Idaho and Critical Race Theory

[Piscian]

Speaking superficially, being ignorant of the fine details, it seems like a very combative theory that would be easy to poke holes in. I'm not really sure what the educational value would be in teaching that in schools. I'm trying to imagine to using CRT in a constructive manner and I'm not able to picture it. It just sounds like "The world is racist and there's nothing that can be done about it except absolute anarchy". Cool, but how is that helpful in a scholastic context? Just sounds very defeatist. I can see why schools wouldn't want to teach that.

 

[Majestic_Manatee]

Art, drama, photography, history etc, there are plenty of mainstream subjects a number of contentious groypers can easily inject their opinions of "it's not productive!" into enough to present an ideological facade of "controversy" the same way evangelicals tried to push creationism to be taught as a science in schools. But let's call this what it is. Along with the other states signing their transphobia into law, this is petty republican bitches taking what they see as revenge against a Biden (communist!) win. Nothing more.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

As I said, even though I dont know that much about CRT, CRT doesn't fit any of the categories in list one.

 

[Hawki]

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.

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.

To the above:

-Yes, you don't owe me anything.

-If you had a mental breakdown, that sucks. Hopefully you can recover.

-I'm not sure what argument you're actually making. Yes, people who've studied the theories in question will of course know more about said theories than me, or most people on these forums, that isn't some revelation. If your argument is that "you're not a scholar, so don't discuss the topic," then at least be honest and make it. But if we're being consistent, that means that most people here wouldn't be able to discuss much.

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.

Except you haven't said why anyone is wrong, you've only said "you're wrong" in various posts.

Again, I agree. Satnavian isn't an expert. I'm not an expert. I doubt there's a single person on this thread who's an expert. Maybe TB is, but he's been vague, and as he's pointed out, no, he's not obliged to reveal his field. However, if the scope of your argument is "you're not an expert, so don't bother discussing it," then by rights, no-one on these forums should ever discuss any real-world topic, ever, except in key circumstances.

If that's the argument, at least make it.

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.

It's possible you're addressing this to the legislators, but unless I missed something, no-one on this thread is arguing that CRT be banned.

It's actually funny that you mention string theory, because I was originally going to use that as an example. Personally, I'm skeptical of string theory, because among other things, it seems unfalsifiable (similar to dark energy, if not necessarily dark matter). As far as I'm aware, astro-physicists largely moved on from string theory. However, I'm holding those opinions in the knowledge that astro-physicists would know more about the subject I could ever hope to.

So, if we're following TB and Buyten's logic, we're kind of at the principle of:

a) You're not an expert in the field of X.

b) Therefore, don't bother discussing X.

If we're at that principle, then no, I can't discuss CRT. There's pretty much nothing I could ever discuss since I can't call myself an expert on anything.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

Look, as someone who wrote a PhD thesis about the concept of critique itself, It's an unbelievably bad take.

I'm reading the Wikipedia article now and it's straight up wrong. I'm guessing its a sociology major who is just repeating what they were taught in a sociology class. Again, if you want to understand critical theory, you start at critical philosophy and you work forward through the multiple intellectual traditions that grow out of critical philosophy.

The purpose of critical theory is not to understand society, but to change it.

Any responsible critical theorist would tell you that those are the same thing.

The attempt to truthfully understand society has implications for society itself, because society is not a rational construct. Society is full of forms of irrationality that are deemed necessary to its functioning, and to point this out is already to engage in political critique. You think all these nice philosophes were just lazing around in the Parisian salons talking in abstract terms about social morality, and then a revolution happened for no reason?

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.

You have this entirely the wrong way around.

In order for a theory to have an "accurate" understanding of reality (and that's already a complex idea, but I'll let it stand), it must necessarily be divorced from existing societal norms and power structures. That's literally what criticism is. A critic of society has to put themselves outside of society, which is why critical theory is often so relevant to the experiences of marginalized people, because marginalized people can offer a perspective on society which would otherwise not be possible.

What you see as some mindless preexisting commitment to "overthrowing society" (which by the way is a very funny idea if you've read a lot of critical theory) is in fact the consequence of viewing society from the critical perspective of an outsider, which again, is the only way to accurately understand reality. Simply accepting that existing power structures exist and therefore must exist for a reason is not an accurate understanding of reality at all.

They aren't banning the enlightenment from schools.

Why not?

The radical enlightenment was a terrifying thing for conservatives. It threatened the foundation of the social order, of Christianity, of relations between men and women, relations between different races, all because its proponents sought a view of reality that was truthful over one that was safe or comfortable or accorded with the sensibilities of society at large. If Idaho was to apply its stupid law honestly, teaching many of the ideas of the radical enlightenment should be illegal.

 

[Ender910]

As I said, even though I dont know that much about CRT, CRT doesn't fit any of the categories in list one.

If that be the case, then CRT wouldn't be violating that law and thus wouldn't be prohibited from being taught, based on the wording that Schadrach was citing.

 

[Silvanus]

If that be the case, then CRT wouldn't be violating that law and thus wouldn't be prohibited from being taught, based on the wording that Schadrach was citing.

Then one wonders what the purpose is of referring to CRT specifically by name in the text of the bill itself.

For anyone following along, the full text of the bill is available here. It's actually not a long read, only about 2 pages.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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 can absolutely guarantee to you, for example, that noone working in critical race theory has ever claimed that racism should result in universal and equal educational disadvantage for all minorities, because that kind of statement gets shredded in academia.

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.

I think it's a little silly to say we can't discuss this because it's an "academic topic" that we "aren't qualified" to talk about.

If critical race theory is being taught in public high schools it's being taught by people who aren't academics with extremely high levels of understanding of the topic to literal children who have even less understanding of the topic than we do.

I think any of us is just as qualified to speak on this topic as a 10th grade English teacher is to teach it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Sure, a lot of teachers, particularly at the high school level, are probably teaching it badly.

How that morphed into the Lt Governor of Idaho declaring a Red Scare is probably what we should be talking about.

 

[tstorm823]

Look, as someone who wrote a PhD thesis about the concept of critique itself, It's an unbelievably bad take.

I'm reading the Wikipedia article now and it's straight up wrong. I'm guessing its a sociology major who is just repeating what they were taught in a sociology class. Again, if you want to understand critical theory, you start at critical philosophy and you work forward through the multiple intellectual traditions that grow out of critical philosophy.

Alternatively, I can ignore all the traditions that think "epistemology? screw that crap, I have my imagination!"

Any responsible critical theorist would tell you that those are the same thing.

The attempt to truthfully understand society has implications for society itself, because society is not a rational construct. Society is full of forms of irrationality that are deemed necessary to its functioning, and to point this out is already to engage in political critique. You think all these nice philosophes were just lazing around in the Parisian salons talking in abstract terms about social morality, and then a revolution happened for no reason?

I mean, the Parisians made one of the worst revolutions in history. In theory, they saw themselves transforming the churches into temples of reason, and man that didn't work out for them.

You have this entirely the wrong way around.

In order for a theory to have an "accurate" understanding of reality (and that's already a complex idea, but I'll let it stand), it must necessarily be divorced from existing societal norms and power structures. That's literally what criticism is. A critic of society has to put themselves outside of society, which is why critical theory is often so relevant to the experiences of marginalized people, because marginalized people can offer a perspective on society which would otherwise not be possible.

Yes, I understand that's already a complex idea, which is why people who blow right past it reach problematic conclusions. The vast majority of times, the responsible end of an inquiry is "we don't really know the exact answer". For example, the question "what would this look like outside of society" is literally unanswerable, and it seems borderline exploitative to call marginalized groups an example of being outside of society. You can't pick someone's factual experience of society as your counterfactual.

What you see as some mindless preexisting commitment to "overthrowing society" (which by the way is a very funny idea if you've read a lot of critical theory) is in fact the consequence of viewing society from the critical perspective of an outsider, which again, is the only way to accurately understand reality. Simply accepting that existing power structures exist and therefore must exist for a reason is not an accurate understanding of reality at all.

It's not mindless. Quite the opposite, it's wholly deliberate. Since wikipedia is unacceptable, lets move up to Stanford:
"It follows from Horkheimer’s definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation."
That's not talking about social change as an inevitable consequence of greater understanding. It's a prescription, saying "you need to find something wrong and decide concretely how to fix it, or it doesn't count."

Why not?

The radical enlightenment was a terrifying thing for conservatives. It threatened the foundation of the social order, of Christianity, of relations between men and women, relations between different races, all because its proponents sought a view of reality that was truthful over one that was safe or comfortable or accorded with the sensibilities of society at large. If Idaho was to apply its stupid law honestly, teaching many of the ideas of the radical enlightenment should be illegal.

I am no particular fan of the enlightenment. I would say enlightenment thinkers got drastically more things wrong than they got right. But some of the right things they found stuck, and society is better for it. Frankly, I'd give a similar summary of every significant intellectual moment in history. With the exception of Jesus Christ, they all got a lot more wrong than they got right. We can still celebrate the things that were right. The first count against critical race theory is that it has added nothing right that would otherwise be unknown. The second count against it is the stubborn opposition critical theories often hold against other lines of inquiry, often with unfalsifiable accusations. The third is they're teaching kids to be more racist.

Sure, a lot of teachers, particularly at the high school level, are probably teaching it badly.

How that morphed into the Lt Governor of Idaho declaring a Red Scare is probably what we should be talking about.

It's strange to me that you can comment on this website about a Red Scare as though you aren't surrounded by avowed communists who would gleefully end America.

 

[Hawki]

I think any of us is just as qualified to speak on this topic as a 10th grade English teacher is to teach it.

Well, in fairness, a 10th grade English teacher would probably be better qualified than us to discuss it. Or, I assume so.

It's strange to me that you can comment on this website about a Red Scare as though you aren't surrounded by avowed communists who would gleefully end America.

Who? Revnak and Sean?

That's, like, two users, neither of whom have any power (I assume).

If you're worried about ending America, communists are among the last group of people you should worry about. Especially considering that there's only a handful of countries that could call themselves communist left in the world.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, in fairness, a 10th grade English teacher would probably be better qualified than us to discuss it. Or, I assume so.

Not one from Idaho.

 

[Piscian]

Not one from Idaho.

Idaho is No. 51 — again. IEA decries per-pupil spending after national report released

 

[Trunkage]

If that be the case, then CRT wouldn't be violating that law and thus wouldn't be prohibited from being taught, based on the wording that Schadrach was citing.

CRT is like the terms conservatism, progressivis, socialism or fascism. Nebulous definition that are politically warped to fit a narrative.

CRT is about 'systemic racism'. You can't get further from blaming individuals or thinking someone is inferior than that. Unless your claim is that pointing out when a law is unintentionally hurting certain demographic makes you racist... which is what some people pretend

CRT has many legitimate criticism, some already stated her. Making up criticism just defeats your own argument. I support any university that doesn't want it in their program. I do NOT support a government banning it

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's strange to me that you can comment on this website about a Red Scare as though you aren't surrounded by avowed communists who would gleefully end America.

*****, *I'd* gleefully end America as it is now, because as it is now is some bullshit. Conservatives want to end America as it is now too, don't fucking kid yourself.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's strange to me that you can comment on this website about a Red Scare as though you aren't surrounded by avowed communists who would gleefully end America.

>Last attack on the US capital was carried out by an avowed ultra-conservative bloc

Uh huh, go on.

 

[Thaluikhain]

>Last attack on the US capital was carried out by an avowed ultra-conservative bloc

Uh huh, go on.

Out of interest, who was behind the 2nd last one? The British? Or was there one I'm forgetting?

 

[Hawki]

Out of interest, who was behind the 2nd last one? The British? Or was there one I'm forgetting?

 

[Trunkage]

Out of interest, who was behind the 2nd last one? The British? Or was there one I'm forgetting?

Well, I think there has been some lone snipers and bombers over the last few decades that were thwarted. I dont know if they count

 

[Ender910]

Then one wonders what the purpose is of referring to CRT specifically by name in the text of the bill itself.

Obviously the bill mentions it for political slant/appeal. Frankly, it's a dumb part for lawmakers to include since it's not part of the actively enforcable wording in the bill, and just ends up being meaningless political "fluff".

CRT is like the terms conservatism, progressivis, socialism or fascism. Nebulous definition that are politically warped to fit a narrative.

CRT is about 'systemic racism'. You can't get further from blaming individuals or thinking someone is inferior than that. Unless your claim is that pointing out when a law is unintentionally hurting certain demographic makes you racist... which is what some people pretend

I'm on the fence myself with CRT itself, and I've generally not been a fan of political buzz-terms, from either political persuasion. People latch onto these things and ditching all substance, context, and depth surrounding the topic, which is largely human nature, but it's still rather tiresome. I also don't agree with banning it outright either, both for first amendment concerns and also because banning it is just a rather pisspoor blanket-solution approach to tackling what might be some potential issues.

CRT has many legitimate criticism, some already stated her. Making up criticism just defeats your own argument. I support any university that doesn't want it in their program. I do NOT support a government banning it

I 100% agree with this entire paragraph, just felt like emphasizing that.