Jump to content

The 5 Tenants of CRT

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

20 mins ago, RiverRaider said:

Critical Race Theory

By Chris Demaske

 

Critical race theory (CRT) is a movement that challenges the ability of conventional legal strategies to deliver social and economic justice and specifically calls for legal approaches that take into consideration race as a nexus of American life.

 

The movement champions many of the same concerns as the civil rights movement but places those concerns within a broader economic and historical context. It often elevates the equality principles of the Fourteenth Amendment above the liberty principles of the First Amendment.

Scholars develop critical race theory after civil rights advances were reversed

 

CRT has its underpinnings in the philosophical writings of Derrick Bell in the 1970s and early 1980s. It was born out of the realization by legal scholars, lawyers, and activists that many of the advances of the civil rights era had stopped and in some circumstances were being reversed.

 

Early on, legal scholars, including Bell, Alan Freemen, and Richard Delgado, began developing alternative legal theories and frameworks for combating racial inequality. Their approaches combined various other theoretical positions, among them critical legal studies, critical theory, feminist theory, postmodernism, and cultural studies.

 

Some of the basic tenets of CRT rest on the belief that racism is a fundamental part of American society, not simply an aberration that can be easily corrected by law; that any given culture constructs its own social reality in its own self-interest, and in the United States this means that minorities’ interests are subservient to the system’s self-interest; and that the current system, built by and for white elites, will tolerate and encourage racial progress for minorities only if this promotes the majority’s self-interest.

 

In 1989 CRT became a unified movement at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory. Other notable scholars from the original movement include Kimberle Crenshaw, Angela Harris, Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia Williams. Today CRT has expanded beyond its legal studies foundations into the fields of education, political science, American studies, and ethnic studies. It also has produced several offshoots, including critical white studies, Latino critical race studies, Asian American critical race studies, American Indian critical race studies, and critical queer studies.

 

First Amendment can serve to preserve racial status quo, CRT scholars say

CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the First Amendment. For example, instead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law in general or of the First Amendment in particular; some speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech.

 

Hate speech is currently still protected by the First Amendment. CRT scholars have critiqued this protection and the ideology driving it. Early on, these scholars focused primarily on the question of hate speech codes on college campuses and later moved on to review laws and court opinions concerning the broader societal regulation of hate speech. In this photo, protestors shout down White Nationalist Richard Spencer during a speech Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017, at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, used with permission from The Associated Press.)

 

In terms of the First Amendment, the primary battlefield for CRT has been hate speech regulation. No one legal definition exists for hate speech, but it generally refers to abusive language specifically attacking a person or persons based on their race, color, religion, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

Hate speech is currently still protected by the First Amendment. CRT scholars have critiqued this protection and the ideology driving it. Early on, these scholars focused primarily on the question of hate speech codes on college campuses and later moved on to review laws and court opinions concerning the broader societal regulation of hate speech.

Scholars question First Amendment protection of speech that targets oppressed groups

In general, these scholars argue that there is no societal value in protecting speech that targets already oppressed groups. They also question the logic of using the First Amendment to protect speech that not only has no social value, but also is socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups.

Perhaps the most well known and certainly the most prolific CRT scholar on hate speech is Richard Delgado, a founding member of the CRT movement who began publishing on hate speech in the early 1980s. On CRT’s connection to the First Amendment, Delgado states, “Until now, the following argument has been determinative: the First Amendment condemns that; therefore it is wrong. We are raising the possibility that the correct argument may sometimes be: the First Amendment condemns that, therefore the First Amendment (or the way we understand it) is wrong” (Delgado 1994: 173). He questions the old axiom that the answer to disfavored speech is more speech, noting that power relationships might make it difficult or impossible for members of socially disempowered groups to respond to certain types of speech.

 

CRT advocates have suggested laws that punish hate speech

In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime to place a burning cross or swastika anywhere “in an attempt to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” In this photo, white robed members of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan watch a Kerosene soaked wood cross being raised in place at a Klan rally in Mansfield, Indiana, Saturday, July 27, 1985. The cross was burned after speeches by several Klan officials from other states. (AP Photo/S. Rossman, used with permission from The Associated Press.)

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), which seemingly closed the door on hate speech regulation, Delgado continued to publish extensively on the legality and necessity of hate speech regulation. Relying heavily on social scientific data, Delgado outlined the harm caused by racist speech and developed a tort action for racial insults that he believes could pass First Amendment scrutiny.

Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence are two more early CRT proponents of hate speech regulation. Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.

Lawrence contends that the way in which scholars and jurists enter the hate speech debate “makes heroes out of bigots and fans the flames of racial violence” (Lawrence 1990: 438). According to him, hate speech violates the Fourteenth Amendment. He has pushed for the establishment of hate speech regulations that will further enhance the role of the First Amendment in society, while still adhering to the principles of the

 

Fourteenth Amendment.

This article was originally published in 2009. Chris Demaske is an associate professor of communication at the University of Washington Tacoma. Her research explores issues of power associated with free speech and free press and has covered topics including hate speech, academic freedom, and Internet pornography.

In this context, crt is in response to social issues where eisenhowers civil rights act of 57 which got picked up by JFK was circumvented by lbj. Hence the famous quote from lbj "we will have those ******s voting democrat for 200 years"?

The job protections were waived for unions. Unions did not have to hire equally on race or gender. 

Nixon created affirmative action requiring minority hires against unions. Democrats capitualated to the unions until Reagan.

A crime bill by Biden made any 3 strikes a long prison sentence left very disproportionate numbers of blacks removed. That removal from family, society and training cost the race greatly. 

So, crt is really against the Biden Klu Klux klan types? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 mins ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

In order to discuss race, it's necessary to first acknowledge that it exists. Even if only as a social construct.

 

Have you actually discussed race with people of different races? I don't think you have.

 

Yes, different races exist. What is more important then acknowledging that there are different races of people is not caring what another person's race happens to be and simply acknowledge that the person you are interacting with is a fellow human.

 

Here is a quick test for you. When you look at a random person, do you think...

 

A) That is a black women.

 

Or

 

B) That woman is a woman and she just happens to be black.

 

If you are not heterosexual, just substitute the gender. Think carefully.

Edited by Beastly Backlash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beastly Backlash said:

 

So rather then overcoming race related issues and uniting the races CRT wants to defend and promote racism while generating further racial division?

 

This flies in the face of everything MLK sought to resolve.

 

Figures you would support this.

 

2 hours ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

No it doesn't. If you disagree, provide an example.

The fact that with CRT they are singling out White people as a whole and labeling them all as racists. They have prevented whites from attending meetings about how CRT will be implemented and regularly break down into groups along racial lines. 

This to me does not sound like something that would unite people, more like something to drive the wedge in deeper.

All that needs to be done is to change a few words , like every time the word white is there replace it with black and for every time black is, replace it with white. If by doing that it offends black people and others because of the racial bias then there is your answer. It is all a crock of sh*t, and should never have even seen the light of Day.

(*member formerly known as 'PCSilverstriper')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

Hahahaha, that Desus & Meru clip was hilarious. Unfortunately none of them were about actual CRT based curricula being proposed for public school so looks like it's still fake outrage.

You're not really that smart, are you. The racist ideology being spewed in these videos is the basis for CRT. Screw your "five tenents", what part of what this fat pig in a leotard preaching isn't included in the CRT curriculum? We're laughing at you, because your ridiculous.

 On every thread you start, or participate in, the normal folks rip you to shreds. This is no different. Critical Race Theory is Poison the Socialists are feeding our children in order to prepare them for Soviet-Style Socialism. Shame on you for defending Cultural Marxism. You've beclowned yourself again Nicky.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

I never specifically said I supported it. I think it should be up to school boards and parental input. As you mentioned the simple tenets alone are not enough to draw a conclusion on.  I'm willing to engage in that discussion but posters here are dead sure it's evil incarnate.

Tell us Nicky why you DON'T support it.

fishinambition  Posted June 30 ·After a decade and a half of trolling and disrupting the website, frank's finally fed up with Tim's bull****

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RockRonin said:

You're not really that smart, are you. The racist ideology being spewed in these videos is the basis for CRT. Screw your "five tenents", what part of what this fat pig in a leotard preaching isn't included in the CRT curriculum? We're laughing at you, because your ridiculous.

 On every thread you start, or participate in, the normal folks rip you to shreds. This is no different. Critical Race Theory is Poison the Socialists are feeding our children in order to prepare them for Soviet-Style Socialism. Shame on you for defending Cultural Marxism. You've beclowned yourself again Nicky.

 

He bought into the Mantra of the left.  His pride will not let him consider his mistake. 

 

BTW - I like that:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

What threat does CRT present if it never gets applied?

 

what's the threat of racism if racism never gets applied?

"Ok, Eddy you were right" - minivin5
"Oddly enough, Eddy is right fairly often"- TimS

"Eddy is correct" - TomT

"Say what you will about Eh-ddy but he actually does know a few things." - The Commish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nicky Da Fish said:

I never specifically said I supported it. I think it should be up to school boards and parental input. As you mentioned the simple tenets alone are not enough to draw a conclusion on.  I'm willing to engage in that discussion but posters here are dead sure it's evil incarnate.

See Nick- I knew even you don't believe it.  You're more interested in arguing than the argument.  

Sometimes, when you're in a dark place, you think you've been buried, but you've actually been planted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PCstriper said:

 

The fact that with CRT they are singling out White people as a whole and labeling them all as racists. They have prevented whites from attending meetings about how CRT will be implemented and regularly break down into groups along racial lines. 

This to me does not sound like something that would unite people, more like something to drive the wedge in deeper.

All that needs to be done is to change a few words , like every time the word white is there replace it with black and for every time black is, replace it with white. If by doing that it offends black people and others because of the racial bias then there is your answer. It is all a crock of sh*t, and should never have even seen the light of Day.

You can't simply substitute white people for Black people when discussing slavery, Jim Crow, violent terrorism against Black people, segregation, SCOTUS rulings, redlining, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RockRonin said:

You're not really that smart, are you. The racist ideology being spewed in these videos is the basis for CRT. Screw your "five tenents", what part of what this fat pig in a leotard preaching isn't included in the CRT curriculum?

From just that short clip, any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bass Ackwards said:

Tell us Nicky why you DON'T support it.

In general I do support it, but there could be ways it gets implemented into a curriculum that I disagree with. Without a particular curriculum to discuss, I can't say for sure. With all of the outrage over it, I figured someone would be able to provide an example, no one has. I do agree with the 5 tenets. If you want to discuss their merits I'm also open to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 mins ago, Heron25 said:

See Nick- I knew even you don't believe it.  You're more interested in arguing than the argument.  

I was more interested in the argument as it appeared that those in opposition to CRT weren't able to make one. I've been proven correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...