Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Split to Anti–diversity teaching in public education in the United States or similar

In the preceding section I suggested a map be added to illustrate further recent developments with regards to what Republicans refer to as CRT being taught in state high schools and even K-12s. Even though it has been suggested before and was not acted on to have a split.

As The Four Deuces pointed out earlier, the naming convention is in keeping with Creation and evolution in public education in the United States. I added "teaching" to prevent misreading to indicate the article is about the application of prejudice in the education system. Other suggestions for a name are:

--Jabbi (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this really need to be a new article? Current events aren't mentioned at all at Anti-bias curriculum, which seems to be our home for topics related to anti racism in schooling. - MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on that. You mean to say that CRT/US issues should be covered in a section in that article? --Jabbi (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a split from this article, it would be a split from Diversity training and that's where this should be discussed. TFD (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
TFD, you seem to have a very clear of how things shouldn't be done. Can you please clarify where you think coverage of recent developments in the US with regards to public curriculum and CRT (rightfully attributed or not) belongs? --Jabbi (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's what happened: Some school textbooks teach diversity training. This came to the attention of conservatives with the publication of the 1619 Project. They then sought to ban teaching diversity training in schools and added CRT, although it was not being taught. So there are a range of articles where this has more relevance: conservatism in the United States, diversity training, culture wars, education in the U.S., 1619 project. You can discuss it in the talk page of those articles. All I can tell you is that the ban is of marginal relevance to this article. TFD (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really say that. It says:
In reality, there is no consensus on whether or how much critical race theory informs schools’ heightened focus on race. Most teachers do not use the term “critical race theory” with students, and they generally do not ask them to read the work of legal scholars who use that framework.
Some lessons and anti-racism efforts, however, reflect foundational themes of critical race theory, particularly that racism in the United States is systemic. The New York Times’s landmark 1619 Project, which addresses slavery’s role in shaping the nation, also has an associated school curriculum.
"Reflects foundational themes" isn't the same thing as "based on" and is not really enough of a connection to keep the entire thing here, especially since it makes it clear that unrelated topics (like the 1619 project) are also included in the bans and other, later sources go into more detail on how broad they are and how limited the connection to CRT really is (eg. [2][3][4].) --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Since the concept of systemic racism predates CRT, it makes no sense to say that it is based on CRT. TFD (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Since someone has now added a tag to the article officially proposing this, I officially oppose. As I said above, the proposed title is confusing and POV. Additionally, a split could encourage WP:POVFORK issues, since the academic criticism of the ideas won't be present there. While it is true that the Republicans are overusing this term, it is also not accurate that the sort of anti-racism training and ideas that became more widespread in 2020 (not just those in schools) have nothing to do with critical race theory. The Washington Post states, there is no consensus on whether or how much critical race theory informs schools’ heightened focus on race....Some lessons and anti-racism efforts, however, reflect foundational themes of critical race theory... That shows it is part of this topic more than another, and size-wise, a split is not needed at this time. It's important to keep in mind that some commentators may be motivated to argue that these trainings have no connection to CRT because CRT has become politically toxic among many and they support the trainings; we need to stick to the most highly reliable sources - very mainstream news reporting - in highly politically charged current events. Maybe in the future a size split will be justified, maybe not. It all depends on whether proponents or opponents continue fighting or one side largely drops the subject, and there's just no way of knowing. WP:NOTNEWS and the like also should be kept in mind regarding excessive detail. Crossroads -talk- 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
What does "no consensus" mean? Does it mean between experts and people who think the universe was created 6,000 years ago? In any case, per News organizations, the source is not reliable, since it is analysis rather than news reporting. TFD (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems like a straight news piece. The author, Marisa Iati, is listed as a "General Assignment reporter". WP:PROPORTION and all that, but I think the source is generally reliable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
As noted, it is generally reliable. The "no consensus" does not seem to be including Republicans in that, based on the immediate context (not sure what creationists have to do with this). Later in that same article it is made clearer: Academic critical race theorists do not necessarily agree on whether schools are promoting critical race theory. Bridges said she would not characterize the increased focus on diversity and multiculturalism as critical race theory, while Thomas said critical race theory “is defined by this more expansive view of history now taught in classrooms.” Crossroads -talk- 06:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe title the new article Anti-Critical Race Theory legislation in the United States or something like that. A "controversy" is nebulous, but actions being proposed and carried out by state governments are certainly notable (and, I would argue, have little to do with the actual academic discipline.) The term CRT might be somewhat inaccurate in this case, but the media and legislators are calling it CRT. Mcrsftdog (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Title of the suggested article diverts attention away from Critical Race Theory, thus framing the whole thing as being non-neutral from the get go. Yegourt (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasoned arguments expressed, above. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Yegourt. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, certainly with the titles given. Even if the title is changed, I think that this would be a very hard article to make neutral, and it's better of as a section of the CRT article. Mover of molehills (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Diversity teaching" isn't a common phrase for these types of programs, so "Anti–diversity teaching" doesn't make sense. If a split is warranted, Anti–diversity training policies in the United States would be a better title. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The primary objective of the legislation is to stop diversity training. Although some of this legislation tacks on CRT, it is not the major focus of the legislation. TFD (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Frankly, that seems like all the more reason to split the material off into a separate article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Latino Critical Race Theory

Any objection to removing the "Too technical" tag from this section? It seems no more "technical" than many of the other parts of this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should remove it. If someone restores it, at least we can learn why. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Globalize?

We should talk about whether this phenomenon, or something like it, exists in other countries. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

See § More inclusive lead, above. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What should be the definition of Critical Race Theory?

Academic movement or not?

What should be the definition of Critical Race Theory? There have been several attempts at deciding but none has been accepted. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In the lead as it stands as of this date, we have two varying concepts: We state that CRT is an "academic movement," but in the same sentence we state it's "activists" who propound it. It can't be both. And are all these scholars studying civil rights? Here's the sentence as of now: CRT "is an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice." Are they "studying" or "challenging"? One can do both, but are all of them doing both?

Then in the next sentence we bring in other countries, so why do we have "U.S law" in the lead?

I propose as the very first sentence: "Critical race theory (CRT) is a movement of scholars who examine law as it intersects with issues of race and ethnicity." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Another big question is, "Is CRT a movement" or is it a "hypothesis"? Or is it "a method of examining law," etc.? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
It is patently absurd to say that a theory is a movement. That simply does not make sense. It currently reads: CRT is an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.
Let's compare: "Critical theory is an approach to social philosophy", so critical theory, of which critical race theory is a sub-category (I hope I am safe to assume), is an approach to academic work whereas critical race theory is the people that practice an approach to academic work?
I suggest: "Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic approach to social theory that critically examines law as it intersects with issues of race and challenges mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice primarily in the United States." --Jabbi (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hear hear, Jabbi. I strongly agree re not calling it a movement (see my earlier comments under Definitions and Misinterpretations in the lead sections), whatever the final definition. It could be mentioned somewhere that the academic movement, or group of scholars, were sometimes referred to as "Critical Race Theory" (even though this doesn't make sense linguistically, one or two of the sources expresses it that way). Also I don't think that EB is a strongly supported source of choice, in my experience on other pages. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not just EB. Ansell (2008) calls it "an academic movement that emerged in the mid-1970s to critically engage the intersection of race and the law ". Crenshaw et al. (1995) say CRT "embraces a movement of left scholars ... whose work challenges the ways in which race and racial power are constructed and represented in American legal culture". Ladson-Billings & Tate (1994) refer to the "critical race legal theory movement". A 1998 article in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education refers to "the legal movement known as critical race theory". A 1999 essay in Notre Dame Law Review says, "Critical Race Theory (CRT) is perhaps the fastest growing and most controversial movement in recent legal scholarship". Delgado & Stefancic (2017) say, "The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationaship among race, racism, and power". Other sources calling it a "movement" can be found on Google Scholar.
A movement can call itself whatever it wants, whether or not it make[s] sense linguistically (see Feminism, which encompasses both a social movement and a range of academic theories). We just summarize what published sources say about it. Further, CRT is not strictly analagoius to Critical Theory. Unless a published, reliable source specifically says CRT is an academic approach to social theory, saying so would be original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, one of the points I made is that the word "movement" is added after the phrase (inclduing in examples you've given above), as in "CRT movement". The phrase "critical race theory" is not synonymous with the movement. Another point I made is that what emerged in the mid-70s is not the meaning of the phrase in the 21st century, especially globally. It is being taught as a theory or framework. "Feminism" (and "marxism" and others) don't contain the word "theory"; "-isms" are in a different class (and btw there is alsos Feminist theory and Marxist theory). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The terms "academic feminism" and "academic Marxism" are also used to refer to theories within those movements. There isn't always a clear semantic distinction made between the "-ism" and the theory. "Critical race theory" can mean both. I disagree that using the word "movement" after "critical race theory" implies any distinction. The word "movement" is just used for emphasis or clarity, as with "Black Lives Matter movement". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
We state that CRT is an "academic movement," but in the same sentence we state it's "activists" who propound it. It can't be both. Why not? It wouldn't be the first. Marxist economics is an academic movement originally invented by the economist and communist activist Karl Marx. You can be an expert on a topic and also want to change things. Loki (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Marx wrote, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." In Marxism, as well as other ideologies, it is possible blur the lines between theory and movement. So instead of just interpreting legal history, CRT activists attempt change legal practice. TFD (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Loki. Of course it can be activist academics. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Status Quo I don't particularly see anything wrong with the lead as it stands. CRT is a movement, primarily within academia, so Academic Movement feels like an appropriate name. BSMRD (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with BSMRD, the lead needs no change. Including terms such as academic Marxism seems to be an WP:POV issue and is just one interpretation and should not be in the lead. If we want to expound upon this concept in a different section of the article, then we can, but the lead should be neutral in its approach. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Those are just examples of how scholars can also be activists. I don't think anyone was proposing to include them in the lead. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, with an bold edit two days ago, Alduin2000 changed the lead to reflect points raised in the above discussion. I think the edit is an improvement and should stand. But your comments, The Four Deuces, sorry Jurisdicta and BSMRD refer to that version and not the pre-July 4th version. --Jabbi (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, ah, yes, thanks for pointing out Alduin2000's edit, Jabbi. That is an improvement. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The lede as it stands seems to accurately represent the sources with its definition of CRT, except by using the term 'activists'. The sources only list lawyers and academic scholars as participating in the movement as it applies to U.S. law, and only lists activists as participating in the movement as it applies to racial justice. I suggest either removing the word "activists" or rewording the first sentence into two sentences, as such:
Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of civil-rights scholars in the United States that seeks to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. Activists of the movement aim to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not just "activists". According to Ansell (2008), "one of the most overarching concepts animating CRT thought is the critique of liberal, colorblind ideology ... Color consciousness is embraced as a pragmatic strategy to address the nation's racial problems." --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

edit the bad grammar in

"halted due to a state law forbidding public schools from offering race-conscious education"

to

"halted on account of a state law that forbids public schools to offer race-conscious education." 184.55.80.160 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
arrow Reverted. The sentence was clearer and more concise before. The only reason to replace "due to" with the longer "on account of" is personal dislike. According to Merriam-Webster, the use of "due to" as a preposition "has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades". The law in question was ruled unconstitutional, so use of the present-tense "forbids X to offer" is misleading since the statute no longer has the power to forbid anything. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It may be okay, but, really, if it raises hackles why not change it to something less jarring to certain readers? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Such as...? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, "Such as?"isn't the point. The point is, different strokes for different folks. If someone makes a stylistic change and it is, hm, within the ballpark, as it were, why not just leave it in a friendly spirit of camaraderie? Hey, simply my opinion, and the way I like to pursue my activities in this place. Best, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
it wasn't in the ballpark. Do you have another suggestion for wording that would be less jarring to certain readers? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile already changed "due to" to "because of" and that seems fine to me. Are there any lingering issues here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess not. Apparently I missed BAAW's 16:46, 2 August edit. Looks fine to me. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Oof, I forgot that there's still the "forbid from" vs. "forbid to" issue. Kelisi just edited to switch to the latter. To my American ears, "from" sounds natural and "to" is jarringly unusual. Any thoughts on which is better? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"Forbid" is a verb that takes both indirect and direct objects. The direct object (placed second) is supposed to be the thing that is not allowed, and the indirect object is the party to whom it is not allowed ("to forbid somebody something"). You cannot "forbid" a person — well, not really. I suppose you would have to forbid somebody else that person. Anyway, the direct object can also be realized by an infinitive verb ("to forbid somebody to do something" — where "somebody" is the indirect object and "to do" is the direct object).Kelisi (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought "forbid from" was more natural too, but it turns out that "forbid to" is also accepted. (I'm used to hearing/reading to with the past participle forbidden, as in X was forbidden to Y.) In this case "forbidding ... to offer" is shorter and no less accurate, so I'm not complaining. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection August 8, 2021

Critical race theory has attracted the attention of the media, after states have started banning the theory. As a result, there is a high level of reverts/unnecessary edits/vandalism on this page. I am requesting semi protection of this page.

Done by admin User:El C [5]. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghoyt98 (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This page needs work / Neutrality issues

I believe there are some significant issues with the wording & content that are likely the result of this page being unprotected for so long. The beginning of the article seems to take a stance against critical race theory. There is overwhelming content on the article that gives too much focus on the negatives of critical race theory. I believe the article needs to be worded for neutrally.CRT challenges neo-liberalism, not mainstream liberalism as the article notes.Ghoyt98 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

See the very first source cited: "one of the most overarching concepts animating CRT thought is the critique of liberal, colorblind ideology". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that sentence you showed me but however that is not what the wiki article says. The wiki article says "mainstream American liberal approaches." Mainstream American liberal approaches... has a very different connotation than just "liberal ideology" and makes it sound like CRT is rejected by progressivism. There are different types of liberalism. See this article for more information. https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory Ghoyt98 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
"Progressive" and "liberal", even in the American sense, are not synonyms, and in any case a critique of B by A does not imply a rejection of A by B. There's nothing in the article about "liberal" or "progressive" attitudes toward CRT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Providing quotation to verify citation 27

Dixon, Adrienne D. Researching race in education: Policy, practice and qualitative research. IAP, 2014. page 50 "When Bell departed from Harvard to lead the University of Oregon School of Law, Harvard's law students of color demanded that another faculty member of color be hired to replace him." Teddnitch (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

I request that this article properly and UNAMBIGUOUSLY point out that Critical Race Theory, much like Critical Gender Theory is an extension of "Critical Theory"/"Critical Legal Theory" ; which are themselves based on the philosophical research of the Frankfurt School; thus Critical Race Theory has it's roots in Contemporary Marxism. GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I knew the Frankfurt School drew upon Marx's thought, but I didn't know they were considered "contemporary" with CRT. Did those wily Frankfurters somehow invent time travel as well? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Sangdeboeuf With all due respect, I believe your above comment is unnecessarily snarky and is a bit of a straw-man argument against the point that I'm trying to make. My point is that the Frankfurt School of thought; along with Critical Theory/Intersectionality et al) are contemporary RELATIVE to Classical Marxism (also known as "Vulgar Marxism). This sort of behaviour is more in-line with the rhetoric from RationalWiki, and does not belong on Wikipedia. GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source which discusses this purported "vulgar Marxism" and which makes the claims you wish to insert? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof Yes I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vulgar_Marxism&redirect=no The "claim" I wish to insert is quite simple, I want this page to unambiguosly include the fact that that CRT, and it's parent discipline Critical Theory are extensions of the Frankfurt School of Thought, which itself is rooted in Marxism. Thanks GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
A Wikipedia redirect from "Vulgar Marxism" to "Orthodox Marxism" is... not a reliable source for anything, and says literally nothing about critical race theory. What on Earth do you think you can source from a redirect?
If you want to add anything to this page, you will need reliable sources which support your proposed addition. What reliable source says, as a fact, that critical race theory is rooted in Marxism, and do other reliable sources agree or disagree? Is there a scholarly consensus to this effect, or is it a limited and contentious point of view, one opinion among many? Is your proposed logical chain (Critical Race Theory, much like Critical Gender Theory is an extension of "Critical Theory"/"Critical Legal Theory" ; which are themselves based on the philosophical research of the Frankfurt School; thus Critical Race Theory has it's roots in Contemporary Marxism) actually true, and which reliable sources support your proposed logical chain? Do any sources disagree? Your bald declaration that something is so, has no meaning on Wikipedia. We don't care what you think, we care what you can source.
As you are a relatively new user, I strongly suggest that you review the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline before contributing further. It's evident you don't actually understand how Wikipedia works, and you're throwing yourself into controversial, contentious, and sensitive issues. I've seen a lot of users begin their Wikipedia editing careers this way, and it doesn't usually end well for them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
You asked me to substantiate my point in regards to the term "Vulgar Marxism", and I did. Vulgar Marxism is just a colloquial term for Orthodox Marxism. And once again, you are strawmanning. I never said "vulgar marxism" had anyhting to do with critical race theory. All I said was that while Critical Theory is based in Marxist thought, it is a departure from Orthodox Marxism (aka "Vulgar Marxism); which revolves around economics and class structures, whereas Critical Theory and Frankfurt School apply the principles (ie. opressor vs oppressed) to society & culture. In the case of CRT, it applies those principles to racism and race. As for reliable sources; https://examples.yourdictionary.com/what-is-marxism-explanation-in-simple-terms.html , https://www.studocu.com/my/document/universiti-utara-malaysia/principles-of-economics/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/1940387 , , https://undsoc.org/2013/04/01/critical-theory-in-the-frankfurt-school/ , https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory (even Britannica admits its based in Marxism, come on) , https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ . Critical Race theory is an offshoot of critical theory, there is absolutely no denying that. While I recognise your point re. being a relatively new user that is throwing myself into contentious articles, my point about the discrepancy and stealth cleanup of this article post the term "CRT" becoming more mainstream and reported by news media (particularly right of centre news media) which has effectively scrubbed any overt mention of Marxism (or Frankfurt School) still stands. I'm not asking to include new information, I'm asking for the article to be less dishonest and more objective and to STOP obfuscating the fact that Critical Race theroy build's itself off a foundation of contemporary marxist thought (meaning The Frankfurt School) GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
A blog post by the Lincoln Institute Of Public Opinion & Research is not a reliable source. Most of your other links don't mention CRT; it would be improper synthesis to use them for anything related to CRT. Britannica says, in a parenthetical aside, that Critical Legal Studies, the "immediate precursor" to CRT, was "an offshoot of Marxist-oriented critical theory" (my bolding). It's quite a stretch from this to say anything about CRT having a foundation in Marxism, contemporary, vulgar, or otherwise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the Lincoln Institue article, every other point I've made stands. Critical Race Theory builds upon the undemiably Marcusian Neo-Marxist Critical Thery and Critical Legal Studies. The founders of BLM even referred to themselves as "Trained Marxists" (I don't care if you and the WikiCabal don't like the NYP, the words came out of Cullors' own mouth). It's definitely not a stretch. Now you are just arguing semantics, poisoning the well, and engaging in bad-faith arguments in an attempt to delegitimise and deny any association of Critical Race Theory to Marxism, "vulgar or otherwise". (The snark did not go unnoticed, as a gen Z-er, and someone who reads RationalWiki occasionally for a laguh ((and even sometimes agrees with them; shock horror)) I picked up on it). Honestly I am quite shocked at your criticism (sarcasm), I even held back and didn't link a Hillsdale College article by Christoper Rufo, because I knew you'd immediately move to pooh pooh my entire argument based solely on the fact that Chris is politically to the right of Saul Alinsky, but here we are GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
CRT draws from many strands of theories and uses certain Marxist frames - that Karl Marx is considered to be among the founding fathers of modern social science, this is hardly surprising. However CRT is not grounded in Marxist theory at all, and any mention is undue.
This is not a forum and irrelevant rants will get you blocked. If you have academic sources linking CRT with Marxism, cite them. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
"irrelevant rants will get you blocked" Stop issuing threats. Per this essay on Threats_and_intimidation: "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether." 08:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
(edit conflict) Would that be the same Christopher Rufo who bragged on Twitter that "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'"? Yeah, no. And there is a difference between the founders of Black Lives Matter and the originators of CRT. SEP actually makes a distinction between the narrow meaning of Critical Theory as a product of "several generations of German philosophers and social theorists" within the Frankfurt School and the broader sense of "any philosophical approach with similar practical aims", including CRT. Once again, you need a published, reliable source that directly and explicitly backs up your claims. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC) edited 00:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcast Group

See Fake news: Sinclair spreads lies about race education in schools. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAILYKOS is an opinion blog and generally unreliable. Media Matters is slightly better, but this looks out of proportion without mainstream sourcing, let alone academic sourcing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias?

My agreeing or disagreeing with this article as written is irrelevant. What matters is that it gives only one point of view: Critical Race Theory is wrong.

I've checked my schedule and don't have time for the research nor re-writing needed. Instead I recommend that the article be flagged for bias.

Kovar (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You have to explain what changes you think should be made otherwise editors would never know if they had made the changes you require. TFD (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There's also no deadline, so come on back once your schedule clears up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I put it to you that this article is biased in the opposite direction to which you are alleging, and that this article deliberately obscures the fact that Critical Race Theory is an offshoot of Critical Theory/Critical Legal Theory, and that the criticism is superficial and underweighted at best GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)GayAtheistTimPoolFan

My gut feel is that this article is not biased. After reading this article, I was left with the astounding feeling that CRT is actually a more conservative view of race than traditional liberalism, in that CRT emphasizes social constructs over legal frameworks. This is in fact very conservative and evangelical: It does not matter what is in the law. What matters is what is in the hearts of people. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 October 2021

Change subheading "Political controversies" to "Political opposition". The word "Controversy" implies the movement itself sparked controversies, when in reality, the section deals with Republicans using it as a scare tactic to push for the banning of all examinations of systemic racism.

Also change "Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term 'critical race theory' as 'a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism', according to The Washington Post." to "Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term 'critical race theory' as 'a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism'." This is not a claim made by the Washington Post, it is an objective assessment made by multiple reliable sources, which are also cited elsewhere in the article. I see no reason why this can't just be written in wikivoice, and maybe backed by a second source, if necessary.

Finally, remove the Trump executive order (currently reference number 75), as it is a primary source and entirely unnecessary. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you make fair points though I don't agree with all. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a contentious article and, as such, these changes should be discussed before being implemented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case, @Sangdeboeuf:@NorthBySouthBaranof:@Firefangledfeathers:@GorillaWarfare: and @Aquillion:. I was told to establish consensus on the above edit request. You have been active on this talk page in the past few months, so I believe it is appropriate to ask for your input. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Controversy" and "criticism" are generally not a great terms to use for sections per WP:CSECTION, and while in some cases it could make sense, in this case I tend to agree that it's not describing a genuine controversy about the topic. A deeper problem is that a lot of the political stuff the section covers (as I think we describe in the article) isn't even about Critical Race Theory; as it says in the united states section, Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term "critical race theory" as "a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism". I would suggest moving the entire political section out of the controversy section, rewording the criticism section into a more neutrally-worded "reception" section that covers reception evenhandedly, and renaming the political section to "political responses" or the like. "Opposition" isn't ideal for the same reason "criticism" isn't; it encourages the creation of non-neutral sections by suggesting that editors should one-sidedly add things to the section in a way that gives them undue weight. "Academic reception" and "Political responses" are more neutral. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Aquillion: My point exactly. Incidentally, that quote from the article is the subject of the second edit I was requesting. In the article it is attributed to the WaPo, despite the fact that the other citations, including the republicans' own words confirm that this is not simply a claim made by the WaPo, but rather the objective fact of the matter. Would you agree that the attribution is unnecessary, and this should be said in wikivoice? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:QUOTE, "Quotations must be verifiably attributed", and that sentence contains a quote. The "republicans' own words" do not factor into this at all, per WP:NOR. It is only about how secondary sources describe the topic. Crossroads -talk- 00:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Also per MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". The quote in question is "a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism" - not the claim itself, that republicans are conflating critical race theory with this. The way the sentence is written now, makes it look like the claim that republicans using the term to describe any examination of systemic racism, is made by the WaPo, when the claim is supported by countless reliable secondary sources, and all that's really being quoted from the WaPo is a very specific wording that can easily be rephrased.
As for the republicans' own words, they are in fact covered in the article already, with proper citations: Rufo's use of the term propelled the controversy into the mainstream; he wrote on Twitter, "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'."[8][20][76]. The sources are very clear on how the republicans are trying to frame CRT, so I don't know what you mean by "original research" in this case. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

citation link 30

This citation link returns to this article 4R-L1n-3UM (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the citation to Crenshaw et al. (1995, p. xx), this is a shortened footnote that links to a full citation in the references section. All the bibliographic info is there. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cathode ray tube

Can we have a disambiguation link at the top, for the Boomerstanis like me who stubbornly cling to fond memories of computer monitors that were vulnerable to magnets and could give us cancer? Please. I beg for this change. Next stop: the BLM page, where I rant about how Cliven Bundy was a modern civil rights hero... 2600:1012:B00C:C22:1C1:AF8:E967:C884 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. You can add to this article if you have the proper WP:Reliable sources. If you don't know how to code them, just add in plain English, and somebody will come along and fix them. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
CRT already leads to a disambiguation page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
We could add:
For other uses, see CRT.
(this presumes the article notes the use of the acronym CRT in reference to Critical Race Theory, preferably somewhere in the beginning of the lede) (OP here again with a dynamic IP) 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Not necessary, since the title Critical race theory itself is unambiguous, despite the acronym being used in the article. As EvergreenFir pointed out, CRT does not link to this page. Not sure why Cathode ray tube would be more noteworthy than the other DAB topics. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there precedent for making the CRT in the first sentence a link to the disambig page? I didn't see anything with ctrl+f+"abbreviation". 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
My myopia in favor of crt monitors may stem from staring at them for many hours in my life thus far. I want to make clear that I accept and am open about this potential bias. 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
My cursory investigation suggested that this is not a norm. There seems to be no vehicle dedicated to acronyms (to clear up confusion), in the spirit of the disambig page link at the top of many articles. Wikipedia seems to acknowledge the need to quickly correct readers' potential misidentification for article titles with a convenient disambig link at the top, but presumes there is not a similar need for acronyms that are just as commonly used to identify the topic of the article, and I question this norm. 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not normally linked in articles. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree the DAB should not be linked, thank you to whoever removed the link. Suriname0 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

"American liberal" links to a page on liberalism, which doesn't seem to fit with the explanation of CRT. 24.116.105.85 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you think it should link to, or why. Girth Summit (blether) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical Need for Critical Reasoning in Wikipedia Article

  • Vol 63, Issue 13, 2019 of New Directions in Critical Race Theory and Sociology: Racism, White Supremacy, and Resistance (Michelle Christian, Louise Seamster, Victor Ray) First Published April 16, 2019
  • The Digital Reading Room for the course "AIS 663: Critical Race Theory in Global Context (Rev. C2)" at Athabasca University https://drr2.lib.athabascau.ca/index.php?c=node&m=detail&n=52363

Hello,

I propose that the introductory paragraph be changed to read as follows:

"A body of scholarship from scholars who seek to examine the intersection of race, law, civil rights, and equality, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial and social justice. A core tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social, structural, and systemic dynamics, rather than conscious, explicit, or deliberate prejudices of individuals."

My rationale is this:

1. CRT is not limited to “legal” or “civil rights” scholarship (for instance, I am a social worker and contextualize and apply CRT when assessing and serving the people I work with).

2. The terms “movement” and “activist” should be removed, as the terms politicize a sound theoretical proposition

3. Regardless of whether it has, has not, will, or will not spawn a movement or activity, CRT is a sound theoretical proposition

4. CRT is not exclusively American (for instance, I am a Canadian and I regularly employ tenets of CRT, especially when understand and working with indigenous Canadians / also, think South Africa)

5. Critical Theory and all of its subset theories must diligently apply principles of "critical thinking" and sound reasoning (as a sound proposition, CRT must remain a-political and free of rhetoric and logical fallacies, whose use and application in practice is a good-but-different thing)

NOTES:

Like in South Africa, Canada has been going through a long and painful process of Truth and Reconciliation with our indigenous citizens. I find CRT to be a tool to see "truths," such as structural and systemic mechanisms, while teaching people to think critically about what they see. While I see CRT as a wonderfully useful mechanism to see the truth, it is not truth itself. Whether or not we actually "use" the tool (CRT), apply the principles, see the truth, or choose to reconcile racial and social injustices, the theory is still the theory. We ought to define the theory objectively, so it can be tested, at which time I believe it will be proved to work.

Wikipedia is the first place most people turn for information these days, so the current political climate and politicization of CRT calls for a broad, inclusive, and painfully objective presentation. As a proponent of CRT, I not only believe it to be a "reasonable" theoretical proposition, but think it is fundamentally important that it be transformed from theory into practice. For this to happen, I believe it is important to be clear and precise with what CRT is and what it is not. I think it is a sound theory that works. It is critically important that it not be defined by any special interest group, be it corporate, political, media, or other. This includes those who oppressed by racism, by trying to support those oppressed by racism, and by those who have used racism to oppress.

By definition, CRT can and does stand up to the rigorous critique, of scholarly, academics, and citizens. It is my opinion that, due to the importance of both the subject (CRT) and the popularity of this medium (Wikipedia), the entire CRT presentation should be reviewed by a trained logician who, through a sound critical evaluation, sees the merits in CRT. This person must have a solid academic and lived understand of critical theory and critical social theory generally, and then critical race theory specifically. CRT needs to compete in the marketplace of theories and ideas, not be used as a tool that is “sold” to bludgeon am opponent. The truth will do that on its own. Like a mirror, the theory itself just reflect back what it sees.

This is my first attempt to engage with authors on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I don't follow norms and conventions. Please help me understand things I might want to change if it could be helpful. Thank you for the work you are all doing and for giving my feedback consideration.

Best regards, Ken Wessel MSW, BSW, BA kenwesselmsw@gmail.com Edmonton, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken the Canuck (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, all information in Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced. You need a source that says what you want the article to say. Wikipedia editors cannot reach conclusions among themselves and put them into articles, but must report the conclusions reached in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

I apologise for now knowing how this works, or who is replying to me, but this is my first attempt at making a contribution. I do understand what you feedback says and means, but to be honest, I am a bystander who wanted to provide feedback. I am not a practiced Wikipedia editor and may never become one, but felt I had something important to say about the way the current article is presented. I do not find that it very accurately reflects what CRT is and should be. The two links I provided go directly to a trove of academic source material, which, along with my one citation, provides all of the supporting documentation for everything I presented. It is presented as information for the regular editors of this page -- now and in the future -- to consider.

Many thanks,

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken the Canuck (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Were my links deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken the Canuck (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

I just want to tell you that I agree with everything you wrote here, Ken. The introductory part of this is poison - activists? It's beggars belief. The introduction itself is racist. Good luck changing this, I suspect you'll get little traction.141.126.131.191 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

[6] I propose that the introductory paragraph be changed to read as follows:

"A body of scholarship from scholars who seek to examine the intersection of race, law, civil rights, and equality, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial and social justice. A core tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social, structural, and systemic dynamics, rather than conscious, explicit, or deliberate prejudices of individuals."

My rationale is this [ NOT SURE HOW TO CITE HERE, so ... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764219842623 :) ]:

1. CRT is best described as a scholarly pursuit under the academic umbrella of sociology, so is not specific or limited to to “legal” or “civil rights” scholarship (for instance, I am a social worker and contextualize and apply CRT when assessing and serving the people I work with). 2. The terms “movement” and “activist” should be removed (these terms politicize a sound theoretical proposition / regardless of whether it has, has not, will, or will not spawn a movement or activity, CRT is a sound theoretical proposition) 4. CRT is not exclusively American (for instance, I am a Canadian and I regularly employ tenets of CRT, especially when understand and working with indigenous Canadians / also, think South Africa) 5. Critical Theory and all of its subset theories must diligently apply principles of "critical thinking" and sound reasoning (as a sound proposition, CRT must remain a-political and free of rhetoric and logical fallacies, whose use and application in practice is a good-but-different thing)

NOTES: Like in South Africa, Canada has been going through a long and painful process of Truth and Reconciliation with our indigenous citizens. I see CRT as a wonderfully useful mechanism to see the truth, but it is not truth itself. I see it as a tool to see "truth," such as structural and systemic mechanisms, which can teach people to think critically about what they see. Whether we actually "use" the tool (CRT), or ever apply the principles, or ever see the truth, or ever choose to reconcile racial and social injustices, we ought define the theory objectively, so it can be tested and proved to work. Wikipedia is the first place most people turn for information these days, so the current political climate and politicization of CRT calls for a broad, inclusive, and painfully objective presentation. As a proponent who believes that CRT is not only "reasonable," but fundamentally important to have transformed from theory into practice, I believe it is important to be clear and precise with what CRT is and is not. I think it is important that it is not defined according to any special interest, such as media and political movements. I believe that, by definition, CRT can and does stand up to rigors of scholarly and academic scrutiny and critique. It is my opinion that, due to the importance of both the subject (CRT) and popularity of the medium (Wikipedia), the entire CRT presentation should be reviewed by a trained logician who understands critical theory and critical social theory in general, and critical race theory specifically.

Thank you for the work you are doing and for giving my feedback consideration.

Best regards,

Ken Wessel MSW, BSW, BA kenwesselmsw@gmail.com Edmonton, Canada 2001:56A:FA3F:5100:4DB0:49F6:5237:8D2A (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am deactivating the template because it is designed to alert editors not following this page.
Do you have a source that describes CRT this way? We need that to make changes.
I see your point that CRT is used in other fields. But the article should at least say that it was developed by legal scholars.
TFD (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree there are some issues with the current framing, although I'm not sure the proposal makes the article better. Part of the concern is that there's a body of primary academic work applying CRT concepts to non-legal fields (such as sociology or computer science). Thus, I would prefer to identify and incorporate sources that synthesize that large body of primary scholarship. Suriname0 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


100% agreement with you. The words "activist" and "movement" should be removed. Will it? Probably not. The introductory part of this article is poison and work to policitize (and slander) an academic discipline. In a twist of irony, the poisoned pills in the introduction highlights the ineffable truth of CRT and the blatant, low-key racism masquerading as intellectualism that Wikipedia allows. These are frameworks developed and built upon by predominately scholars of color and othe minorities but edited and described here by the majority? Yeah, page is written in the same way Atwood's Handmaid's Tale was written. 141.126.131.191 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_race_theory/Archive_8&oldid=1059543847"