• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

i read the last three pages of this thread hoping to learn something about CRT. I learned some things, but not about CRT.

I did learn that the majority of americans think CRT is bad, so therefore we should listen to them. I look forward to the discussion of raising taxes on the rich, since a majority of americans also favor that.
 
DeacDiggler said:
i read the last three pages of this thread hoping to learn something about CRT. I learned some things, but not about CRT.

I did learn that the majority of americans think CRT is bad, so therefore we should listen to them. I look forward to the discussion of raising taxes on the rich, since a majority of americans also favor that.
Click to expand...

Read the law review article I linked:

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2124&context=bclr

It’s a great discussion of what CRT is and why it is wrong.
 
WakeBored said:
BBD: I don’t know anything about this topic.

Also BBD: Junebug is saying it so it must be wrong.
Click to expand...

Junebug: Here is one article by one professor (where he gives caveats to his point) that proves we should throw this entire critical framework out of education
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Junebug: Here is one article by one professor (where he gives caveats to his point) that proves we should throw this entire critical framework out of education
Click to expand...

Dude, there is an entire body of legal scholarship arguing against CRT. You can find it easily if you bother to look.

Why don't we start with the article I posted, though? On what points do you disagree with it?
 
that article is 22 years old right? not sure if that's bad but is there anything more current? seems like the world has changed a lot since 1999.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Thank you for posting. I would be interested in a thoughtful rebuttal so that we can get both sides.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting tactic to define what you think something is and then declare that the thing you just defined is dangerous to the rule of law.
 
DeacDiggler said:
that article is 22 years old right? not sure if that's bad but is there anything more current? seems like the world has changed a lot since 1999.
Click to expand...

we need to know what the founding fathers originally thought of CRT
 
they were very critical of black people so obviously they would support it
 
WakeBored said:
Dude, there is an entire body of legal scholarship arguing against CRT. You can find it easily if you bother to look.

Why don't we start with the article I posted, though? On what points do you disagree with it?
Click to expand...

Does the entire body of legal scholarship agree that CRT = letting black people off for any crime they commit?
 
birdman said:
It is an interesting tactic to define what you think something is and then declare that the thing you just defined is dangerous to the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Not me. You're thinking of the other one. We don't all look alike.
 
DeacDiggler said:
i read the last three pages of this thread hoping to learn something about CRT. I learned some things, but not about CRT.

I did learn that the majority of americans think CRT is bad, so therefore we should listen to them. I look forward to the discussion of raising taxes on the rich, since a majority of americans also favor that.
Click to expand...

Cool, cool.
 
Most of the opposition I read hinges upon the message of CRT, outlined in this article here:

CRT thus puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process.

To me, that's the rub. If we want to each our children that race has been a historical factor in how society has arrived at the present, only the straw men will disagree. If we want to each our children that these historical forces have downstream effects that continue to result in disparate opportunities, etc., again, no problemo.

If we want to teach our children that race is the single, dominant factor that explains outcomes, and we need to focus on race to correct those outcomes, that's where you lose this message board poster. That message may not be dangerous per se, but it is destructive. I'd far prefer the emphasis be placed on empowering individuals using tools within their control to change outcomes, versus lamenting factors beyond any of our individual or collective controls to magically change outcomes for millions of people. My argument here is a cousin to the Connor's "It's complicated" post a few pages back. I'm team "It's complicated." CRT-agnostics don't trust the CRT-enthusiasts to tell the full story. They believe (reasonably) that the implementation of CRT is going to end up looking like the cringeworthy, beyond-parody clumsiness that are filling up Pub Twitter.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Not me. You're thinking of the other one. We don't all look alike.
Click to expand...

You asked for a rebuttal. That was the opening volley of my rebuttal. The guys says "No single manifesto defines critical race theory. Attempts at synthesizing its variations are rare, and ultimately prove more elusive than enlightening. This section will attempt to evaluate the movement's most common assertions." And after defining it, he determines that it is dangerous to the rule of law. That is some bullshit circular reasoning, in my opinion. How do we know he isn't cherry picking quotes to undermine the concept? There are lots of foot notes, but they are still single citations per assertion. That doesn't demonstrate commonality of an assertion to me, it demonstrates that one guy said it once. I mean you keep asserting that Trump doesn't lead the Republican Party, yet it's pretty clear that you are wildly wrong. I could write a law review article and cite you as a source of the common assertion that Trump doesn't lead the party and that a hang-over is settling in, but It would be bullshit.
 
birdman said:
You asked for a rebuttal. That was the opening volley of my rebuttal. The guys says "No single manifesto defines critical race theory. Attempts at synthesizing its variations are rare, and ultimately prove more elusive than enlightening. This section will attempt to evaluate the movement's most common assertions." And after defining it, he determines that it is dangerous to the rule of law. That is some bullshit circular reasoning, in my opinion. How do we know he isn't cherry picking quotes to undermine the concept? There are lots of foot notes, but they are still single citations per assertion. That doesn't demonstrate commonality of an assertion to me, it demonstrates that one guy said it once. I mean you keep asserting that Trump doesn't lead the Republican Party, yet it's pretty clear that you are wildly wrong. I could write a law review article and cite you as a source of the common assertion that Trump doesn't lead the party and that a hang-over is settling in, but It would be bullshit.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Trump. The only topic more appealing to the Tunnels than race. This is rarified air.

If we're 43 pages in and we can't agree on what constitutes CRT, maybe the messaging isn't that great?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top