I have to concede that you raise some valid points here. A portion of backlash against CRT undoubtedly is coming from racist place, and the fight against it from the right.
But I've also seen some measured criticisms of CRT and specifically how to teach the concept of racism to children that I think is being done with an open mind, specif…
I have to concede that you raise some valid points here. A portion of backlash against CRT undoubtedly is coming from racist place, and the fight against it from the right.
But I've also seen some measured criticisms of CRT and specifically how to teach the concept of racism to children that I think is being done with an open mind, specifically some of the work that Connor Friedersdorf is doing at The Atlantic.
Highlighting Jelani Cobbs tweets here does seem to me to be consistent with the illiberal concerns as these tweets leave no room for nuance, reflection, or criticism. The tweets suggest that anyone willing to debate the topic is not coming from a place worth debating.
To that extent, this article doesn't read as a defence of CRT but, moreso as an anti-anti-CRT piece. I'm not sure if anti-anti pieces are the best way out of the time of monsters.
Debating the merits of CRT is a category mistake here because the controversy has literally nothing to do with CRT. It's like debating whether the Elders of Zion really wanted to take over the world or not -- when the point is the Elders of Zion don't exist. CRT is in reality a legal theory taught at a post-graduate level -- to lawyers. And not even really taught that much (Harvard notoriously purged its CRT profs). The idea that kids in public school are being taught CRT is as credible as the idea that the Elders of Zion caused Russia to lose the war with Japan or caused the Great Depression.
I have to concede that you raise some valid points here. A portion of backlash against CRT undoubtedly is coming from racist place, and the fight against it from the right.
But I've also seen some measured criticisms of CRT and specifically how to teach the concept of racism to children that I think is being done with an open mind, specifically some of the work that Connor Friedersdorf is doing at The Atlantic.
Highlighting Jelani Cobbs tweets here does seem to me to be consistent with the illiberal concerns as these tweets leave no room for nuance, reflection, or criticism. The tweets suggest that anyone willing to debate the topic is not coming from a place worth debating.
To that extent, this article doesn't read as a defence of CRT but, moreso as an anti-anti-CRT piece. I'm not sure if anti-anti pieces are the best way out of the time of monsters.
Debating the merits of CRT is a category mistake here because the controversy has literally nothing to do with CRT. It's like debating whether the Elders of Zion really wanted to take over the world or not -- when the point is the Elders of Zion don't exist. CRT is in reality a legal theory taught at a post-graduate level -- to lawyers. And not even really taught that much (Harvard notoriously purged its CRT profs). The idea that kids in public school are being taught CRT is as credible as the idea that the Elders of Zion caused Russia to lose the war with Japan or caused the Great Depression.