test of intelligence or really, its deficiency, when you look at the comments of folks discussing who has the better of these exchanges. It may be that some people lack shame, but it also is often that they are not intelligent enough to realize they ought to be. That may be mostly the same thing.
Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations.
Says who? You?
No.
Next.
Lyssa said...
It seems like this is conflating and confusing a lot of different things -private companies, government workplaces, schools. What was being taught at Coca-Cola was ridiculous and deserves to have a light shone on it, but Coke (while bound by civil rights laws) has free speech rights, too (and we have the right to complain about it and perhaps decide not to do business with Coke). What happens in a government workplace with taxpayer dollars is different, and what is taught to kids in a school even more different still. It’s not purely an issue of free speech verses not.
If Coke was teaching a anti-black version of CRT, they'd be in court for those civil rights violations.
So they damn well ought be be there for what they ARE forcing on their workers.
Or, we can have a civil war about it. One would think that the people in the Party of the gun haters would be smart enough to not try to start a civil war. but one would be wrong
Our country should be paying something on the order of $1 trillion in reparations.
To "the People" and "our [unPlanned] Posterity" harmed by the Civil War, slavery, diversity, progressive mutations, and other selective, opportunistic, politically congruent policies.
War! ... Abortion! What is it good for?
"Is there some way to present the insights of Critical Race Theory as ideas to be understood and weighed against other ideas and debated instead of compelling attendance at events where the ideas are dictated and participants are forced to attest to the dictated beliefs"
Reparations comes, the Irish say, boy, I wish my G-G-Grand Mum was a slave, hey, they were,300 years ago in Arabia.
"As [Christopher] Rufo sees it, critical race theory is a revolutionary program that replaces the Marxist categories of the bourgeois and the proletariat with racial groups..."
Thus by corollary, A new Soviet Man becomes a new Soviet POC.
"That makes me think of Justice Jackson's famous line,"
"hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Justice Jackson knew what he was talking about.
Short answer ... "not if the proponents of Critical Race Theory have anything to say about it."
I would like to see people taught that all of us, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, etc., should receive respect and decent treatment from others, regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex, etc. Is that so hard?
I love that she has the audacity to talk about 'right wingers trying to censor...' If I were to speak out against critical race theory at my work, I would likely get fired. It is not censorship to try to diminish the influence of something treated as the gospel truth.
Michelle Goldberg is very emotional and not very deep. Althouse's encounters with her on BloggingHeadsTV are worth watching, particularly the one where Althouse was given the task of critiquing Sarah Palin's autobiography and argued it had literary merit superior to Barack Obama's efforts. Althouse reduced a very voluble Goldberg to speechlessness.
That was a great example of how to argue politely but effectively. And Althouse had mischief in her eyes.
Many of the more theoretical proponents of Critical Race Theory argue that the entire history of the white race is a history of the suppression of people of color. They conclude that this trait is likely part of their genetic structure, perhaps a part of their DNA. If this becomes a common belief among the political class, then all the Critical Race workshops and all the Critical Race lesson plans for school children in the world will do nothing to change this. What then, a "Final Solution? Pushing Critical Race Theory as public policy is playing with fire.
"Critical Race Theory" is the latest B.S. concept pushed by our 'Elites'. This theory has spawned bankrupt ideas like the "1619 Project", "Black Lives Matter", and "Defund the Police".
Man's most dangerous myth - "...the fallacy of race..." Attempts to classify mankind into so-called "races" have failed because they have been unscientific, too arbitrary, and based upon misconceptions of the nature of the classified variables. No ethnic group is pure or superior to another. Instead of harmful effects human hybridization constitutes one of the greatest creative powers of mankind. Racial prejudices which are socially determined reflect undeveloped personalities. "...The genesis of racial attitudes and the belief in the inevitability of war along with other extensions of racial mythology are rooted in the inadequacies of educational practices, social and economic conditions, and in emotional immaturity, all of which offer a challenge for democracy and for those who shape future world peace. Source: Montagu, M. F. A. (1942). Man's most dangerous myth: the fallacy of race. Columbia University Press.
Post a Comment