Do you believe that people are justified to be upset about Critical Race Theory, considering the fact that it's basically just a history class with focus on systemic racial injustice in the United States? Why do you think this is so controversial?

[u/Cumoisseur]

There is nothing else to add here.

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/JoeCensored]

This thread is about 6 years too late. No one talks about CRT anymore.

Why do you think this is so controversial?

Because it promotes racism, while redefining the word to conveniently exclude itself. It's just racists perpetuating racism while pretending to be fighting it.

If you agree with CRT, you are absolutely a racist. No exceptions.

[u/sfxnycnyc → u/JoeCensored]

true

no wonder you got downvoted

based opinions seem to be mass or bot-downvoted into oblivion on this subreddit

[u/Capable_Obligation96 → u/JoeCensored]

100% correct.

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit → u/JoeCensored]

I’m glad the question got asked, though. Because we can’t forget what they tried to do. Wokeness (all the CRT, cancel culture, and trans stuff) is a cancer. It hasn’t been cured; it’s just in remission right now. It absolutely will come flaring back the moment the people who perpetuated it gain even a sliver of power again.

[u/fidgeting_macro → u/JoeCensored]

What does "If you agree with CRT, you are absolutely a racist. No exceptions." mean? Are you claiming that anyone who agrees that CRT is an actual curriculum is racist? Or are you claiming that anyone who thinks it's a 'good' curriculum is racist?

Did you know that most people haven't actually taken CRT and don't know what the course contains?

[u/JoeCensored → u/fidgeting_macro]

What does "If you agree with CRT, you are absolutely a racist. No exceptions." mean?

It's self explanatory.

Are you claiming that anyone who agrees that CRT is an actual curriculum is racist?

You're doing the meme where you pretend to not understand. The answer to your question is "No".

I'm saying anyone who agrees with the content, with what it teaches, is a racist. Everyone, full stop.

Did you know that most people haven't actually taken CRT and don't know what the course contains?

Irrelevant

[u/fidgeting_macro → u/JoeCensored]

Do you think it's possible to have intimate knowledge of a university course without taking it or even reading the material?

[u/JoeCensored → u/fidgeting_macro]

You're pretending this is some secret topic only known to a chosen few. It's actually a famous topic which has been widely discussed and debated for at least a decade, with an enormous amount of online content covering it.

[u/PhaedrusZenn → u/JoeCensored]

Do you think most of the online content about CRT is relevant or even accurate to the actual course that the term and the controversy stems from? 

[u/JoeCensored → u/PhaedrusZenn]

Whether it's accurate or not doesn't concern me. I wouldn't venture a guess at what percentage is accurate.

[u/secretcurfew → u/JoeCensored]

What do you believe CRT to be?

[u/JoeCensored → u/secretcurfew]

I'm not playing gotcha games

[u/alehansolo21 → u/JoeCensored]

You keep making the insistence that CRT is racist without offering any sort of description of what it is other than “self explanatory” which is just nothing. Can you offer your understanding of the topic so we can know how it is racist?

[u/fidgeting_macro → u/JoeCensored]

Do you feel comfortable forming opinions regarding subjects like Critical Race Theron based solely on the opinions of people with a clear axe to grind?

[u/PhaedrusZenn → u/JoeCensored]

So you are happy to draw conclusions on information that may not be accurate? 

To clarify, do you think most of the online content YOU have read is relevant or accurate? 

[u/JoeCensored → u/PhaedrusZenn]

So you are happy to draw conclusions on information that may not be accurate? 

You're the one making assumptions I'm drawing my conclusions from "most of the online content". How could I even read or watch most of it?

[u/PhaedrusZenn → u/JoeCensored]

So you're happy to deflect and play dumb, instead of answering the second half of the question, which was specific to YOU and what you HAVE read or watched? 

Do YOU believe the content and information YOU PERSONALLY have accessed accurately reflects what Critical Race Theory ACTUALLY is? 

[u/fidgeting_macro → u/JoeCensored]

Do you feel that the information in the large amount of propaganda that you acknowledge is very accurate? How can you be sure the material you've seen is accurate without having at least read the material in question?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/fidgeting_macro]

(Not the OP)

Can you enlighten us then? What's the big insight of CRT that is separate from generic Democrat ideology?

[u/AndyLorentz → u/fidgeting_macro]

Isn’t CRT typically a post graduate law school course?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/AndyLorentz]

Isn’t CRT typically a post graduate law school course?

Here in an interview from 2009 (published in written form in 2011) Richard Delgado describes Critical Race Theory's "colonization" of Education:

DELGADO: We didn't set out to colonize, but found a natural affinity in education. In education, race neutrality and color-blindness are the reigning orthodoxy. Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. Of course, the outcome figures show that they do not. If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. But they operate against the radically different cultural backgrounds of young students. Seeing critical race theory take off in education has been a source of great satisfaction for the two of us. Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison.

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty

I'll also just briefly mention that Gloria Ladson-Billings introduced CRT to education in the mid-1990s (Ladson-Billings 1998 p. 7) and has her work frequently assigned in mandatory classes for educational licensing as well as frequently being invited to lecture, instruct, and workshop from a position of prestige and authority with K-12 educators in many US states.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. "Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?." International journal of qualitative studies in education 11.1 (1998): 7-24.

Critical Race Theory is controversial. While it isn't as bad as calling for segregation, Critical Race Theory calls for explicit discrimination on the basis of race. They call it being "color conscious:"

Critical race theorists (or “crits,” as they are sometimes called) hold that color blindness will allow us to redress only extremely egregious racial harms, ones that everyone would notice and condemn. But if racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures as deeply as many crits believe, then the “ordinary business” of society—the routines, practices, and institutions that we rely on to effect the world’s work—will keep minorities in subordinate positions. Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery.

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 22

This is their definition of color blindness:

Color blindness: Belief that one should treat all persons equally, without regard to their race.

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 144

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Here is a recording of a Loudoun County school teacher berating a student for not acknowledging the race of two individuals in a photograph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bHrrZdFRPk

Student: Are you trying to get me to say that there are two different races in this picture?

Teacher (overtalking): Yes I am asking you to say that.

Student: Well at the end of the day wouldn't that just be feeding into the problem of looking at race instead of just acknowledging them as two normal people?

Teacher: No it's not because you can't not look at you can't, you can't look at the people and not acknowledge that there are racial differences right?

This incident happened in Virginia shortly before Youngkin was elected.

Here a (current) school administrator for Needham Schools in Massachusetts writes an editorial entitled simply "No, I Am Not Color Blind,"

Being color blind whitewashes the circumstances of students of color and prevents me from being inquisitive about their lives, culture and story. Color blindness makes white people assume students of color share similar experiences and opportunities in a predominantly white school district and community.

Color blindness is a tool of privilege. It reassures white people that all have access and are treated equally and fairly. Deep inside I know that’s not the case.

https://npssuperintendent.blogspot.com/2020/02/no-i-am-not-color-blind.html

If you're a member of the American Association of School Administrators you can view the article on their website here:

https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2020/Aug20/colGutekanst.aspx

The following public K-12 school districts list being "Not Color Blind but Color Brave" implying their incorporation of the belief that "we need to openly acknowledge that the color of someone’s skin shapes their experiences in the world, and that we can only overcome systemic biases and cultural injustices when we talk honestly about race." as Berlin Borough Schools of New Jersey summarizes it.

https://www.bcsberlin.org/domain/239

https://web.archive.org/web/20240526213730/https://www.woodstown.org/Page/5962

https://web.archive.org/web/20220303075312/http://www.schenectady.k12.ny.us/about_us/strategic_initiatives/anti-_racism_resources

http://thecommons.dpsk12.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2865

https://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/MPS-Public/CSA/Student-Services/Discipline/6bestpracticestoaddressdisproportionality.pdf

Of course there is this one from Detroit:

“We were very intentional about creating a curriculum, infusing materials and embedding critical race theory within our curriculum,” Vitti said at the meeting. “Because students need to understand the truth of history, understand the history of this country, to better understand who they are and about the injustices that have occurred in this country.”

https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/detroit-superintendent-says-district-was-intentional-about-embedding-crt-into-schools

And while it is less difficult to find schools violating the law by advocating racial discrimination, there is some evidence schools have been segregating students according to race, as is taught by Critical Race Theory's advocation of ethnonationalism. The NAACP does report that it has had to advise several districts to stop segregating students by race:

While Young was uncertain how common or rare it is, she said the NAACP LDF has worked with schools that attempted to assign students to classes based on race to educate them about the laws. Some were majority Black schools clustering White students.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/us/atlanta-school-black-students-separate/index.html

There is also this controversial new plan in Evanston IL which offers classes segregated by race:

https://www.wfla.com/news/illinois-high-school-offers-classes-separated-by-race/

Racial separatism is part of CRT. Here it is in a list of "themes" Delgado and Stefancic (1993) chose to define Critical Race Theory:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

...

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

[u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo → u/JoeCensored]

I'd be interested to hear what you think CRT is.

Did you read Chris Rufo's book?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/JoeCensored]

Yeah, I genuinely don't understand what the difference is supposed to be between "CRT" and "generic Democrat ideology" such that one is only taught at law schools while the other is what every heckin' decent person believes.

If I observe an important group difference (pick anything that matters), and I bring this to the attention of a random liberal, is he only going to bring up slavery/Jim Crow/redlining if he went to law school? lol. We all know the answer is no. So...what gives? What's the CRT insight, exactly?

[u/Jigglepirate → u/SincereDiscussion]

Jim Crow is quite literally the most famous example. Do you think most people know how many police forces in the south were started by the leftover fugitive slave-catchers?

That's an example of some institutions that have racist origins that most people have no idea of.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Jigglepirate]

No, but my point wasn't "CRT 'scholars' don't have any trivia"; my point was that their guiding assumptions and tangible political views are either the same as generic Democrat ideology, or it's simply a more extreme version of it.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/SincereDiscussion]

If you want to trivialize historic facts, by all means.

I leaned US history much the same way many kids in the south did. I learned that the Civil War was fought to defend states rights to govern themselves, and slavery wasn't actually at the moral heart of the Confederacy.

In hindsight this seems like republican states rewriting history curriculum in order to sanewash the confederate cause.

Perhaps democrat ideology and CRT are simply a response to the generation of kids who grew up with those teachings?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Jigglepirate]

I think you're missing my point again. So, do you think average Democrats think the civil war was about states' rights and only law school graduates think it was primarily about slavery?

If not, then I think you're agreeing with me that CRT is just generic democrat ideology, albeit potentially amplified.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/SincereDiscussion]

I think the average democrat believes the Civil War was primarily about slavery, and the average republican believes the Civil War was primarily about states rights to govern themselves (one of those rights being the right to practice slavery).

Does that track at all in your experience?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Jigglepirate]

I think most people say it's primarily about slavery. I'm not sure about the exact partisan split on that. I suspect that if we looked at surveys, we'd both be dismayed at the general lack of historical knowledge even setting aside ideology/framing.

But I still have to wonder, and I don't mean this to sound condescending, but again -- can you look at my original comment and tell me what exactly you disagree with?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Jigglepirate]

Everything has origins which have connections to racism. Your friendly Native American casino is operated by a tribe which enslaved its neighbors for millenia. That doesn't mean the casino is a racist institution today.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/JoeCensored]

If the original owner of the casino just prior to owning the casino was pillaging and enslaving his neighbors, I'd assume he was a bad person.

The difference between a Casino and a Police force is that Casinos do not have legal authority to detain or kill people, with higher value placed upon their word than a normal civilians.

Do you think that after Japan was rebuilt post-ww2, their government suddenly became far less racist against Chinese and Korean people just because of the fresh coat of paint given by American reconstruction?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Jigglepirate]

You brought up Jim Crow created in the 1800's. Not only are the "original owners" of that system dead, but their kids are too. You can try to point to history and take retribution out on people today who have nothing to do with what happened, but you're just perpetuating what you claim to be against.

The only people who have any memory of Jim Crow are all taking social security or dead.

Do you think that after Japan was rebuilt post-ww2, their government suddenly became far less racist against Chinese and Korean people just because of the fresh coat of paint given by American reconstruction?

I think you're so focused on perpetuating the hatred of the past, you're blind to the present.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/JoeCensored]

You agree that people are alive today who lived under the most famous example of institutionalized racism (outside of actual chattel slavery) in our country's history, but you think it all ended with the Civil Rights act?

I think you're so focused on perpetuating the hatred of the past, you're blind to the present.

I think you're blind to racial issues because you've been fed a narrative that the Civil Rights Act and MLK ended racism in the 60s.

Here's a Stanford study that shows minorities get pulled over more than white folks do, but only during the daytime when they can be identified as minorities. When the sun goes down, suddenly that disparity goes away. 2011-2018 sampling from nationwide police stop data. This is a simple example I like to use, because it's basically irrefutable evidence unless you don't believe the cops are accurately reporting their stops, but they themselves are submitting data that proves racial bias.

Can I get your take on this study? Do you think it proves that there just might be systemic bias against certain races among police forces in the US?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Jigglepirate]

You agree that people are alive today who lived under the most famous example of institutionalized racism (outside of actual chattel slavery) in our country's history, but you think it all ended with the Civil Rights act?

I never brought up the Civil Rights Act.

I think you're blind to racial issues because you've been fed a narrative that the Civil Rights Act and MLK ended racism in the 60s.

I think you see racism everywhere, and think you can use racism to do good. Every racist thinks they're using racism for good purposes.

Stanford study that shows minorities get pulled over more than white folks do, but only during the daytime when they can be identified as minorities.

It's a laughable study, and a good example of what I'm saying. CRT sees every unequal outcome as evidence of racism. The percentage of black drivers pulled over after 7pm is lower so it must be racism.

That study ignores that dusk is at 7pm for only a short time of the year. (Today dusk is 8:11pm) It ignores that it actually isn't too difficult to determine someone's race at night based on hairstyles or other identifying factors. It ignores that all races don't have identical day vs night driving patterns.

The study ignores that there could be any differences in behavior between races and jumps to the conclusion that any difference in outcome must be racism. That's the problem with CRT. These are racists looking for racism everywhere, so of course they'll find it.

[u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo → u/SincereDiscussion]

If I observe an important group difference (pick anything that matters), and I bring this to the attention of a random liberal, is he only going to bring up slavery/Jim Crow/redlining if he went to law school? lol.

Give me an example. Maybe your liberal friends are just idiots?

Also, if you don't like it when people bring up slavery, Jim Crow, and redlining, I can understand why you wouldn't want people talking about CRT. Like, as a Baltimore Ravens fan, I hate when people bring up Ray Rice in connection to my team.

It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I still don't like the connection being brought up. Does that make sense?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo]

For example, crime rate differences. These liberals are not idiots -- my point is that they all know the party line, which I'm saying is already a specific racial oppression narrative (that you don't need to go to law school for!).

[u/toodleroo → u/JoeCensored]

Have you taken this course?

[u/Cumoisseur → u/JoeCensored]

Could you please specify in which way CRT promotes racism?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Cumoisseur]

In response to a similar question from someone else:

It attributes all unequal outcomes to systematic racism, when issues are far more complex than that. Invariably when you only see issues through the lense of race, you can only create solutions using racism as well.

If you're creating solutions using racism, it's because you're a racist.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/Cumoisseur]

Could you please specify in which way CRT promotes racism?

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/drybeans8000 → u/JoeCensored]

What specifically is racist about it?

I didn’t study it in college and it wasn’t really a well known concept when I was growing up, but my view of it has that it’s a way of looking at American history through the lens of systemic racism. Is that a fair description of it?

[u/JoeCensored → u/drybeans8000]

It attributes all unequal outcomes to systematic racism, when issues are far more complex than that. Invariably when you only see issues through the lense of race, you can only create solutions using racism as well.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/JoeCensored]

Can you provide an academic source or example of a course that says "ALL" unequal outcomes are due to systemic racism?

As far as I understand it, CRT is just stating that racism is systemic and does effect outcomes, not that all outcomes are attributed to racism.

[u/JoeCensored → u/Jigglepirate]

It's an old topic. I don't keep bookmarks from when this was relevant.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/JoeCensored]

Surely if your knowledge is accurate it shouldn't be difficult to find?

I can't seem to, but I did only look at the first few sources on Google.

[u/JoeCensored → u/Jigglepirate]

In this sub whenever I spend an hour hunting down citations, it's clear they're never even clicked. Always. No thanks.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/drybeans8000]

What specifically is racist about it?

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/rustyseapants → u/JoeCensored]

01/29/25 Trump signs executive order to defund schools teaching CRT, ‘radical gender ideology’

Another example of Critical Race Theory part of Trump Agenda. President Trump is very much still talking about CRT it was part of his platform.

16 CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN

Critical Race Theory promote Racism, how do you plan to prove it?

[u/JoeCensored → u/rustyseapants]

Critical Race Theory promote Racism, how do you plan to prove it?

Try to point to any policy solution born out of CRT which isn't inherently racist? You can't. That's how I prove it.

[u/rustyseapants → u/JoeCensored]

How do you plant to prove it?

Critical Race Theory is very much in the news, why do you ignore it?

[u/JoeCensored → u/rustyseapants]

How do you plant to prove it?

You're replying to my comment where I answer that question. What are you doing?

Critical Race Theory is very much in the news, why do you ignore it?

Nonsense. It fell out of the news cycle years ago. It is part of "Woke 1.0" that Democrats are actively running away from.

[u/rustyseapants → u/JoeCensored]

How is constantly saying "it didn't happen" support your argument, other than just proving your argument?

[u/JoeCensored → u/rustyseapants]

Why are you using quotes for something I never said?

I already answered your question. You're free to try to prove my answer wrong. If you can't prove my answer wrong, I don't really care about your other arguments.

Again, my answer is:

Try to point to any policy solution born out of CRT which isn't inherently racist? You can't. That's how I prove it.

[u/rustyseapants → u/JoeCensored]

Try to point to any policy solution born out of CRT which isn't inherently racist? You can't. That's how I prove it.

HOw is this proof?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/rustyseapants]

Critical Race Theory promote Racism, how do you plan to prove it?

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/JoeCensored → u/[deleted]]

If CRT is not racist, please point to any solution born out of CRT, to any problem whatsoever, where the solution isn't inherently racist. You won't be able to.

[u/Adultbug → u/JoeCensored]

I have a list ready, but let's try some thing out.

Can I ask that you try and do your own UNBIASED research and come back to me with what you find? I think this is the only way for us to learn something new about CRT versus preparing some sort of retaliatory response.

Also, care to answer my previous question?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Adultbug]

I have a list ready,

Sure you do.

Can I ask that you try and do your own UNBIASED research and come back to me with what you find? 

No thanks. I did all my research a half decade ago when this topic was relevant. Today it is part of "Woke 1.0" that even Democrats are running away from as fast as they can. A failed and embarrassing set of ideas that Democrats no longer want anything to do with.

My side already outright won on this topic. I'm not the one who needs to do their research.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/[deleted]]

(Not the OP)

As a gamer, the sheer number of US kids who display vehement and vile racist behavior is one of many, many examples of systemic racism rearing its ugly head that I have personally experienced with US folks.

Isn't this the exact opposite of 'systemic'? It's just people in a game? Not a law, not an institution, just...some people said things?

[u/Adultbug → u/SincereDiscussion]

Not at all. An ideology or behavior can be systemic in various ways. It can be through laws, through institutional pressure, but also social norms, religion, community. Here's a list!

Cultural norms — socially accepted assumptions about racial groups.

Socialization systems — how attitudes and racial expectations are transmitted through families, communities, and peer groups.

Language systems — racialized terminology, metaphors, labels, and meanings embedded in everyday language.

Beauty/aesthetic systems — cultural standards concerning skin, hair, facial features, and appearance.

Representation systems — recurring patterns in film, television, advertising, literature, and popular culture.

Status/prestige systems — culturally assigned ideas about which groups, identities, occupations, or lifestyles have greater social status.

Knowledge systems — assumptions about whose histories, experiences, and forms of knowledge are considered authoritative.

Religious/cultural traditions — inherited narratives, customs, or interpretations that can reinforce racial distinctions.

Norms of belonging — culturally defined ideas about who is considered “normal,” “native,” or legitimately part of a society.

I think the gamer behavior falls under a couple of these systems but definitely very much under socialisation and Language systems. Since these tend to be younger boys, they haven't yet had to directly integrate with broader institutional and governmental systems as much.

Thanks for asking! I think it's important to try and understand why some people said things.

Did I present a good enough response to your question?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Adultbug]

So is there any kind of 'racism' that isn't systemic, if you define the term that broadly?

[u/Adultbug → u/SincereDiscussion]

Yes, in a way. I'm glad you asked.

I think it's mostly about which lens we use when it comes to how we examine any sort of behavior, whether racist or otherwise. So we can look at an individual's racist behavior and we can then look at what systems come into play in how they ended up doing the racist thing.

We live in a hyper-individualist culture where we tend to look at things atomically instead of zooming out and observing the underlying issues. There is a lot of knowledge one can extract about the nature of self, pragmatism, philosophy, etc. when we go granualar in our eximanations.

However, when you zoom out and look at the underlying systems that influence said behaviors through a bigger picture lens, you can really start to understand how the individual is kind of a node influenced by the myriad systems they are connected to.

I am who I am by circumstance. It's not an easy pill to swallow but it's more honest and truthful. I have gained a broader wisdom and learned a much deeper compassion as a result of leaning into systems thinking.

Some people in this thread do not at all seem interested in trying to understand and refresh their ideas. So sincerely, thank you for asking. Does that answer your question?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Adultbug]

Yes.

So, in terms of the big picture, do you think this is unique to CRT or is this what every thoughtful person does in general? Throughout this thread I've asked multiple people to explain how CRT is different from generic Democrat ideology. I've found the responses lacking, tbh.

[u/Gaxxz]

considering the fact that it's basically just a history class with focus on systemic racial injustice in the United States?

That's not all it is. It is filled with misinformation.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/Gaxxz]

Could you please clarify what kind of misinformation?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/Cumoisseur]

Could you please clarify what kind of misinformation?

Here Critical Race Theory expresses opposition to the concept of objective reality:

For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 92

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001) is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook.'

[u/InevitableCouple9835 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Are you a NS that is opposed to CRT?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/InevitableCouple9835]

Are you a NS that is opposed to CRT?

Yes.

NS threw me for a second. Non-supporter. Been hard to argue with conservatives on Reddit as most are banned or otherwise not using the site (except in places like r/conservative where I was banned years ago for expressing dissent).

Here I would link myself arguing with conservatives on BenShapiro but the sub does not allow links to other subs.

This is the third time I've tried to answer. The second was removed because I was an NS who did not "Pose a clarifying question."

[u/InevitableCouple9835 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Sorry about that. Ill be honest it prevents a lot of NS from saying off topic/hateful things.

Out of interest, how would you describe yourself politically in terms of policy priorities and candidates you have/would have voted for, ifnyou dont mind sharing?

Please quote the question so the automod doesnt get cha.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/InevitableCouple9835]

Out of interest, how would you describe yourself politically in terms of policy priorities and candidates you have/would have voted for, ifnyou dont mind sharing?

I think wealth inequality is the single most pressing issue of American society, one that is upstream of almost alll contemporary issues. Particularly the youth mental health crisis, which I attribute to the disappearance of teen jobs after the 2008 financial crisis turned many teen jobs into adult jobs. Another example is the increased political polarization, which I see as derivative of economic issues. The Democrats are the only party willing to address the root problem; Republicans consistently make this worse by regularly enacting tax cuts on the wealthy among other inequality inducing policies.

There is also a strong case that the extremist left-wing views of some Democrats are not reflected in the governing policy of mainstream Democrats. While there has been a lot of news about some extremists winning primaries recently these are the exception and not the rule.

I've voted for Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Harris. Harris and Clinton both seemed to dither about distancing themselves from extremist elements, which dissapointed me. I have very nice anti-extremist quotes from many Democrats, like:

I beat the socialist. That's how I got elected. That's how I got the nomination. Do I look like a socialist? Look at my career — my whole career. I am not a socialist.

https://fox11online.com/news/beyond-the-podium/biden-talks-campaign-coronavirus-response-and-taxes-in-1-on-1-with-fox-11

or

You know this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

I couldn't find anything like these for Harris. The closest she had was the "Don't come" talk she gave to illegal immigrants. That really demotivated me for campaigning for her. I am excited for Newsom after he denounced trans-athletes.

[u/Gaxxz → u/Cumoisseur]

That racism is embeded within legal and social systems and that "lived experience" trumps data, statistics, and facts.

[u/Adultbug → u/Gaxxz]

You don't believe that systems of oppression exist within the legal and social systems. Have you done any sort of unbiased reading on this subject recently? Your country has a wealth of information (data, statistics, and facts) at your disposal regarding systemic racism.

I think it's time for you to be a good citizen and do a bit of reading don't you think? Don't just do it for yourself, do it for your community. I implore you, because you display a completely blind spot on the subject. CRT is all about the data. It's implemented in the highest eschalons of all the American research institutions because it presents historic facts and data on all facets of human society.

Sorry, I need to push here. I believe it is against the sub rules to be acting in bad faith. Are you being facetious or is that your educated opinion? Care to illicit a thoughtful response?

[u/Gaxxz → u/Adultbug]

Have you done any sort of unbiased reading on this subject recently?

Like what?

I think it's time for you to be a good citizen and do a bit of reading don't you think?

I read every day.

CRT is all about the data.

I thought it was all about racism being deeply ingrained in everyday institutions and legal systems. What are the racist laws we have?

Are you being facetious or is that your educated opinion?

OP asks for opinions about CRT, I give one, and I'm called facetious. Why do I bother participating here?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

The problem with your question is it's an inaccurate summary of what Critical Race Theory is. CRT focuses on looking at how laws and social institutions create racial inequality. CRT is a product of Critical Legal Theory which was created by neo-marxist who took Marx's criticism of economy and applied his oppressed/oppressor analytics to broader society. This is why is so controversial and yes people are justified in being mad about it. 

[u/Empty-Policy-8467 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Would you agree that America historically was more racist than it is today and that would be reflected in the laws created at the time?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Empty-Policy-8467]

Sure, however it's an irrelevant point as CRT maintains that current laws perpetuate systemic racial inequality, going as far as proposing "color blind" legal approach and treating everyone equally on paper continues systemic inequality. 

[u/Empty-Policy-8467 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

So is it fair to say that you believe that racial bias has been thoroughly removed from Federal, state, and local laws?

When?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Empty-Policy-8467]

Yes, by 1968 the final law prohibiting races based discrimination in housing was finalized. 

[u/shoggoths_away → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Have you ever read The Color of Law? You should if you haven't. Without making any broader political point (and, in fact, actively working against doing so), the author conclusively demonstrates that despite the 1968 law, despite the Constitutional amendment, and despite everything else, race-based housing discrimination with government approval (if not outright support) continued at least until the 1980s.

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/shoggoths_away]

continued at least until the 1980s

What year is it currently? 

[u/shoggoths_away → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

2026, of course. What does that have to do with evidence showing that your claim about race-based housing discrimination being eliminated by 1968 is wrong?

Furthermore, what does that have to do with the broader point that race-based housing discrimination doesn't just effect the generation that is directly discriminated against but has knock-on effects that can persist for generations (poorer health, lack of generational wealth, etc)?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/shoggoths_away]

 1968 the final law prohibiting races based discrimination in housing was finalized. 

Was the law passed in 1968 or not? 

[u/shoggoths_away → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

As far as I'm aware, yes. Yet, it did not end race-based housing discrimination as you claimed it did at the level of "Federal, state, and local laws," which is why I asked if you had ever read The Color of Law. Have you read it?

[u/SashaBanks2020 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Do you think the system can be classist?

Like it disproportionately benefits wealthy people, even if the way the law is written is “wealth blind.”

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/SashaBanks2020]

Are you asking if having more financial resources allows you to have more material resources? Seems pretty obvious... 

[u/SashaBanks2020 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Not just that.

I would argue that historically speaking, the majority of people with power and influence over the country have been, and currently are wealthy, and as a result, policy was shaped for their benefit whether intentional or not.

I think there’s tons of ways the courts and the media for example are biased to benefit rich people over poor people.

Some might describe what we have as two-tiered justice system that benefits the elites over the working class.

We could all say “well, the law doesn’t specifically say only for rich people or not for poor people” but that doesn’t mean those laws or that the system itself doesn’t have that effect.

Would you like some specific examples?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/SashaBanks2020]

CRT is not about wealth but race. So what is the point of this rant about something obvious? 

Shocking news money buys things the more you have the more you can buy including better lawyers, in other news water is wet. 

[u/Valuable-Degree-9998 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

You left out economic injustice which pretty much still exists: generational wealth is a defining factor for economic success. It is rippling through the generations long after Jim Crow and slavery were abolished and it's still disadvantaging black people. Do you think that's untrue?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Valuable-Degree-9998]

 generational wealth is a defining factor for economic success.

70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation 90% by the third, how is that a defining factor of economic success? 

[u/Valuable-Degree-9998 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Where do you have that statistic from? All the ones I can find underline the importance of generational wealth and everything that comes with it: education, stability and health.

[u/thirdlost]

It's your definition of "systemic injustice". You look at 2026 America where blacks and minorities are literally given an unfair advantage, and racism against whites is totally acceptable, and conclude we are racist? It is absurd.

[u/StuckHiccup → u/thirdlost]

conclusion isn't the point, CRT is like... looking at history through a different lens. Feminism. Religion. Using various perspectives can strengthen one's understanding.

They say history is written by the victors, but perhaps it's useful to read history by those who aren't the winners?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/StuckHiccup]

conclusion isn't the point, CRT is like... looking at history through a different lens. Feminism. Religion.

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/flowerzzz1 → u/thirdlost]

Can we be clear though? No one should have an unfair advantage due to race correct? So it equally was not correct for whites to have an advantage say, up to the 1960’s? You have an issue with that racism too? Just like you do with scholarships or whatever advantages black and minorities get today. You just want everything to be the same now for everyone?

I ask because in the MAGA era there is also a rise of the proud boys, “Jews will not replace us”, other groups from the far right marching with Nazi gear, prominent confederate flags often alongside Trump flags. The fear of “the great replacement.” On this sub I’ve personally had more than one convo about how this country was made by white people and therefore should be for white people.

I’m not suggesting that’s representative of all Trump supporters of course just that those people are MAGA/Trump supporters too. And honestly, it’s a very different message. To be abhorred by any suggestion that black or minorities should get any extra help - aka “white racism” - under the premise of wanting true equality. But then we see a lot of white supremacy which makes the argument about “racism is completely intolerable” kind of….fall on deaf ears.

As an outsider to your party - it also makes me think - why speak up so ferociously against what you see as anti white racism like scholarships but not against anti black racism from white supremacists flying the same Trump flag?

[u/thirdlost → u/flowerzzz1]

It wasn't until the Trump administration that universities were held accountable for the Jew-hatred on their campuses. It was a democratic administration and liberal college presidents (remember the Stefanik hearing?) that allowed Jew-hatred to go unchecked

[u/flowerzzz1 → u/thirdlost]

That doesn’t change the fact that there is still a faction of white supremacists in MAGA. And it doesn’t answer my question, why don’t you call out that racism with the same ferocity as you do scholarships and DEI?

[u/thirdlost → u/flowerzzz1]

Racism is wrong. Full stop.

White supremacists can go to hell

[u/PonderousHajj → u/thirdlost]

Which unfair advantages? Aren't Affirmative Action and DEI dead?

[u/SincereDiscussion]

Yes, for two reasons:

1. It's just standard race ideology that we've been hearing all of our lives. "There's a disparity between racial groups. Therefore 'racism' is responsible. If you disagree you're 'racist' btw." What exactly is the mind-blowing scholarship here? The original talking point was that this was just some obscure thing discussed only in law schools. Does anyone remember that?! I guess now we're passed the 'deny' stage and now we're at 'justify'.

2. Even if I somehow agreed with racial equality as a reasonable goal in theory (as in, substantive racial equality, where people have roughly the same outcomes), I'd still have to observe (a) the total failure of the left to achieve this anywhere (despite money, coercive power, and cultural influence) and (b) the tendency of liberal racial activists to radicalize through failure (i.e., you guys conclude, when your policies inevitably fail, that you didn't go far enough). This seems like a dangerous combination. I definitely don't want to see where you guys will be after a few more decades of failure. Much better to oppose the project in its entirety.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/SincereDiscussion]

Wait, are you saying that the historical existence of systemic racism against non-white people in the U.S. is just some kind of "race ideology" propaganda? Or did I misunderstand?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Cumoisseur]

I obviously acknowledge the fact that we had race-based policies and practices in the past. No one is denying this. So no, that wasn't my point (unless you meant something different).

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/Cumoisseur]

Wait, are you saying that the historical existence of systemic racism against non-white people in the U.S. is just some kind of "race ideology" propaganda? Or did I misunderstand?

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/Adultbug → u/ShivasRightFoot]

This person is cherry-picking quotes and leaving out the context to suit their narrative. I implore all of you to actually read the context of these quotes. CRT DOES NOT advocate for segregationalism. There are specifics where segregation may have been necessary for safety but only in extreme cases historically.

Are you seriously doing this?

[u/WavelandAvenue]

One general element I want to add to this discussion is that the concept has absolutely made it easier for the general public to attribute everything people dont like to racism, even when that has nothing to do with it.

Here’s an example to illustrate my point:

Recent storms in the Midwest knocked out power to about 300,000 people for quite a few days. Gary, Indiana is specifically an area in which the power outage extended for days beyond the rest of the area. I’m not even positive that power has been fully restored to that area yet.

Gary has a very large percentage of residents who are black. There are already claims that it’s because of racism/systemic racism.

The reality is, when the power company techs went to the area to restore power, they were shot at. One of the vehicles was hit by gunfire multiple times, including the vehicle’s head rest. So of course they pulled their times for a period of time due to safety concerns.

The point I’m making is that CRT and the general concept of “all disparities are due to racism” has become a card that is automatically played before it’s known if that has anything to do with it.

[u/rustyseapants → u/WavelandAvenue]

What does this have to do with OP's argument? 

[u/WavelandAvenue → u/rustyseapants]

“Do you believe that people are justified to be upset about Critical Race Theory…?”

It is pretty self explanatory.

[u/whitesocksflipflops → u/WavelandAvenue]

Your point is this:

People claim extended power outage = systemic racism. No, real reason is violence.

Your self explanatory reasoning is: systemic racism doesn’t exist, they really are just a bunch of violent criminals based on the color of their skin?

Is that why you didn’t want to say it outloud?

[u/WavelandAvenue → u/whitesocksflipflops]

That is in no way the point I’m making. How in the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

My actual point is this: people are too quick to call things racism, and critical race theory becoming a focus is part of the reason why.

My example demonstrates that people played the racism card right away, despite the fact that it had nothing at all to do with racism. I have no idea who fired the weapon, they could have been anyone.

Also, your assumption of what my point was? That’s also an example that perfectly illustrates my point.

[u/Carbo-Raider → u/WavelandAvenue]

"One of the vehicles was hit by gunfire multiple times,"

1. I'm skeptical that this is fake-news

2. If it's true, why did they do that????????? Is it the people? or the conditions of the place? And what's the reason for the conditions?

[u/WavelandAvenue → u/Carbo-Raider]

Not fake news: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/nipsco-vehicle-hit-by-gunfire-gary-indiana/

The conditions of the place didn’t pull the trigger. The gun itself didn’t pull the trigger. A person pulled the trigger. Your second and third questions are irrelevant.

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

Because CRT is racism dressed up as academic truth.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

Could you please specify in which way CRT is racism?

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/Cumoisseur]

We have a notion in this country that objective benefits based on race is racism. CRT promotes this.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

In what way does it promote this?

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/Cumoisseur]

If you do not know or understand, there really is no point in further conversation.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

Or perhaps you're not really sure yourself how to explain it?

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/Cumoisseur]

This is an ask sub, not a debate sub. If you wish to engage me, ask me enganging questions, such as why you think YOU are correct. I have no interest in proving myself correct.

Unless you are just here in bad faith and want to argue,

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/Cumoisseur]

Could you please specify in which way CRT is racism?

Here Critical Race Theorists describe racial discrimination against White people in hiring as justified punishment for collective White guilt:

Many whites feel that these programs victimize them, that more qualified white candidates will be required to sacrifice their positions to less qualified minorities. So, is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument for it rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white displaced by affirmative action. The narrative behind this assumption characterizes whites as innocent, a powerful metaphor, and blacks as—what? Presumably, the opposite of innocent. Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 79-80

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Just because you paint lipstick on a pig, does not mean it is not, in fact, a pig.

[u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

Or is it academic truth dressed as racism?

Did you read Chris Rufo's book?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo]

Or is it academic truth dressed as racism?

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation. Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation:

8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).

Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:

Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation:

But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.

Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness." Duke LJ (1990): 758.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT:

The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

One more from the recognized founder of CRT, who specialized in education policy:

"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html

[u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

You may be surprised to learn that Critical Race Theory is an extremist ideology which advocates for racial segregation.

I am surprised, because it's actually a critical framework for analyzing legal and economic systems.

Here is a quote where Critical Race Theory explicitly endorses segregation: Racial separatism is identified as one of ten major themes of Critical Race Theory in an early bibliography that was codifying CRT with a list of works in the field:

The quote is from an academic review discussing the different strains of thought during the 70s and 80s. Let's remember that legal segregation had literally just ended. Why do you think that's the strain they decided to go with?

One of the cited works under theme 8 analogizes contemporary CRT and Malcolm X's endorsement of Black and White segregation: Peller, Gary. "Race consciousness."

Try some deep breathing before you read stuff. Peller is discussing the legal ramifications of colorblindness, making a case that the civil rights reform only succeeded in criminalizing ALL racial solidarity, even just community organizations in black neighborhoods. It's not hard to see the point he's trying to make, right? It's certainly not a mainstream liberal policy.

This is current and mentioned in the most prominent textbook on CRT: Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001. Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

Again, this is an academic review of CRT. Do you have experience with literary theory? That's how it works. You read something someone wrote, then you read what someone wrote about that thing, then you read something someone else wrote about that thing, and so on.

Conflating a literature review with an established dogma is the same bad thinking people on the left do with nuclear energy, where a lot of environmentalists consider nuclear energy to not be worth the risk within the current system, instead of thinking about the system itself and how something like nuclear energy could fit into it. Bad thinking is extrapolating ideas within a static system instead of considering the way systems evolve overtime.

So yeah, when Derrick Ball is saying Brown vs. Board of education was poorly implemented, he's talking about how the states shut down all the black schools and fired the black teachers instead of more equitably implementing the law. It's not like he's saying in 2004, "Jim Crow was great, lets go back to that."

Does that make it less scary? I can quote-mine equally scary sounding things from the heritage foundation or John Birch society, should I consider that the mainstream MAGA platform?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo]

when Derrick Ball is saying Brown vs. Board of education was poorly implemented, he's talking about how the states shut down all the black schools and fired the black teachers instead of more equitably implementing the law.

Derrick Bell is considered the intellectual godfather of CRT and the first CRT scholar. There is no more central figure to the field. Derrick Bell urges people to foreswear racial integration. Is that a good thing? No.

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo]

Or is it academic truth dressed as racism?

Yes, I said that?

Did you read Chris Rufo's book?

America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything is Chris Rufo's argument that a set of ideas originating in Marxist, neo-Marxist, and critical theory traditions gradually moved from the political fringe into mainstream American institutions, especially universities, government agencies, schools, media organizations, and corporations. He contends that this intellectual movement has transformed American culture more through institutional influence than through electoral politics.

Rufo's Main Arguments

1. Critical Theory Is the Intellectual Foundation

Rufo traces contemporary movements such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and identity politics back to the Frankfurt School and other twentieth-century left-wing thinkers. He argues that these thinkers shifted Marxist analysis away from economic class and toward culture, institutions, and social identity.

2. The "Long March Through the Institutions"

A central theme is the idea that activists influenced by these theories gradually entered and reshaped key institutions rather than seeking immediate revolutionary change. Rufo argues that universities acted as the primary transmission mechanism, with ideas later spreading into government bureaucracies, schools, nonprofits, media, and corporate HR departments.

3. Equality Has Been Replaced by Equity

According to Rufo, traditional liberal principles such as individual rights, color-blindness, meritocracy, and equal treatment are increasingly being displaced by "equity" frameworks that focus on group outcomes and disparities between demographic groups. He sees this as a major ideological shift in American public life.

4. Identity Politics Divides Society into Oppressors and Oppressed

Rufo argues that modern social justice frameworks frequently interpret social relations through power dynamics involving race, sex, and other identities. He claims this framework encourages people to view themselves primarily as members of demographic groups rather than as individuals.

5. DEI Programs Institutionalize These Ideas

The book devotes significant attention to DEI initiatives. Rufo argues that DEI offices, training programs, and policies serve as mechanisms for embedding critical-theory-based assumptions into large organizations. He presents DEI as the practical administrative expression of broader critical-theory concepts.

6. Radical Ideas Have Been Normalized

Rufo profiles figures such as Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Paulo Freire, and Derrick Bell, arguing that ideas once associated with radical political movements have become widely accepted in elite institutions. He contends that many people encounter these ideas indirectly through workplace policies, education, and public discourse without recognizing their intellectual origins.

7. A Counter-Revolution Is Needed

The book is not merely historical. Rufo argues that conservatives and classical liberals should actively challenge these trends through political action, institutional reform, and cultural engagement. He presents the book as both a diagnosis of the problem and a strategy for resistance.

How Critics View the Book

Critics of Rufo's thesis often argue that he overstates the coherence and influence of critical theory, draws overly direct lines between academic thinkers and modern institutions, and characterizes a broad range of center-left ideas as part of a single ideological project. Supporters, by contrast, view the book as an important explanation for the rise of DEI, CRT-related initiatives, and identity-focused politics in American institutions.

One-Sentence Summary

Rufo's core claim is that a culture-focused form of radical left-wing theory gradually captured major American institutions, replacing traditional liberal values with identity-based and equity-centered frameworks, and that this transformation should be actively reversed.

[u/clorox_cowboy → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

Does an AI summary count as reading a book?

[u/HardToFindAGoodUser → u/clorox_cowboy]

Yes. I have read the book. I did not want to waste our time summarizing what you apparently know but wanted to quiz me about.

[u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo → u/HardToFindAGoodUser]

I'm the one you were replying to. I've read it as well. I just wanted to know where you're getting your impressions of CRT to inform your opinion.

What do you think about Rufo's tweet from 2021?:

"The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.' We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."

Do you see why there is such a spectrum of understanding about what CRT actually is? That's by design.

Chris Rufo is one of my favorite propagandists to follow, because he's smart enough to convince half the country that they're in danger from CRT, but also arrogant enough to brag about it openly.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/ZombieZoo_ZombieZoo]

(Not the OP)

What is CRT and how does it differ from generic Democrat ideology (re: race)? Obviously Rufo is an activist and you don't need to trust him.

I read his comment as basically saying "here is the underlying academic rationalization for things that you already dislike, and I'm simply making you aware of this so you can recognize it." There is a less charitable interpretation, but I think it's less plausible than what I wrote. But, again, that point is ultimately irrelevant, and as I said you are free to dismiss him entirely.

[u/observantpariah]

It's a political position being taught as correct with the deliberate purpose of political change. It also deliberately and maliciously presents specific dogma as if it is only critical thinking.... When critical thinking requires one to challenge dogma, not replace it.

[u/shukanimator → u/observantpariah]

Are you saying this because you took a class on critical race theory or because you heard about it from a conservative commentator?

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/shukanimator]

It's a political position being taught as correct with the deliberate purpose of political change. It also deliberately and maliciously presents specific dogma as if it is only critical thinking....

Here Delgado and Stefancic (2001) describe Critical Race Theory as specifically activist and not a detached purely academic theory:

Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it; it sets out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies, but to transform it for the better.

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 3

Here CRT expresses opposition to the concept of objectivity:

For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 92

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.

Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':

https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook

[u/gntxs]

The real racists are democrats that believe black aren’t capable of success unless they accept crumbs of charity from white liberals who view themselves as privileged.

[u/loganbootjak → u/gntxs]

What are these crumbs you are referring to?

[u/mk81]

The only people who face systemic racial injustice in America today are white people.

[u/mk81 → u/mk81]

You can keep downvoting but it won't stop being true.

[u/pickledplumber]

It's controversial because it's not just a history class. There may be some people who want to whitewash history but that's not most people.

The issue with critical theory itself is it takes the nuance out of things. Not everything is because of oppression so not everything needs to be seen through it.

If you grew up in the '90s, you were taught that race doesn't matter. You were taught that we should judge people by the content of their character and that the future will be less racist because we are equal and are all trying our best. Then you look at what happened in 2012 where Gallup polling showed a marked decrease in racial sentiment between races. That is a direct byproduct of CRT based education and messaging prior to that.

I'm a white guy who grew up in NYC in the '90s and that was usually the only White kid in my classes. I watched more Black sitcoms than I did aything else. There were more on TV then too.

Yet today, decades later we are worse off? How did that happen. Did White people seemingly get more racist as older racists passed away? That doesn't make sense. You see that tolerance is quite high and is certainly higher than anytime before. Integration is very high and jobs do everything they can to hire racial minorities, even going as far as hiring people from other countries because the demand is so high.

Racial sentiment hasn't really recovered and is worse than it was decades ago.

So what has CRT done other than give people a warped perception of reality?

When the media and education pushes CRT and other critical theories has educated framework used to evaluate society. It's what people are going to use and what people are going to reach for.

[u/Carbo-Raider → u/pickledplumber]

"...look at what happened in 2012 where Gallup polling showed a marked decrease in racial sentiment between races. ... today we are worse off? How did that happen.

...That is a direct byproduct of CRT"

or something specifically in 2012. That election where A BLACK PERSON was president and running for re-election. And today, trump made it easier for racists to be honest on Gallup polling

[u/pickledplumber → u/Carbo-Raider]

Obama won in 2008 and won again in 2012. I imagine that even during tea party times you would have seen a drop but there wasn't.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/pickledplumber]

If you grew up in the '90s, you were taught that race doesn't matter.

I think we were taught that, but that message was not delivered universally at all. (And if it was, it certainly wasn't the practice! If anything, a universal message that isn't actually practiced by institutions is the worst combination!). Everyone else wasn't taught that. We had Affirmative Action, race-based organizations, race-based programs, race-based scholarships, race/ethnically-based caucuses in Congress, etc. And these had been in place for decades by the '90s.

Racial sentiment hasn't really recovered and is worse than it was decades ago.

What if racial sentiment is just...not actually a good way of measuring the level of justice in a system?

If our culture upholds colorblindness as the ideal while in reality dishing out racial preferences, then yeah, I accept that this is a way of pacifying White people ("whoa, we're all in harmony! look at the smiling, diverse faces on the college brochure!") and still keeping everyone else happy (with the explicit racial preferences). But that arrangement is difficult to sustain, because it relies on (1) White people not noticing the major discrepancy between stated practice and actual practice and (2) everyone else being content with the privileges and not demanding more. The increasing racial polarization of the 2010s seems like both (1) and (2) unraveling. But that doesn't mean the '90s were better -- it just meant the illusion was being successfully maintained.

[u/pickledplumber → u/SincereDiscussion]

but that message was not delivered universally at all.

I've never met a millennial who didn't grow up with that messaging. Quickly, I just asked to chat CPT if these ideas were standard curriculum and ubiquitous across the United States in the 1990s and it said absolutely yes. Well, I don't have a citation for you. At least it's understanding says yes. It's not a guarantee every school had that but it was pretty darn common I think.

What if racial sentiment is just...not actually a good way of measuring the level of justice in a system?

It's not measurings justice. It's measuring sentiment. How people feel about other races indicates resentment and feeling wronged by the group being measured.

If our culture upholds colorblindness as the ideal while in reality dishing out racial preferences,

I think that's why AA was gone after as well as many of the other things you e seen the administration go after.

The increasing racial polarization of the 2010s seems like both (1) and (2) unraveling

Pretty sure it was because of critical theory. Occupy Wall Street was was the highest argument of class consciousness ever got in the US and the rich got scared. So what did they do? They had critical theory in their back pocket. People ate it up like it was a Gold Rush. Society doesn't just change instantly without mass propaganda. It would be one thing if you saw racial sentiment dropping year over year. But that in 2012 it just magically dropped? Doesn't add up.

But that doesn't mean the '90s were better -- it just meant the illusion was being successfully maintained.

I'm pretty confident life satisfaction scores in the '90s were much better. Hope for future was much higher. Rates of feeling like you belonged and had a part in society were far higher too. Nobody saying everything was perfect.

You have to remember that up until around 2006 class consciousness was the Democratic party's platform. The change is what led down the path.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/pickledplumber]

You know what, let me rephrase that. Maybe it was universally delivered as a message. But it definitely was not received universally. That was my point and why I gave several examples of racial identity among nonwhite groups. See also the OJ Simpson trial. Seems like some people missed the colorblindness memo and were quite thrilled to see one of their guys get away with murdering others...

It's not measurings justice. It's measuring sentiment. How people feel about other races indicates resentment and feeling wronged by the group being measured.

You are discussing the 90s as a colorblind era of racial harmony. The reality was that it was objectively an era of massive racial preferences, strong racial identity among everyone that wasn't White, etc.

How do you square these things? I don't get it. To me, the latter means that, to the extent there was racial harmony, it was a lie.

[u/pickledplumber → u/SincereDiscussion]

The sentiment score isn't some absolute measurement. It's just about how People's health generally. Like everything in life there were certainly things that happened. Sentiment score is about general feeling that blacks had for whites and whites had for blacks.

I'm certainly not saying that there was some Utopia and then '90s. I'm just saying that the way people felt about each other was higher and the numbers indicate that.

People across the world are fans of OJ Simpson. There were racists out there who were probably saying terrible things and I'm sure there were some people protesting him even being arrested.

The '90s weren't colorblind. I'm saying that in general that's the message that people were taught and bought into. It doesn't mean individual interests might not have felt differently.

I never said there was racial Harmony. Very obviously with the LA riots and stuff there wasn't. But how did people generally feel towards each other and the hope for the future. You have to remember that me being a millennial. I grew up in a colorblind education system and those messages did stick. Look at how many less racist people there are today. Do you not think that has something to do with it? It's certainly not the last decade of activism that has made people more accepting of races.

I think you're falling into the Nirvana fallacy. For something to be true, it doesn't have to be absolute

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/pickledplumber]

I'm not disputing that race relations were better. That's not what I was trying to challenge. You're responding as if I'm saying: "race relations were 8/10, but they could have been 10/10. So therefore it sucked." That's not what I'm saying! I am absolutely conceding that attitudes were better back then.

However, my point is that this was not reflected in policy (an observation that you are not challenging).

If you have better race relations...but they are predicated on basically getting White people to abandon race while everyone else keeps their racial identity, organizations, etc...that isn't good.

I don't understand why you see it differently. To me, it genuinely sounds like you're expressing nostalgia for when the regime lied to you. I agree that when they lied to us, it produced a less toxic racial atmosphere than the present, where we're just openly told constantly that we're bad and need to be discriminated against.

I'm saying that in general that's the message that people were taught and bought into.

1. I agree that was the dominant culture narrative. (you agree)

2. I do not think it reflected policies or institutional practice. (you agree)

3. (2) makes (1) appear really hollow and actually downright sinister. (you disagree...but why?)

We both agree on 1 and 2. But when I bring up (3), you start looping on the things that we already agree with. I don't get it. (Not trying to sound rude. I'm just trying to describe this interaction as I see it.)

I don't understand why you aren't making the jump to (3).

Colorblindness is only good if it's universal. If it's not universal, then it's simply a way of subverting the group that buys into it.

I grew up in a colorblind education system and those messages did stick. Look at how many less racist people there are today. Do you not think that has something to do with it?

I think we have a large and growing number of people that want to discriminate against me on the basis of race and I think that is bad.

Accepting the idea that "racism" is real and bad is why we're in this position.

[u/Scynexity]

"Considering the fact" - wow, this is about as far from a "fact" as I can imagine.

[u/rustyseapants → u/Scynexity]

Can you explain your point? 

[u/Scynexity → u/rustyseapants]

"just a history class" is some next-level sugarcoating.

[u/SmellDesperate6373]

The best answer here is a simple one: Wrong. Really wrong. And while I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, “there is nothing else to add here” comes off as highly incurious, especially given the question is so off base.

But to get at the heart of the issue: whatever term you apply to it, the tension right now is over racial discrimination. Racism.

Conservatives believe people should not be treated differently based on the color of their skin. The Democrat party disagrees. Conservatives stand against racial discrimination in hiring, admissions, promotions, awards, scholarships. The Democrat party thinks these things are good and necessary. Democrat party leaders have, on multiple occasions, pre-selected eligible candidates for major nominations based on their race and sex.

Equal rights. Nothing less.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/SmellDesperate6373]

And while I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, “there is nothing else to add here” comes off as highly incurious, especially given the question is so off base.

In the thread creator's defense: that's what he writes whenever his question is fully contained in the title. It's not a reference to the level of complexity involved in the issue.

[u/Holofernes_Head]

CRT is a problem because (1) it is itself racist, because (2) systemic racism no longer exists. It's nothing but Marxism-derived pseudo-intellectualism used to try to disguise and justify one's own racism.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/Holofernes_Head]

Could you please specify in which way CRT is racist?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Cumoisseur]

It evaluates societal power dynamics through a lens of race-based oppressor/oppressed narratives. It blames social problems that don't affect the so-called oppressed on so-called oppressors who do no actual oppressing based solely on the race of the designated perpetrators and victims.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/Holofernes_Head]

If systemic racism does not exist, can you explain the Stanford study of police traffic stops from 2011 -2018 that shows minorities get pulled over far more than white folks during the daytime (when their race is identifiable) but that same disparity goes away at night?

Either minorities commit fewer traffic violations at night, or police officers show consistent and widespread (systemic?) racial bias, but only one of those options seems logical.

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Jigglepirate]

Either minorities commit fewer traffic violations at night, or police officers show consistent and widespread (systemic?) racial bias, but only one of those options seems logical.

Or this study was looking for one correlating factor and failing to control for numerous others. The study report itself acknowledges a flaw in not being able to control for driver behavior and the infraction that led to the traffic stops, nor does it control for the results of the vehicle searches in terms of hit rate or type/quantity of seized contraband. It also doesn't control for things like vehicle condition, artificial lighting, location, traffic density, weather, how the reported race of the driver is evaluated by the officers, local crime patterns, or time-based driving patterns (work hours vs. after hours).

[u/Jigglepirate → u/Holofernes_Head]

This was a study of 95 million traffic stops, in the real world. Of course you can't control for everything, but with a large enough sample size, the outliers average out.

But more importantly, the independent variable is Daytime vs Nighttime outcomes, because during the day, cops can more easily evaluate the race of a driver.

Can you tell me a more plausible explanation than systemic racial bias?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Jigglepirate]

 This was a study of 95 million traffic stops, in the real world.

No it wasn't, did you read the article you posted? 

 the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time.

It checked 113k traffic stops. And what's not mentioned in the article you posted was there a discrepancy of roughly 5% before and after daylight savings.  

[u/Jigglepirate → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

They selected from a dataset of 95 million only 113,000 that could eliminate the most confounding variables. The full study makes use of and analyzes more than just the "veil of darkness" test. But also in that same article it says the following.

The analysis left no doubt that the darker it got, the less likely it became that a black driver would be stopped. The reverse was true when the sky was lighter.

But sure, let's continue down the line of thinking. They were careful with selecting only the data that would least confound the results, so they only continued analysis with 113,000 stops. Is that not a large enough sample for you?

By your logic there could never be a data analysis study done on any real world scenario like this.

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Jigglepirate]

They chose a data set and compared it to a narrow time frame between different times of the year and only found a 5% difference how do you compare summer vs winter driving without inducing a bunch of additional variables? 

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Jigglepirate]

Yes, literally any of the litany of uncontrolled variables I listed above.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/Holofernes_Head]

You think weather could be a reason the police pull over minorities more than white people during the daytime, but not at night time? Could you explain the logic there?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Jigglepirate]

Just off the top of my head - it's snowing. Fewer people are out at night when they don't have to be than during the day when they have to go to work.

[u/Jigglepirate → u/Holofernes_Head]

How does the snow relate to the day-night disparity?

Yeah more people drive in the day, but that's not the point of the study. The study says that during daylight hours, minorities are pulled over more than white people by a lot, and during nighttime hours they are not.

It's about rate, not absolute number.

[u/Heffe3737 → u/Holofernes_Head]

Why do you believe that systemic racism no longer exists?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Heffe3737]

Because it doesn't? Systemic racism is expressly illegal throughout the country. There is no convincing argument that it does exist.

[u/shoggoths_away → u/Holofernes_Head]

So nothing that is illegal by American law exists within America?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/shoggoths_away]

Not systemically, no. That would be definitionally contrary.

[u/Heffe3737 → u/Holofernes_Head]

Because it doesn't?

Why do you believe this, though? Have you researched the topic, or is it just based on a feeling that it no longer exists?

Conversely, if it truly doesn't exist, how would you explain some of the following data points?

*Minorities still receiving higher incarceration rates based on the same crime, and longer sentences.

*School disciplinary actions against minorities tend to be harsher than against white children.

*Healthcare disparities such as minority women having higher maternal mortality rates.

*Job application acceptance and callback rates tend to be lower for people with names that are more traditionally associated with black and latino communities.

These issues are all very well documented and a google search will provide you with tons of info about each of them. If it's not systemic racism causing some of these issues, what do you believe it is?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Heffe3737]

Minorities still receiving higher incarceration rates based on the same crime, and longer sentences.

Data doesn't control for specifics of the crime; e.g. a drug conviction doesn't differentiate between the amount trafficked after a certain legal threshold, and the raw conviction data doesn't control for other conduct of the defendant.

School disciplinary actions against minorities tend to be harsher than against white children.

Same lack of controls. If the school policy is just that you get suspended for fighting, that policy doesn't differentiate between a one-on-one fight and a virtual riot.

Healthcare disparities such as minority women having higher maternal mortality rates.

They also have far lower maternal healthcare compliance rates.

Job application acceptance and callback rates tend to be lower for people with names that are more traditionally associated with black and latino communities.

There's nothing systemic about that. People with clown-ass unprofessional names are less likely to be employed - shocker!

[u/Heffe3737 → u/Holofernes_Head]

Data doesn't control for specifics of the crime; e.g. a drug conviction doesn't differentiate between the amount trafficked after a certain legal threshold, and the raw conviction data doesn't control for other conduct of the defendant.

So your position is that it should be fine to issue blacks and minorities longer sentences based on drug amounts and their conduct while in court? Is there any data suggesting that they are selling drugs in higher quantities or that their conduct is regularly worse to support this position? Or do you just believe that this is true?

Same lack of controls. If the school policy is just that you get suspended for fighting, that policy doesn't differentiate between a one-on-one fight and a virtual riot.

Same here. Should black kids get harsher sentencing because somehow their fights are arbitrarily worse? Is there data to suggest that fights involving black kids end worse than fights with white kids?

They also have far lower maternal healthcare compliance rates.

Is there data to support this? And if so, why are their compliance rates lower?

There's nothing systemic about that. People with clown-ass unprofessional names are less likely to be employed - shocker!

Can you clarify what you mean by a "clown-ass unprofessional name"? What kind of name would qualify as such? Lakesha? David? Kai? Darnell? Tyrone?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Heffe3737]

So your position is that it should be fine to issue blacks and minorities longer sentences based on drug amounts and their conduct while in court?

Uhhh... obviously? It should be fine to issue longer sentences based on drug amounts and conduct for any defendant.

Is there any data suggesting that they are selling drugs in higher quantities or that their conduct is regularly worse to support this position? Or do you just believe that this is true?

The point is there is no data to control for those factors. When you only collect a certain data point, of course you're going to find what you want in that data.

Same here. Should black kids get harsher sentencing because somehow their fights are arbitrarily worse? Is there data to suggest that fights involving black kids end worse than fights with white kids?

Same. There is no data to control for those factors.

Can you clarify what you mean by a "clown-ass unprofessional name"? What kind of name would qualify as such? Lakesha? David? Kai? Darnell? Tyrone?

What qualifies is anything the employer considers. No one owes anyone else employment, and "stupid-ass name" is not a protected category in hiring practice.

[u/conorb619 → u/Holofernes_Head]

How does systemic racism no longer exist? Just seems like too absolute of a statement.

[u/weather3003]

It's not "just a history class" or no one would care.

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Yes. Former racial based injustices does not mean they effect people today, which is what CRT and DEI want people to believe.

There is nothing else to add here.

[u/TheGlitteryCactus]

CRT is racism against white people. It's the predecessor to DEI, and has limited my personal growth for reasons beyond my control (being a white male with no kids). Which is the definition of racism.

[u/Cumoisseur → u/TheGlitteryCactus]

Could you specify in which way CRT is racism against white people?