|
|
|
|
|
|
by jturpin
1834 days ago
|
|
|
It doesn't help that CRT proponents do not provide a complete, rigid definition of CRT, and might provide a very nice sounding initial explanation like it "explores the history of systemic racism in the US and how it still has tangible effects today." If that's one's understanding of CRT, then it feels very reasonable to be against the people trying to suppress teaching it. Who wouldn't want to dive into the history of racist policies and how it still creates problems today? But in order to explore these problems, CRT relies on assumptions, groups our modern-day conceptions of races as homogeneous groups of people with their own class struggles, and in general is not a historically honest or objective way of looking at the world. |
|
|
> the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons.
CRT by this definition is an objective historical fact. The effect of white supremacy on the legal system can be seen from the end of reconstruction, to Jim Crow laws, to government officials allying with the Klan, to the modern-day carceral state. All of these topics were covered in my public school education.
If you want to argue that some works of CRT are flawed, that’s one thing, but substituting the objective historical facts of critical race theory with nationalist propaganda, as these CRT bans explicitly aim to do, is irresponsible and a disservice to the public education system. As NPR correctly points out, it “limit[s] teaching a historically accurate picture of U.S. history”.
[1]: http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/19958/urlt/7-4.pdf