President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory
whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-feder...
Given the slavery in those founding documents, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which limited naturalization to free white people of good character), the common law practice of the time of coverture, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the post-slavery Jim Crow laws - how was Douglas misrepresenting the Republic at that time?
Banning ideas and research as "poison" and "dangerous" and even prohibiting public debate is about the most un-American position I can imagine. Was I the only one taught in public school that McCarthyism was bad and stain on the country? McCarthyism is still defined as the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
... it seems the author of this post is a mouth-piece for some strange theories and it makes for a poor basis of discussion on what is otherwise an important topic. I guess a lot of people were mistaken by retweeting him. My apologies for not digging for the original source.
The Discovery Institute advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. Which is about as well supported, scientifically speaking, as phrenology.
> or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
From the article: "agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings"
This does not sound like a dispassionate funding policy change, more like an ideological purge of a set of ideas on which there is an ongoing debate across the country.
Also, yes I read the EO. Did you?
I agree that racism has no place in government, so this quote, among many, from the president is very troubling:
"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."
Here is the video: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553?s=20
I will not further address the comments by the president because they are hamfisted, poorly articulated, and off topic. You are obviously trying to shift this debate to be about the current administration rather than CRT.
The only way this argument would make sense as a critique of Trump's supposed racism would be if you believed some races do _not_ have good genes. I doubt you believe this. I certainly don't.
However, if someone in the US started an all white club to blandly talk about how great Caucasian genetics and culture is, then I would be very suspicious of them. They wouldn't even need white robes and pointy traditionalist wizard hats (symbolizing their respect for pre-chrisitian religions I am sure)...
Do you think Trump thinks she does?
Who doesn't have good genes?
Given the association between the eugenics movement and "good genes", Trump has a large negative association to overcome if he's trying to say something so anodyne.
The author of that article is mischaracterizing CRT for ideological reasons.
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
The core of the EO seems to be the following passage. For those who are opposed to this, could you please explain why?
all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:
“During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
It's also particularly concerned because the phrase
>the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist
Is at best, a controversial political opinion and not a statement of fact. For example, crafting an executive order to ban people from discussing the systematic oppression of black people seems to me like the act of a fundamentally racist country, I guess I better not bid for any government contracts.
On the other hand, the whole 'critical theory' and postmodern movement seems to me to be anti-rational, regressive and even more dangerous to a free society, eg: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals...
This all comes down to whether critical race theory is truly an unacceptable set of ideas, like e.g frenology, or not, that should be legitimately banned.
Should be easy to make an honest defense of that point if this is indeed the case?
Is the teaching of phrenology banned? By executive order or Congressional law?
Not that I'm aware of, but hey, I can be wrong.
By comparison, critical race theory is currently taught at some schools. Eg, https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies , "Led by renowned scholars who have influenced law and policy for decades, UCLA Law’s Critical Race Studies Program is the premier setting for studying the intersection of race and the law."
Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory points out:
> By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.[8] Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda.
Personally, I think evolutionary psychology is a load of crap about equal to phrenology - why not defund those departments too?
I would not support an actual ban because it violates the first amendment. That doesn't mean we (taxpayers) should have to contribute to a divisive ideology.
The EO doesn't abolish CRT.
The title of this HN link is click-bait for whackjobs who use outliers as representative of the entire concept.
(am from EU)
This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with.
Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct.
Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information.
In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system.
I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas.
If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better.
I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.
What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy".
And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.
The federal government will not fund research into the idea that women are sub human, and will certainly fire any manager who tries to include female inferiority training as a requirement for their employees.
Banning this sexist idea is a good thing. The idea itself is poison and has no place in common government.
If some people think it is merely controversial, then they should build credibility outside of government then ask for the rules to be relaxed.
You are being intentionally dramatic and misleading.
If you're a federal contractor and you tell your employees "I think racism is real", it seems like you'd fall afoul of this language and lose your contract.
I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology veiled in an intent to address race or gender issues.
Agree with this or not, but this seems where to discussion should take place.
You believe the ban is ideological, and... you aren't horrified? What happens when Harris bans discussion of libertarian ideas in the treasury department?
However, to ban these in the private companies that want to do business with government agencies is of course too much in my opinion.
It like telling a programmer they should only ever have a terminal and a code editor open, and ban using a browser during office hours.
Essentially profiting off of human suffering and guilt, and laughing their way to the bank.
Taxpayer money shouldn't be funneled to these shysters.