What does Critical Race Theory teach?

You fell for it. I see you missed my statement (in bold) at the bottom of the post. Maybe re-read it.

I'm guessing you fall for CRT, too. Same logic. Like I said, if you think my post is ridiculous, please tell me why CRT is not. Your turn.

Or more simply, please tell me why sports is exempt from the same CRT rules as fields using mathematics or science.

 

A theory isn't a list of fact. A theory would describe some general principles as to why these facts are true and their origins. In other words, the system around them. Now, can you explain what is taught about CRT and not about facts that could be taught aside from CRT?
What are the facts about the system that make the problems systemic?

 

Indeed, facts prove or disprove theories. Theories are not the facts themselves. This, of course, is basic. But something many people confuse.

 

I'm very interested in diversity subjects. I work with various organizations and diversity is a common topic. I live in one of the most diverse areas and there are certain problems with inclusivity. My concern is that CRT actually works against diversity and does not create fruitful discussion. I could be wrong. However, whenever I ask what it is of people defending it, I get "it's history" or a load of facts about racial mistreatment. That's not theory. What could arrive at wholly different conclusions and solutions. For instance, the liberal approach (which has been around long enough to be adopted by most conservatives) is that all people are created equal and should be treated as equals before the law. Racism, where it is a problem should be uprooted from government institutions and other organizations would do well to seek to diversify. From what I've read about CRT from the actual proponents who create the materials is that the liberal approach is, inherently, racist. The entire system in the United States is inherently racist and anyone supporting it is racist or trans-racist (if you are not white.)

I could be wrong; it's hard to get accurate information on CRT from either side of the political aisle.

 

Thanks. As you can see, it's graduate work. I've been saying that all along. It's not being taught to K-12, or K-16 for that matter.

 

You've just enunciated my concerns with it as well. It is NOT a prescription for healing or unity. It is a prescription for ripping open old wounds where the wounds were mostly healed. It's not a prescription for building a better tomorrow for people of color. It's a theory making excuses for the choices POC make today.

We, as humans, have to reject such divisive nonsense if we want to really heal race relations and move forward. But that isn't the goal of CRT.

 

You'll notice that the Illinois offering comes in both undergraduate and graduate versions. And the PBS link is all about the initiative to extend CRT into secondary education and beyond.

 

About a court case...

 

I've already proven that false in this thread. Thanks. See the Nevada lawsuit for proof.

 

EPS 531. That's graduate study is it not?

 

Critical Race Theory in American Classrooms
https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-in-american-classrooms?wallit_nosession=1

Buffalo Public Schools PDFs - Enjoy Lesson 7 for Grades 9/10:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1A6ZOVxaQfaOs4RtPeKusi4eolylFE2Ve

 

And you thought you could counter all those studies and analysis with irrelevant gossip? I mean... Angela Davis' "antichrist" credentials? Who the hell gives a crap about that? And what the hell does any of that have to do with CRT?

 

So now we go from simply not understanding what CRT is, to eugenics.

 

Two versions. One for EDM, one not.

 

And it just so happens you "forgot" to include a quote, right? How forgetful... In any case, if he said that, he's wrong. But I find it more likely that he didn't. Which would also explain your "forgetfulness".

 

I did miss that.

No.

Not even close.

Because your post has no logical basis.

 

By showing studies and analysis that demonstrate it.

 

They're both 500 classes. That's graduate work.

 

"Prove it false"?? Are you serious? Read my sig! I do my research. I don't do yours. If you want to make a claim, YOU prove your claim.

Asking the other person to prove your claim false is a mistake very common in newbies who are not familiar with how rational debates work.

But you'll get the hang of it, I'm sure... eventually....

 

Sure, but one is open to undergraduates.

 

I did yours already, showing that you provide misleading claims.

You’re now claiming blacks don’t commit a disproportionate rate of crimes? Prove it. Statistics say you’re wrong.

 

So, neither does CRT. Thanks.

 

Of course it isn't! I didn't say those facts were the theory. I said those were the facts in which CRT is BASED. All theories are ultimately based on observations. Those are some of those observations. They are the part of reality that CRT addresses. The theory then goes on to explain why those facts are what they are, why they exist, how they relate to other theories, etc.

But it's absolutely impossible to explain a theory to people who refuse to admit the facts in the first place. It's like trying to explain the Theory of Evolution to people who deny that species evolve. Or to explain quantum theory to somebody who refuses to believe that quantum particles exist.

Your request is valid, but it's for another thread. For now I'll summarize by saying that CRT says that all these observations occur, not necessarily because some people are prejudiced, or because some whites are seeking to oppress black people to exploit them, or.. anything of the kind. They occur because the system is intrinsically racist. Thereby the term "systemic racism".

Maybe I'll open later another thread and go into more detail. But that would be useless when we are surrounded by people who simple refuse to believe their own "lyin' eyes", because some white supremacist on TV or on the radio says so....

 

I didn't see that but I'll take your word for it. Point is, it's not what we teach children.

 

If you are claiming that they do, YOU prove it. Anything for which there is no evidence, no proof... not even so much as an indication is false by default. I can say, and not have to prove, that it's false that unicorns exist, or that it's false that there is an invisible little green man standing on your shoulder right now.... If you claim that there is, , that's YOUR burden to prove.

And BTW, this is for your own good. Maybe I can demonstrate it (or maybe not... I make no claims at this point. The question is in the air). But if you keep relying on me to do your research for you, you're never going to learn to be a worthy debater.

Now, if you're NOT claiming that there is a invisible little green man on your shoulder or that blacks commit disproportionately more crimes, then we're good... But asking me to disprove either is nonsense.