• 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!

Is this a Valid Definition of Critical Race Theory?

Do you agree with this definition, and analysis:


  • Total voters
    38
Well, you haven't posted any such documents here. Have you? So why can't you do it now? As I would suppose you would have them at them close at hand just in case of such an emergency.


because I tire of willful blindness
 
It's not my homework to do. He's the one making a blanket claim here, not I. Seeing it's so common and simple I suppose then that you can provide if he can't. And obviously you're not one who cares about how he comes across on the internet. So take a go at it.
If you don't know something that every other adult in America knows it is your homework to figure it out. Don't run around the internet demanding other people remove the ignorance on your behalf. Nobody owes you a simple Google search of "affirmative action academia." The entitlement is jumping off the page here.
 
This is commonly known information and isn't hard to find with a simple Google search. Affirmative action in academia isn't a secret and it is something someone discussing any level of politics should have a basic comprehension of. Acting ignorant doesn't make someone else seem less intelligent. Do your own homework or look foolish. Nobody particularly cares if other people decide to look foolish on the internet.
He and several others constantly demand information that should be within the knowledge of posters such as him. It is a passive aggressive attempt to attack arguments they cannot rebut. It is also dishonest
 
so no proof that it's being taught in public schools through out the US?

thought so.
Did the OP say it was being taught in public schools? No. Did I say it was being taught in public schools? No. Whether or not it is being taught in public schools is not relevant. This is just a strawman you've created to avoid answering the questions. Again.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
 
Crt is designed to critically assess ..that means look objectively..
To see if a law or policy has an unequal effect on minorities..
It is less concerned with individual acts of racism or racist people but on systemic racism
For example a judge may sentence a black man to 20 years for having an ounce of cocaine
While sentencing a white person to 3 years for an ounce of cocaine
NOT because the judge is racist...but because the law has different penalties based on what form that cocaine is in...powdered or crystallized..

Almost the direct opposite if what this lady said
the powder vs crack sentencing discrepancies certainly had disparate impact on the races but whether there was an actual racial animus is dubious. It is like the claim the ACLU and NAACP made when GOP politicians enacted a strategy when felons with guns were sent to the federal prosecutor rather than state offices-the federal sentences were harsher. Well lots of felons with guns tend to be blacks and thus most of those facing harsher sentences were inner city gang bangers
 
He and several others constantly demand information that should be within the knowledge of posters such as him. It is a passive aggressive attempt to attack arguments they cannot rebut. It is also dishonest
I didn't know Nostradamus was on this forum :ROFLMAO:

I can see why. You don't have any answers.
 
I can see why. You don't have any answers.
Your posts are generally tedious and stupid, that is yet another one. I already explained how affirmative action punishes smarter and more accomplished applicants because of racial discrimination. That you pretend that this doesn't happen or worse, that you need evidence of it, relegates your argument to the toilet-along with most other things you post here
 
If you don't know something that every other adult in America knows it is your homework to figure it out. Don't run around the internet demanding other people remove the ignorance on your behalf. Nobody owes you a simple Google search of "affirmative action academia." The entitlement is jumping off the page here.
You people who don't seem to know what is you're talking. You make broad blanket claims about a social policy being blatantly discriminatory, and yet you can't provide any documentation to support your spoon fed assertions whatsoever.
 
Your posts are generally tedious and stupid, that is yet another one. I already explained how affirmative action punishes smarter and more accomplished applicants because of racial discrimination. That you pretend that this doesn't happen or worse, that you need evidence of it, relegates your argument to the toilet-along with most other things you post here
You haven't explained or documented jack shit. Because you can't and you know it.
 
You people who don't seem to know what is you're talking. You make broad blanket claims about a social policy being blatantly discriminatory, and yet you can't provide any documentation to support your spoon fed assertions whatsoever.
read this thread. I will be back in about 9 hours

 
You haven't explained or documented jack shit. Because you can't and you know it.
stop lying, you just are playing your normally stupid game of demanding proof of stuff you know is true
 
stop lying, you just are playing your normally stupid game of demanding proof of stuff you know is true
Hey if everybody knows it true then it shouldn't be all that hard to prove that it's true. Right? So where is it?
 
read this thread. I will be back in about 9 hours

We're talking to each in this thread, I don't give a flying **** about the other one. Bring whatever you've got from there, you think is worth anything, here.
 
the powder vs crack sentencing discrepancies certainly had disparate impact on the races but whether there was an actual racial animus is dubious. It is like the claim the ACLU and NAACP made when GOP politicians enacted a strategy when felons with guns were sent to the federal prosecutor rather than state offices-the federal sentences were harsher. Well lots of felons with guns tend to be blacks and thus most of those facing harsher sentences were inner city gang bangers
In critical race theory..the important thing would be the disparate effect on race vs whether due to outright racist animus.
The same would be said about background checks for firearms.
African Americans suffer a higher level of police enforcement and are subject to a higher likelihood of getting a misdemeanor marijuana charge.
African Americans are convicted of marijuana violations at 4 times the rate of whites yet African Americans and whites have the same percentage of marijuana usage.
This systemic racism thus effects the ability of African Americans to own firearm disproportionately.
 
You people who don't seem to know what is you're talking. You make broad blanket claims about a social policy being blatantly discriminatory, and yet you can't provide any documentation to support your spoon fed assertions whatsoever.
The whole point of affirmative action is to discriminate based on race to make up for prior racism and disadvantages. It is rampant in academia and I'm not sure why you're continuing to choose to remain ignorant of what affirmative action is and where it is typically applied. You could be educated on this in less than a minute, but you choose to either be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant. Whichever the case is it doesn't make your argument stronger. It's just pathetic.
 
Once again, a YouTube Source I find of interest bringing up a topic of valid discussion.

This young psychologist (and member of a knitting society, who knew that was political?) has put forward an interesting definition of Critical Race Theory.

I post the video, but will also post the Definition below it for discussion purposes:



Here is her definition:

"1. Critical Race Theory is an Ideology started in academia in the 1970's that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

2. Another way to think of critical race theory is this: it's the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It is the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character."

She goes on to explain how this is problematic as if one starts with a conclusion that racism has occurred and one work's their way back from that initial conclusion, that is confirmation bias in action. You'll only look for information that supports your conclusion.

Worse, you will dismiss any information that does not conform to your expectations. You will look until you find something that confirms your expectations, and disparage anyone who does not agree/conform with the conclusion.

The poll question is:

Do you agree with this definition, and analysis:

Yes.

No.

Other, explain.

There is no valid definition for leftists. They cannot defend CRT as such so their normal obfuscation technique is to play endless definitional battles
 
The whole point of affirmative action is to discriminate based on race to make up for prior racism and disadvantages. It is rampant in academia and I'm not sure why you're continuing to choose to remain ignorant of what affirmative action is and where it is typically applied. You could be educated on this in less than a minute, but you choose to either be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant. Whichever the case is it doesn't make your argument stronger. It's just pathetic.
Not according to affirmative action laws.
 
Crt is designed to critically assess ..that means look objectively..
To see if a law or policy has an unequal effect on minorities..
It is less concerned with individual acts of racism or racist people but on systemic racism
For example a judge may sentence a black man to 20 years for having an ounce of cocaine
While sentencing a white person to 3 years for an ounce of cocaine
NOT because the judge is racist...but because the law has different penalties based on what form that cocaine is in...powdered or crystallized..

Almost the direct opposite if what this lady said
So you’ve disproved systemic racism in your own argument. Because you admit the sentencing is not different because of race, it’s different because a different drug with higher social costs is punished more severely
 
Not according to affirmative action laws.
The courts have largely upheld affirmative action in academia which the notable exception being the outlawing of quotas. However, having different standards based on race is extremely common and well documented. It is not a secret that if you are Asian and you apply to a top school that you will need to overachieve compared to your peers in order to be admitted.
 
The whole point of affirmative action is to discriminate based on race to make up for prior racism and disadvantages. It is rampant in academia and I'm not sure why you're continuing to choose to remain ignorant of what affirmative action is and where it is typically applied. You could be educated on this in less than a minute, but you choose to either be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant. Whichever the case is it doesn't make your argument stronger. It's just pathetic.

Practice self respect. You make it too easy for them to grift you.... follow the money. It is invested in herding your vote.
Even these parasites expect you to ask why, but you never do...

"...

National Education Policy Center’s New Brief on Critical Race Theory Is a Must-Read for All Americans

Posted on October 1, 2021
The National Education Policy Center’ new brief, Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory, is essential reading to support all of us who are puzzled or grieving or outraged by the battle raging across the states about regulating the way public school teachers can teach American history. ...
What is Critical Race Theory (called CRT, for short) and how has the meaning of the original academic concept been turned upside down by far right ideologues?
“Critical Race Theory is an academic legal theory developed in the 1970s by Derrick Bell (and colleagues) to examine how race and racism have shaped American institutions, culture, politics, economics and education and to examine how racism produces and sustains inequality… Given that CRT is a theoretical, analytical framework useful primarily to academic researchers, at first glance it seems an odd target for pundits, think tanks, wealthy donors, foundations, and legislators associated with the ideological right to attack… The demand that CRT not be taught in schools is absurd, since it would be hard to find a K-12 school that teaches CRT to begin with… Instead, ideologues are using CRT as a frightening symbol to intensify a collection of cultural and political fears related to race, racism, and the prospect of an increasing number of citizens from marginalized groups participating in the democratic process.”

“Well-established and powerful far Right organizations are driving the current effort to prevent schools from providing historically accurate information about slavery and racist policies and practices, or from examining systemic racism and its manifold impacts. These organizations include The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Koch family foundations, and Manhattan Institute, as well as billionaire-funded advocacy organizations such as Parents Defending Education and the Legal Insurrection Foundation.” The brief quotes Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo describing how he set out to change the meaning of Critical Race Theory and politically charge his new concept: “We have successfully frozen their brand—‘critical race theory’—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic.”
What are the political objectives of those promoting attacks on CRT?
“We see two overall political objectives of the anti-CRT attacks.”
(1) “Mobilizing a partisan base for upcoming elections… Far Right lawmakers and advocates saw early on the political potential of attacks on discussion of racial and gender justice in schools… In this context, the anti-CRT legislation is intended to mobilize the Republican base for the 2022 midterm elections….”
(2) “Thwarting efforts to promote racial justice by deflecting debate away from systemic racism and suppressing information about it… Most such bills allude to the premise that if a school teaches about racism, White children will be scapegoated for being White and so will experience feelings of guilt and embarrassment related to their race, which will in turn prompt fear and resentment of people of color—and thus promote racial division. This framing promotes distrust in government and opposition to government efforts to address racism.”
 
Practice self respect. You make it too easy for them to grift you.... follow the money. It is invested in herding your vote.
Even these parasites expect you to ask why, but you never do...

"...

National Education Policy Center’s New Brief on Critical Race Theory Is a Must-Read for All Americans

Posted on October 1, 2021
The National Education Policy Center’ new brief, Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory, is essential reading to support all of us who are puzzled or grieving or outraged by the battle raging across the states about regulating the way public school teachers can teach American history. ...
What is Critical Race Theory (called CRT, for short) and how has the meaning of the original academic concept been turned upside down by far right ideologues?
“Critical Race Theory is an academic legal theory developed in the 1970s by Derrick Bell (and colleagues) to examine how race and racism have shaped American institutions, culture, politics, economics and education and to examine how racism produces and sustains inequality… Given that CRT is a theoretical, analytical framework useful primarily to academic researchers, at first glance it seems an odd target for pundits, think tanks, wealthy donors, foundations, and legislators associated with the ideological right to attack… The demand that CRT not be taught in schools is absurd, since it would be hard to find a K-12 school that teaches CRT to begin with… Instead, ideologues are using CRT as a frightening symbol to intensify a collection of cultural and political fears related to race, racism, and the prospect of an increasing number of citizens from marginalized groups participating in the democratic process.”

“Well-established and powerful far Right organizations are driving the current effort to prevent schools from providing historically accurate information about slavery and racist policies and practices, or from examining systemic racism and its manifold impacts. These organizations include The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Koch family foundations, and Manhattan Institute, as well as billionaire-funded advocacy organizations such as Parents Defending Education and the Legal Insurrection Foundation.” The brief quotes Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo describing how he set out to change the meaning of Critical Race Theory and politically charge his new concept: “We have successfully frozen their brand—‘critical race theory’—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic.”
What are the political objectives of those promoting attacks on CRT?
“We see two overall political objectives of the anti-CRT attacks.”
(1) “Mobilizing a partisan base for upcoming elections… Far Right lawmakers and advocates saw early on the political potential of attacks on discussion of racial and gender justice in schools… In this context, the anti-CRT legislation is intended to mobilize the Republican base for the 2022 midterm elections….”
(2) “Thwarting efforts to promote racial justice by deflecting debate away from systemic racism and suppressing information about it… Most such bills allude to the premise that if a school teaches about racism, White children will be scapegoated for being White and so will experience feelings of guilt and embarrassment related to their race, which will in turn prompt fear and resentment of people of color—and thus promote racial division. This framing promotes distrust in government and opposition to government efforts to address racism.”
But, I thought it wasn't being taught in schools?

Oh, your guys have been lying all along....got it.
 
I would disagree and recite the Great Moderate-the Late David Broder's comment from over 30 years ago where he noted the goal of the US Left went from transforming the USA into another USSR (after the fall of the wall) to seeking to balkanize the USA into warring ethnic special interest groups. crap like reparations, or affirmative action are both symptoms of that disease
Riiiiiiiight.

The ENTIRE left (or right - for that matter) of America - tens of millions of people - are deliberately trying to divide America into small, hostile states.

If he REALLY believed that blather?
He was - IMO - emotionally retarded.
What utter nonsense.

Typical reporter.
Thinks they are smarter/wiser than they really are.

Thank god he is dead.
 
Practice self respect. You make it too easy for them to grift you.... follow the money. It is invested in herding your vote.
Even these parasites expect you to ask why, but you never do...

"...

National Education Policy Center’s New Brief on Critical Race Theory Is a Must-Read for All Americans

Posted on October 1, 2021
The National Education Policy Center’ new brief, Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory, is essential reading to support all of us who are puzzled or grieving or outraged by the battle raging across the states about regulating the way public school teachers can teach American history. ...
What is Critical Race Theory (called CRT, for short) and how has the meaning of the original academic concept been turned upside down by far right ideologues?
“Critical Race Theory is an academic legal theory developed in the 1970s by Derrick Bell (and colleagues) to examine how race and racism have shaped American institutions, culture, politics, economics and education and to examine how racism produces and sustains inequality… Given that CRT is a theoretical, analytical framework useful primarily to academic researchers, at first glance it seems an odd target for pundits, think tanks, wealthy donors, foundations, and legislators associated with the ideological right to attack… The demand that CRT not be taught in schools is absurd, since it would be hard to find a K-12 school that teaches CRT to begin with… Instead, ideologues are using CRT as a frightening symbol to intensify a collection of cultural and political fears related to race, racism, and the prospect of an increasing number of citizens from marginalized groups participating in the democratic process.”

“Well-established and powerful far Right organizations are driving the current effort to prevent schools from providing historically accurate information about slavery and racist policies and practices, or from examining systemic racism and its manifold impacts. These organizations include The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Koch family foundations, and Manhattan Institute, as well as billionaire-funded advocacy organizations such as Parents Defending Education and the Legal Insurrection Foundation.” The brief quotes Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo describing how he set out to change the meaning of Critical Race Theory and politically charge his new concept: “We have successfully frozen their brand—‘critical race theory’—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic.”
What are the political objectives of those promoting attacks on CRT?
“We see two overall political objectives of the anti-CRT attacks.”
(1) “Mobilizing a partisan base for upcoming elections… Far Right lawmakers and advocates saw early on the political potential of attacks on discussion of racial and gender justice in schools… In this context, the anti-CRT legislation is intended to mobilize the Republican base for the 2022 midterm elections….”
(2) “Thwarting efforts to promote racial justice by deflecting debate away from systemic racism and suppressing information about it… Most such bills allude to the premise that if a school teaches about racism, White children will be scapegoated for being White and so will experience feelings of guilt and embarrassment related to their race, which will in turn prompt fear and resentment of people of color—and thus promote racial division. This framing promotes distrust in government and opposition to government efforts to address racism.”
You're conflating affirmative action with CRT.
 
Back
Top Bottom