Bethea's Byte
POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? HjN73
Welcome to Bethea's Byte. If you are a member, please sign in and participate. If you are not a member, please sign up and join the conversation. We'd love to hear from you.
Bethea's Byte
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Log in

I forgot my password

    Who is online?
    In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests


    [ View the whole list ]

    Most users ever online was 156 on Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:22 am
    Recent Members
    See more
    We have 36 registered users
    The newest registered user is Niko

    Our users have posted a total of 4724 messages in 2111 subjects
    January 2022

    Calendar Calendar

    Affiliate With Bethea’s Byte

    Bethea's Byte

    Anti-Spam Bots!

    Submit Your Site To The Web's Top 50 Search Engines for Free!

    The Coffee House

    Planet Nexus

    BG Music

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools?

    View previous topic View next topic Go down

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Which Do You Side With?

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c100%POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c10 0% 
    [ 0 ]
    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c100%POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c10 0% 
    [ 0 ]
    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c100%POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? Poll_c10 0% 
    [ 0 ]
    Total Votes : 0
    The Last Outlaw
    The Last Outlaw
    Head Administrator
    Head Administrator
    Male Posts : 2161
    Age : 45
    Join date : 2018-05-25
    Location : Salem, Oregon
    Status :

    PostThe Last Outlaw Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:37 am

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? DZCxy

    For the first time since March, I welcome to this all-new, very important edition of POINT -- COUNTERPOINT.  In this edition, we have two arguments on one of the biggest hot button topics in our country today: CRITICAL RACE THEORY.  Both POINT and COUNTERPOINT are coming from the Wochester Telegram and Gazette in Wochester, Massachusetts.  Roberta Schaffer kicks things off stating that Scholars have begun to expose 1619 Project and CRT as dangerous frauds.  Randy Feldman contends that Understanding diverse perspectives critical to a well-rounded education.  As always, I have but one question for YOU on this site:  Are you siding with the POINT or the COUNTERPOINT?  Let's get started.

    NOTE: The opinions in these articles are the authors, as published by the source, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bethea's Byte.

    POINT: Scholars Have Begun to Expose 1619 Project and CRT as Dangerous Frauds

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? AADb3tj

    Roberta Schaffer to the Telegram & Gazette wrote:Suppose your first-grader came home from school and announced that he had been asked to deconstruct his racial and sexual identity and rank himself according to his “power and privilege.” That occurred in a Cupertino, California, elementary school.

    Or imagine learning that your fifth-grader’s class in Philadelphia celebrated “Black communism,” with the students directed to hold a Black Power rally in class to free 1960s Marxist radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had been held on charges of murder.

    Is this what you expect your child to be “learning” in the primary grades or any grade? Welcome to the world where critical race theory (CRT) is being implemented in multitudinous ways in all the institutions that affect our daily lives — public and private schools, universities, corporations, and government at every level.

    What exactly is CRT, which has swept the nation like a tsunami since the death of George Floyd? The theory is an outgrowth of 19th century Marxism, which maintains that the primary characteristic of free-market, industrial societies is the exploitation of workers by “capitalists.” Eventually, the theory runs, workers will rebel, overthrow the capitalists, seize control of the means of production, and establish a “proletarian dictatorship” that culminates in a communist utopia.

    As all Americans should be aware, the Marxist “revolutions” or coups that took place during the 20th century in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere culminated not in any such paradise, but rather in totalitarian dictatorships, mass poverty, and the extermination of over 100 million people.

    Meanwhile, Americans as a whole enjoyed a steadily growing standard of living, and despite a legacy of racial discrimination that survived well past the abolition of slavery (156 years ago), that increasing prosperity, as the African-American social scientist Thomas Sowell has documented, included black citizens, even before the civil rights legislation of 1964-65.

    These facts nonetheless did not deter the inventors of critical race theory, including Harvard law professor Derrick Bell in the 1990s and (more recently) the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Movement, Patrice Cullors, from adapting Marxist doctrine to race relations in America, professing to see in it the explanation for all the sufferings of black people since the era of slavery, and the cure in some combination of admittedly racist domination by black people over whites, to “compensate” for the prior history of white racism, and the rest of Marx’s program. (Along the way, the theory’s advocates entirely ignore the radical oppression of Blacks by the white rulers of today’s Cuba.)

    As one of the foremost opponents of CRT, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Rufo, has observed, its advocates use a set of euphemisms to camouflage the theory’s real meaning: “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” “culturally responsive teaching.”

    “Equity,” for instance, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. The distinction, however, is all-important. CRT theorists reject the principle of equal rights, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, fought for in the Civil War, and enshrined in law by the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They dismiss that principle’s entailment of mere nondiscrimination as a cover for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.

    Equity, by contrast, as defined by CRT theorists, is a reformulation of Marxism. As explained by UCLA law professor and CRT proponent Cheryl Harris, equity requires the suspension of private property rights, the seizure of land and wealth, and their redistribution along racial lines.

    Similarly rejecting Constitutional, republican government, IIbram Kendi, author of “How to be an Antiracist” and director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has called for a federal Department of Antiracism that would be independent of the elected branches of government and would have the power to nullify any law and censor any speech of political leaders and private citizens that are found to be insufficiently “antiracist.”

    It would also require abolishing the free enterprise system, since according to Kendi “in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist.” (Kendi charges $20,000 for a one-hour lecture on such themes. Talk about privilege!)

    In sum, government based on equity as defined by CRT rather than equality means not only the end of private property, but the termination of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. The principles of the Declaration of Independence and the structure of our Constitution would be entirely overthrown, in favor of a dictatorship of self-defined and unaccountable antiracists.

    It should be noted that the goals of CRT are entirely compatible with the premises of the New York Times 1619 Project, which has already been adopted for classroom use in several thousand American schools. As the Project’s primary author, Nicole Hannah-Jones (who lacks any advanced degree in history), America’s real founding occurred not in 1776, but 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia.

    The project claims that the Revolutionary War was fought mainly to preserve America’s “slavocracy,” and America’s success politically, economically, and culturally is due entirely to its subjugation of Blacks. Without any supporting evidence, Hannah-Jones denies that the reference to human equality in the Declaration was intended to refer to Black people, despite a welter of evidence (including from Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) to the contrary.

    Despite the fact that the claims of the 1619 Project have been overwhelmingly refuted by leading American historians (Gordon Wood, Sean Wilentz and James McPherson, among others), the spread of the 1619 Project’s curriculum is being used to delegitimize America’s core principles and institutions in the eyes of children who don’t know any better – often taught by teachers who have been ordered to inculcate the project’s doctrines, typically with little challenge or counterpart. (Of course, those in charge of the project have no explanation of why so many millions of “persons of color,” from Africa, South and Central America, and Asia seek so desperately to immigrate to this supposed bastion of racial oppression each year.)

    Fortunately, leading scholars, both Black and white, have begun to expose the 1619 Project and CRT more generally as the dangerous fraud that they are. Robert Woodson, for one, a longtime African-American activist who directs a national network of community-based programs that have greatly improved the lives of the Black underclass, has initiated his own “1776 project” to counter what he calls a false and fatalistic narrative: “The Times’s negative message is dangerous to the future because it discourages Blacks from trying, and nothing is more lethal than a good excuse for failing.” His project is designed to be “aspirational” and inspirational.”

    If America’s glorious system of freedom and opportunity for all is to be saved from ruin by vicious demagogues and their gullible acolytes, we shall need a thousand more Woodsons – along with millions of parents and tens of millions more citizens – who take a serious interest in what our children are being taught.

    COUNTERPOINT: Understanding Diverse Perspectives Critical to a Well-Rounded Education.

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? AADb3tj

    Randy Feldman to the Telegram & Gazette wrote:We are hearing an awful lot about critical race theory (CRT) lately, especially on Fox News, as it promotes an anti-CRT agenda as if were the COVID virus itself (or rather face masks and vaccinations against it!).

    Some local education school boards are also looking to stomp out the spread of CRT. Lost in the critique and fear is any in-depth explanation of what CRT actually is, beyond its accusatory metaphorical epitaph “our children are being taught to hate themselves because they’re white.”

    If we hear anything else from other major media outlets about CRT, besides how ridiculous the right-wing media and some local school boards are, the brief explanation provided is that CRT is an awareness that structural racism exists and has historically always prevailed in the laws and culture of the United States. But no one explains what CRT is.

    Well, hear goes.

    CRT is a way to look at how the law views race relations much more broadly than our current approach to civil rights. It grew out of an older tradition of legal scholarly criticism that began with the revered Boston-born Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, gaining prominence in the 1920-30’s.

    Its step-child, and parent to CRT, is something called critical legal studies which challenged standard legal theory, accusing those who make and then interpret the law of doing no more than maintaining their own power, privileges and high position in an unjust system, all the while claiming that the law is simply neutral, objective and “blind.” None of this was yet about race, it was about the preferences of the politically powerful.

    CRT extended this analysis to claim that America law and legal institutions were based on socially constructed, culturally invented categories of racial classifications, philosophical and legal assumptions, including those of the European Enlightenment that concentrate on individualistic oriented values. These constructs work to the disadvantage of Black people and others who are poor, marginalized and exploited.

    CRT is a term coined in law schools first by Derrick Bell at Harvard and then by Kimberle Crenshaw at UCLA in the 1970s. It deconstructs the laws of the U.S. to show how racism has formed so many of our laws, with lasting negative effects on Blacks while advantaging the white majority of people today.

    Crenshaw, for instance, took issue with discriminatory laws that found neither a black person, nor a female to be singularly discriminated against in a particular lawsuit, but argued that the complainant was discriminated against at the intersection of her race plus her gender, a combined legal precept the law simply did not address.

    If the law were to be expanded, as Bell and Crenshaw suggest, CRT could as a legal theory, for example, fight against the current legal principle that any actionable charge of discrimination in a require proof of a person’s intent or motivation to discriminate to establish a violation of law.

    What CRT could address is the difficulty plaintiffs have demonstrating that they were wrongly discriminated against by a law because they are Black, Native American, Hispanic, female or gay without having to prove the law was intended to hurt them.

    The problem with proving intent is that it’s in people’s mind, which without an email trail, texts, memos or conversations with others is very hard to prove (sound familiar? It’s the same problem the federal government has had in proving the always tactically-minded President Trump intended to obstruct justice in the Mueller investigation and the reason it needs to “flip” Allen Wieselberg in order to prove Trump’s intent in any of his organization’s alleged wrongdoing).

    The Supreme Court, cognizant of the U.S. history of racism, has already come up with its own solution to measure discrimination? It holds that when a certain group of people, which it calls a protected class, have suffered discrimination over time, it will scrutinize laws that affect these groups of people with more rigor. Black people particularly, though there are others, are most identified with needing more protection from discrimination.

    Here’s where CRT comes in; one must still show that discrimination was intended, not just that harmful effects followed, to prove discriminatory intent. CRT lays out a philosophical, sociological and legal argument against the legal necessity to prove racial bias only occurred when it was intended.

    Without the analysis and argument CRT provides a plaintiffs trying to show discrimination is only left with showing what the effects of claimed discriminatory behavior looks like, (called de facto discrimination), for example, that the conditions themselves under which Black people are living compared to white people itself proves discrimination, i.e. living in communities with high rates of poverty and violence, poor education, lousy job prospect, etc.

    CRT would state that lawmakers and judges should look at the persistence of racism on Black people’s conditions — from slavery, to segregation laws, to now — to see the adverse effects on Black wealth formation caused by the armed services and sports teams not being integrated during and after World War 2, thus limiting Black people's access to the GI Bill, education, housing and mortgage loan availability (combined with bank redlining) to systematically limit Black people’s accessibility to buy houses and build wealth over the past 70 years.

    The Tuskegee experiment, where Black people were given sexually transmitted diseases for research purposes because it was thought the life of a Black person was not as valuable as a white person’s life, has today further led in part to Black mistrust of the medical system, including, (in part) not wanting to receive COVID vaccinations, CRT asks: what further evidence do you need that Blacks are discriminated against, irrespective of whether malicious discriminatory intent can be proven?

    Now it’s tempting to say — so if that’s it! So what’s the fuss? But there is a fuss, about where the effect of this approach leads.

    For example, if we conclude that the situation Black or Native American people find themselves in today was and is not their fault, (but that of a racist white majority) or that ascribing blame is not the right question because it is too white European-American values laden to subject everyone to; then, a believe in equality and justice would obligate all of us to do something about making the situation right, like reparations or a wholesale financial investment to find solutions to break the cycle of racism.

    An off-shoot of CRT, though best I can tell not really CRT itself, is the work of Ibraham X. Kendi and others who declare that white Anglo-American-European culture is based primarily on individualism and individual rights that are magnified in importance by capitalism and meritocracy, within the nuclear family being our small circle for loving non-competitive, behavior.

    This system is seen by Kendi and some other contemporary thinkers and writers as opposing a more social, communitarian model of life where a much broader range of humanity is met with unselfishness and altruism, such as is shown much more among cultures of people of color originating from the Southern Hemisphere.

    It suggests is that a different viewing lens will thus challenge American-European based “universal” values of individual oriented freedom, to be more inclusive of a more communal security and solidarity-based model, advocated by an alternative more communal view of equality and brother/sisterhood. This alternative way of thinking is often seen as a challenge to amend and reform racialized, individualist capitalism, not replace it.

    I, myself do not believe everything put forth above by CRT analysis; but that’s not the point.

    The point is that the mindless, anti-intellectual attacks by some local school boards and many in the Republican Party, though its ideological partnership with Fox News, takes a worthy debate and turns it into mindless, political fodder in our ongoing culture wars.

    CRT is a theory not a bogeyman.

    Thus, 250 parents showing up at a recent Dudley-Charlton Regional School forum to argue against CRT, and apparently after hearing a local grandparent say, “if this is not rectified to the satisfaction of parents this will lead to the destruction of young minds and this will be catastrophic in generations to come.”

    A standing ovation then followed. All this in spite of the guidance of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees stating that the CRT course of study “is primarily used in university-level courses to help law students think critically about the impact of historical and present day racism on the legal system.”

    Understanding and respecting diverse perspectives is the meaning of a critical, well-rounded education. The proper age and maturity level that shows a student is ready to challenge the comfort and the security of their previously held belief system to have the strength and capacity to engage one’s own, as well as one society’s generally held assumptions, is open to debate.

    That this process is necessary to consider oneself broadly and independently educated is not; such questioning is the quintessential feature of the early American experience and should be again.
    Now the opinions are left to you.  Which way do you see this.  Do you side with the Point or Counterpoint.  Vote and drop in your commentary.  I look forward to reading and responding to you.

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? I6goy

    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? GO3ER
    POINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? HobsvPOINT-COUNTERPOINT: Should Critical Race Theory Be Taught in Schools? HoIiA

    UFC Fight Night 192: Smith vs. Spann

    View previous topic View next topic Back to top

    Create an account or log in to leave a reply

    You need to be a member in order to leave a reply.

    Create an account

    Join our community by creating a new account. It's easy!

    Create a new account

    Log in

    Already have an account? No problem, log in here.

    Log in

    Permissions in this forum:
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum