Idaho and Critical Race Theory

[Hawki]

Let me give you a very general warning here.

Normally, the stuff we talk about on this forum is just pop politics stuff, the kind of stuff which gets thrown back and forth by journalists and commentators.

This is not one of those times. You are walking into a world of experienced academics, people with a lifetime of reading and thinking and writing on a level that you have certainly never had the time to develop. Any thought that you think you have had, any tiny notion which has crossed your brain, has almost certainly been dissected to death by people far, far more knowledgeable than you. I know this one has.

Now, by all means, express and share your own opinion, but just be aware that you are firmly standing atop mount stupid, and anyone with even a tiny bit more knowledge than you can see that. It does no harm to tread with a little humility.

And you're an academic?

First of all, of course people know more about things than me, just as people know more than you. If the argument is "don't comment on X because people know more about X than you," then no-one should ever bother discussing anything.

Second of all, if you are an academic in CRT, then I won't waste my time. In response however, no, I'm not an academic, but most of what I know on CRT comes from journalists and academics.

Third, by extension of the second point, if you are a CRT academic, then I assume you understand that you're opening yourself up to similar appeals to authority/experience? I assume I can use my credentials to shut you down in any subject where those credentials apply? Because certainly you've climbed "mount stupid" on these forums as well.

Fourth, you haven't addressed the point. If the claims of CRT are correct, then by all means, make the argument.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And you're an academic?

That's kind of a complicated question right now.

Regardless, the reason I'm not going into very much detail about critical race theory itself is because academic or not, I don't study it. I'm not an expert on it. Now, I could call up people who are, but frankly that would be wasting my time and theirs. It's not like you've studied critical race theory, and it's not like any of the people whose arguments you're citing have either. It's not like we can actually have a serious discussion about its validity because I don't know very much, and you know even less.

If the argument is "don't comment on X because people know more about X than you," then no-one should ever bother discussing anything.

Again, not the argument. I'm just pointing out, mount stupid looms high over this discussion. Throwing out these high school sociology level arguments doesn't look good, and is only going to convince people less educated than you.

Third, by extension of the second point, if you are a CRT academic, then I assume you understand that you're opening yourself up to similar appeals to authority/experience?

I mean, if you ever feel that I'm standing on mount stupid, I'd absolutely want you to tell me. That shit's embarrassing.

 

[Hawki]

Holy shit, what?

WHO TAUGHT YOU THIS

To quote an article where CRT scholars were interviewed:

Key tenets of Critical Race Theory

• racism is not an aberration, but rather an essential part of how Western societies operate;
• racism is often invisible, perpetrated not by individuals but by a system with inbuilt biases that discriminate against people of colour (POC);
• race is a social construct, not a biological one, and can thus be dismantled as a tool of oppression;
• calling out instances of racism, no matter how small (microaggressions), is a key strategy in exposing and defeating it;
• the dominant ideology of liberalism — which favours individual rights above all else — falsely positions itself as both neutral and natural when in fact it upholds a system that privileges a white elite;
• stories of lived experience from POC are a valid and powerful tool for challenging that system;
• race is not the only thing that determines identity. Gender, sexuality, abledness and so on all contribute (the thesis of intersectionality);
• anti-racialism — the myth of colourblindness, which denies the legitimacy of lived experience of racism — is the enemy of anti-racism;
• incremental change is doomed to fail because advances for minorities are only granted when they are in the interests of the dominant group (whites), and are withdrawn when they are not.[/quote]

Tstorm isn't really off the mark. CRT is intended to look at power dynamics, at least in part.

Thing is, I actually agree with some of that (see point 3), while completely disagreeing with others (obviously incramental changes have worked, IMO, unless you want to argue that nothing has ever improved). You don't even have to support CRT to support some of these positions. Again, citing Stan Grant, I found his critique of liberalism well-reasoned in his book (I can't remember which one, I've read a few of his), even if he isn't really a fan of CRT itself.

That's kind of a complicated question right now.

It's a simple answer - what's your level of education, what's your occupation, and what's your field? Agema's never made any secret that he works at a university.

Regardless, the reason I'm not going into very much detail about critical race theory itself is because academic or not, I don't study it. I'm not an expert on it. Now, I could call up people who are, but frankly that would be wasting my time and theirs. It's not like you've studied critical race theory, and it's not like any of the people whose arguments you're citing have either.

You can see above for an example of citing stuff.

It's not like we can actually have a serious discussion about its validity because I don't know very much, and you know even less.

Then why are you here?

I mean, if you can't have a serious discussion, and I can't have a serious discussion (I actually agree, in as much that I'm not an academic, and if you are, you've stated it isn't your field), then why bother? Obviously we're just two people prattling away on the Internet, with little ability to actually influence any actual policy (I assume, maybe you're in a better position than me to change the world). Bear in mind, the only reason I got involved was because of claims being made that were demonstrably false. To reiterate, if this was solely about CRT being banned, then no, I don't agree, because I'd rather ideas be debated. Certainly I've had my mind changed on various real-world issues over the years.

 

[Hawki]

CRT is overly concerned with white vs non-white. Which is a really really bad fit for basically everywhere outside the US.

In the interests of fairness, CRT can, hypothetically, be applied to almost any society, and can certainly be applied to other countries, which would include the UK and Aus.

Like, let's be fair on this, at least. In these countries, I assume that we agree on the following:

-Racism is bad.

-Minorities (call it POC, BAME, or whatever) are more vulnerable to the effects of racism than the majorities (in this case, white Europeans).

-In these specific countries, Europeans applied the concept of race

-Race is not a biological construct, but a social one.

-We should make efforts to erradicate racism and the effects of racism.

Most people, I assume, would accept these points as fact. We can disagree on the specifics, but CRT at least starts from these facts, but goes off in its own direction to address them. Just can't say I agree with its points.

And again, I may be wrong. I'm open to the possibility that CRT's way of viewing the world is correct. But at least for now, I'm not convinced. Don't think it should be banned, but don't think it should be above reproach.

 

[Terminal Blue]

To quote an article where CRT scholars were interviewed:

That statement was about critical theory. Critical theory in general.

Like, I sort of get what tstorm is trying to say. But even then, he's trying to present a very warped misunderstanding of Marxist ideology critique as synonymous with critical theory as a whole, which it isn't.

Critical theory is an incredibly giant body of theory that is concerned with the nature and practice of critique (specifically, the enlightenment sense of critique as a means of distinguishing truth from falsehood or custom). It's literally in the name.

This is kind of what I mean. None of you have actually given this serious thought. None of you have actually had to wrestle with the complex reality of these concepts. I'm not writing the thousands and thousands of words required to explain to you what critical theory is in more detail, and spending 5 minutes reading an article online isn't going to tell you either. If this is the depth of your knowledge, then it's absolutely not sufficient.

This is why we teach this shit in universities, because it's hard. It takes years to even scratch the surface, and as someone who has done those years it is painful to watch you mess up so badly, so for my sake please don't.

It's a simple answer - what's your level of education, what's your occupation, and what's your field? Agema's never made any secret that he works at a university.

I in no way owe you this, but the reason it's complicated is because I had a mental breakdown and will probably have to leave academia.

This is part of why I'm angry. What theorists do is hard. It's so hard. Having to think on that level every day takes something out of you. I don't trust anyone who hasn't done it to have the slightest understanding of what is involved.

 

[Breakdown]

This thread reminded me of something I read a week or so ago, a teacher's experience of Critical Race Theory in their school.

I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated

Children are afraid to challenge the repressive ideology that rules our school. That’s why I am.

bariweiss.substack.com

It sounds pretty fucked up.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

...I see we're just skipping the bit where it's explicitly fear mongering about cultural Marxism then.

Cool, cool, cool...

Like, are some schools fucking this up? Yeah, probably. Is it worth a $90,000, two year commission to root out the evil communists?

 

[tstorm823]

Holy shit, what?

WHO TAUGHT YOU THIS

A variety of places, but most recently wikipedia, as that's where I did my "make sure you're not imagining things first" check before posting.

I in no way owe you this, but the reason it's complicated is because I had a mental breakdown and will probably have to leave academia.

This is part of why I'm angry. What theorists do is hard. It's so hard. Having to think on that level every day takes something out of you. I don't trust anyone who hasn't done it to have the slightest understanding of what is involved.

Here's a personal take: I quit higher education, then I went back, then I quit a second time. I have exceptional personal experience quitting college. Being there did take something out of me. It wasn't because I was doing a level of thinking that was difficult for me, my hobbies have been at every stage more complex and theoretical than the things I was studying. The issue was dedicating that amount of brainpower while accomplishing nothing. I mean that only about myself personally, I'm not saying nobody accomplishes anything, just that I wasn't. One of my biggest moments of clarity was working in the school kitchen, having to go to class after my shift, and realizing with absolute certainty that I'd rather stay and serve people fried chicken if I could. I understand and respect people with specific ambitions, where every step is an accomplishment, pulling them closer to where they want to be, but if someone doesn't have that, academia is just pouring their greatest efforts into a black hole of dissatisfaction. That's my experience.

But I also think that's some of the attraction of critical theory. Pulling from wikipedia, "Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it." The purpose of critical theory is not to understand society, but to change it, and I can greatly understand the appeal of having your thoughts actively change society rather than just be written down somewhere. But that's also why it leads to so many wrong conclusions, because theories based on the principle of overthrowing existing societal norms and power structures aren't based on an accurate understanding of reality.

That statement was about critical theory. Critical theory in general.

Like, I sort of get what tstorm is trying to say. But even then, he's trying to present a very warped misunderstanding of Marxist ideology critique as synonymous with critical theory as a whole, which it isn't.

Critical theory is an incredibly giant body of theory that is concerned with the nature and practice of critique (specifically, the enlightenment sense of critique as a means of distinguishing truth from falsehood or custom). It's literally in the name.

You have your terms flipped. Critical theory is specifically what I'm trying to present. Critique is the broader term. They aren't banning the enlightenment from schools.

 

[Satinavian]

-Minorities (call it POC, BAME, or whatever) are more vulnerable to the effects of racism than the majorities (in this case, white Europeans).

In most European countries most ethnical conflicts are between white groups, most suppressed minorities are white, most racism is white on white amd most people identify as ethnicy X not as white people. In most Asian countries the same thing ist true, only for non whites.

That is why it is not helpful to build a theory about racism based on white vs. non-white. Sure, you could adjust your arguments to whatever groups exist in each country and how they see/treat each other, but could also try to formulate it more universal in the first place. I have seen people struggle with applying the current version to countries where it is not fit for. Resulting in ridiculous attempts of seperating "whiteness" of skin colour and argueing endless about who is "white" according to the theory or not. Combine that with standpoint epistemology and you get nothing but chaos and nonsense. HUB was notorious for that for a while.

 

[Buyetyen]

That is why it is not helpful to build a theory about racism based on white vs. non-white.

It's a good thing then that's not what CRT is about.

 

[Satinavian]

Oh really ? Be honest, how many longer CRT-text have you read without "white" or "PoC" anywhere in them ? And how many have you read where it comes up several times ?
How many CRT-users actually bother with minority/majority or other neutral/universal terms ? And did it not spawn fields like whiteness studies ?

 

[Buyetyen]

Oh really ? Be honest, how many longer CRT-text have you read without "white" or "PoC" anywhere in them ? And how many have you read where it comes up several times ?
How many CRT-users actually bother with minority/majority or other neutral/universal terms ? And did it not spawn fields like whiteness studies ?

No point carving on rotten wood.

 

[Satinavian]

I just realized, you never made an argument in the whole thread, only quotes with a dismissing comment each. Hmm...

 

[Buyetyen]

I just realized, you never made an argument in the whole thread, only quotes with a dismissing comment each. Hmm...

I notice you like to talk shit, but don't quote anybody when you do. Hmmm...

Anyway, Terminal Blue already made the case that this is a complicated subject that people spend their lives studying and your laughable claims do not an expert make. I'm not qualified to lecture you on all the ways you're wrong, but nothing stops me from pointing it out.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

 

[Agema]

You know what else we need to ban teaching? Utilitarianism. It's dumb. It encourages clinicians to murder patients and harvest their organs to save five other patients. I mean, how stupid it that? It's clearly not just useless but dangerous.

And you know what, there are also problems with the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, so let's axe that too. And string theory, no-one's proven that shit. I think we now know there's lots of problems with monetarism in economics, so let's make sure no-one ever hears of Milton Friedman.

This is the way it is folks: it's perfection or its garbage.

 

[Schadrach]

I find it amusing no one has bothered to, you know, actually link the text of the bill in question: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377.pdf

Here's the relevant section.

Spoiler

12 SECTION 1. That Chapter 1, Title 33, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
13 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and des-
14 ignated as Section 33-138, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
15 33-138. DIGNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.(1)It is
16 the intent of the legislature that administrators, faculty members, other
17 employees, and students at public schools, including public charter schools
18 and institutions of higher education, respect the dignity of others, ac-
19 knowledge the right of others to express differing opinions, and foster and
20 defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free-
21 dom of speech and association.
22 (2) The Idaho legislature finds that tenets outlined in subsection
23 (3)(a) of this section, often found in "critical race theory," undermine the
24 objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section and exacerbate and
25 inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, na-
26 tional origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation
27 and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.
28 (3) In accordance with section 6, article IX of the constitution of the
29 state of Idaho and section 67-5909, Idaho Code:
30 (a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or pub-
31 lic school, including a public charter school, shall direct or other-
32 wise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of
33 the following tenets:
34 (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national
35 origin is inherently superior or inferior;
36 (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of
37 their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin;
38 or
39 (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, reli-
40 gion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for
41 actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex,
42 race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
 
01 (b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on ac-
02 count of race or color.
03 (c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise
04 compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the
05 tenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or
06 introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district,
07 or any public school, including a public charter school.
08 (4) Nothing in this section should be construed to prohibit the re-
09 quired collection or reporting of demographic data by public schools or
10 public institutions of higher education.

So it explicitly lays out a few tenets it takes issue with, specifically:

1. That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;
2. That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin;
3. That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

...and says the following about them:

1. That they are often found in "critical race theory."
2. That they "undermine the objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section."
3. That they "exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens."

...and therefore:

1. "No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of" those tenets.
2. "No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color."
3. "No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of" those tenets "shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school."

So all the argument over what exactly critical race theory is, and whether or not anyone in particular is allowed to have an opinion about it is rather moot. For purposes of the law in question, those three tenets are what is being referred to.

 

[tstorm823]

You know what else we need to ban teaching? Utilitarianism. It's dumb. It encourages clinicians to murder patients and harvest their organs to save five other patients. I mean, how stupid it that? It's clearly not just useless but dangerous.

And you know what, there are also problems with the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, so let's axe that too. And string theory, no-one's proven that shit. I think we now know there's lots of problems with monetarism in economics, so let's make sure no-one ever hears of Milton Friedman.

This is the way it is folks: it's perfection or its garbage.

To be fair, I'm perfectly happy to have public institutions not "direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to" most of those things.

Edit: booo, ninja'd. Now it looks like I stole from the post above me. I promise I looked it up myself. Multiple times.

 

[Breakdown]

I notice you like to talk shit, but don't quote anybody when you do. Hmmm...

Anyway, Terminal Blue already made the case that this is a complicated subject that people spend their lives studying and your laughable claims do not an expert make. I'm not qualified to lecture you on all the ways you're wrong, but nothing stops me from pointing it out.

Just saying "shut up because you're too stupid to understand this" isn't exactly making a good case, neither is insisting that only academics with a lifetime of study can discuss CRT. That's like saying that only theologians can question the existence of God.

 

[Buyetyen]

Just saying "shut up because you're too stupid to understand this" isn't exactly making a good case, neither is insisting that only academics with a lifetime of study can discuss CRT. That's like saying that only theologians can question the existence of God.

I'm not really interested in trying to educate people who do not wish to be educated. I just point and make fun.