• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

32% of school districts positive for CRT

Rickeroo

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
1,479
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Source material

Findings:

32% of school districts were found to have “whiteness” on their sites, promoting the CRT concept that whiteness is indicative of privilege and/or oppression.

Minority enrollment district average: 64.77%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness positive”: 63.84%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness negative”: 65.93%

Minority enrollment had no statistical effect on whether the district promoted CRT.


Vector of CRT transmission:

Superintendent communication: a letter addressing staff, parents or students
Classroom: Class discussion or reading assignments
Equity Statement / Strategic Plan: self explanatory
Promoted material: Elsewhere on the district site, usually under “Resources”, perhaps orphaned.



Districts varied in vehemence and depth of how far they took “whiteness”, and I gave each a score of 1-4. The average was 2.8, which suggests that I had a measured interpretation of CRT severity.

Here are a few terms that I came across, either directly on K-12 sites or from material promoted on a K-12 site:

abolitionist teaching
affirmative action for whites
critical whiteness studies
decolonizing
dying of whiteness
freedom from the shackles
how whiteness operates
Interrogating Whiteness
intersectionality (CRT term)
legacy work
racial autobiography
racial consciousness
social field of whiteness
systemic whiteness
teachers are maintaining white supremacy
tools of whiteness
traditionally non-dominate
unrelenting abolitionists
weaponized whiteness
white exceptionalism
white programs (in education)
white ways
whiteness = expectation of assimilation
whiteness = white supremacy
whiteness ideology
whiteness of teacher education
witnessing whiteness

While I’m gaining insight into the “socio-emotional” reasons why the above is tolerated, the point of the research was to bolster my claim that CRT blames whites, holds all whites accountable as a race, and it’s promoted by public schools.

I may do state departments of education next.
 
Wake up, people.
 

32% of school districts positive for CRT​


According to Rickaroo who claimed to have analyzed it but will not present any of his credentials with regard to Educational Systems or even to analyze anything for that matter.

Who in the audience thinks it makes sense to have Joe the Plumber do your taxes? The OP is desperately trying to make you believe that would make sense.
 
jnug said:

32% of school districts positive for CRT​


According to Rickaroo who claimed to have analyzed it but will not present any of his credentials with regard to Educational Systems or even to analyze anything for that matter.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by that, specifically? I'd like to see how exactly he did the study, but the study should be criticized on its content, not on who did the study.
jnug said:
Who in the audience thinks it makes sense to have Joe the Plumber do your taxes? The OP is desperately trying to make you believe that would make sense.
Click to expand...
If Joe the Plumber found me a million dollar tax break, he can do my taxes all he wants.
 
I was in the original thread and asked for the OP's credentials. He did not come up with ANYTHING. Hence his "stuff" whatever you want to call it is OPINION. There is nothing wrong with OPINION unless you frame it as something it is not....like analysis.

The simple fact that the OP described his effort as "analysis" without any credentials to support his ability to conduct his analysis chops away even at the value of his OPINION.

So NOOOOOO....I don't need to look further.

Plus his own claimed sponsor, nothing more than another forum member can't describe CRT accurately. So why should I take either of them seriously? Crap in yields crap out no matter how pretty the pictures.
 
and? It's his opinion, so what? I want to know more about his opinion.
jnug said:
The simple fact that the OP described his effort as "analysis" without any credentials to support his ability to conduct his analysis chops away even at the value of his OPINION.
Click to expand...
you have to have some kind of credentials to do analysis? How, then, do you even "get credentials" if you can't do your own analysis. People "get" credentials because they show they are capable of doing, often complex, analysis of data by themselves.

If you can't do, then you will likely never get 'credentials'....unless your father can make a donation to harvard.
jnug said:
So NOOOOOO....I don't need to look further.
Click to expand...
ok then why are you here? You can cover ears if you wish, but everyone else who's interested can have a discussion.
jnug said:
Plus his own claimed sponsor, nothing more than another forum member can't describe CRT accurately. So why should I take either of them seriously? Crap in yields crap out no matter how pretty the pictures.
Click to expand...
can you describe crt accurately? if you can, then do so, and we can see if you're right. if not, then how do you even know he's wrong?
 
Who are you to criticize his research?
 
NatMorton said:
Who are you to criticize his research?
Click to expand...
Somebody who asked him for his credentials to analyze date which he could not or would not produce. THAT IS WHO I AM.

He has produced an opinion and is pawning it off as analysis which even impugns the value of his opinion.
 

I welcome any challenges to my interpretations, I've linked my data gathering thread as the very first line in post #1. Quote any interpretation I have there, and I'll respond on that study thread.
 
I've completely lost track. How many race threads has the OP created out of the last, like, 27?
 
j brown's body said:
I'd like to see that classroom number go up. That's your boogy man, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I've not yet analyzed the motive behind the focus on the CRT in classrooms argument, but I can offer a possibility as to why this is. I've found that it's the rarest type of CRT manifestation in schools, and instead CRT tends to live in the 'structure' or 'vision' of public schools. Another term might be "doctrine". CRT has a vested interest in maintaining a low profile, given that white people still make up a significant portion of the electorate.

As far as my personal desire to see more of a classroom proportion of CRT, I'm neutral on that. I do appreciate exposing the "world view" type application of CRT in public schools; CRT is coming from more of a top-level, structural standpoint, a "mission" if you will. If I found it at that level in the districts, it's also likely that I'll find it at the state DOE level. I'll begin that study soon.
 

Here is the disconnect.

"Critical Race Theory" (CRT) is actually being taught at college level, even in a number of Law schools. It is an outgrowth of "Critical Theory" which was created by Marxists of the Frankfurt School in Germany of the 1920's. During the rise of Nazism many adherents of this "Theory" came over to the USA in 1934; finding a home in Columbia University NYC, especially in the Teachers College. They used this platform to instruct future teachers in CRT, and this has expanded over time in Colleges and Universities around the nation. Followed by the impact on Grade and High School teacher methodologies.

What is being taught in our grade schools (K - 12) is the "anti-racism" of race grifting activists Ibrahm Kendi, and his disciple Nicole Hannah Jones of "1619" fame. Happily taken up and practiced in the classrooms by teachers steeped in CRT ideology via education training.

The disconnect is that children are not being taught college level CRT, but rather indoctrinated by all the twisted racism of alleged "anti-racism." Things like white guilt, the hierarchy of oppression, etc..
 
Last edited:
Children are being groomed.

 

Trying to figure out the downside to this.
 

Agreed. What's currently going on in schools certainly has a specific origin, and deeper understanding of that origin can help interpreting what's going on today. Another element is how CRT (in its current form) uses the past to justify it's philosophy. While understanding that justification can be helpful, it's much more important (at least for the target demographic) to fully assess CRT's philosophy, how popular that philosophy is, and what it's goals are.
 
Is there a blood teat or nasal swab for CRT infections?
 
BirdinHand said:
You’ve put a lot of time into this, that itself is impressive.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but time does not mean accurate. When I was getting my economics degree, one of the first courses I had to take was statistics. The first book our professor had us read was "How to Lie with statistics". Basically you can make stats do what you want. This is even worse, this guy took a little from here and little from there and came up with a BS number. You can believe it if you think it agrees what you believe, but in the end it is just BS.
 
SCrider said:
Is there a blood teat or nasal swab for CRT infections?
Click to expand...

Public school districts (and shortly, state DOE's) can be quick-tested for CRT. Anti-white virus presence is tested via the use of the term "whiteness". If the term is used to classify the white race with characteristics of privilege and oppression, the test is presumed positive for CRT. Expression of desire to mitigate, alter, avoid, guilt or shame whiteness is also a presumed positive result.

A confirmatory CRT test would indicate that the patient thinks whiteness needs to be "mitigated" at a national, structural level.
 

It's true that the 81 districts weren't randomized, as a central listing of the thousands of school districts in the US doesn't exist. I tried to pick them arbitrarily, so larger / more local districts are over-represented. However, the list of districts is transparent and I welcome challenges such as "You shouldn't have picked Chicago", etc.

Hand-picking districts that only tested positive for 'whiteness' would leave me vulnerable to a credibility attack. My next project will be all 50 state DOE's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…