Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the comments, sock puppet. I suggested teaching critical race theory is a positive. And if you're mistaking me for some form of a fox News enthusiasts, or something other than a classical liberal toy are greatly mistaken. I'd say I'm largely behind what you are proposing.

I would prefer that actual history and science be taught. We can start off with the fact that the concept “race” is outmoded, inaccurate, and deleterious. Then we can teach about the continuing history of its centuries of havoc and destruction from colonialism and slavery to Nazi Germany, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration/voter suppression.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks for the comments, sock puppet. I suggested teaching critical race theory is a positive. And if you're mistaking me for some form of a fox News enthusiasts, or something other than a classical liberal toy are greatly mistaken. I'd say I'm largely behind what you are proposing.

I would prefer that actual history and science be taught. We can start off with the fact that the concept “race” is outmoded, inaccurate, and deleterious. Then we can teach about the continuing history of its centuries of havoc and destruction from colonialism and slavery to Nazi Germany, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration/voter suppression.

These are some excellent suggestions, Reverend. I'd love to see this type of thinking being more readily expressed from those who have a say in our students education, which I know you are one. Thank you.

[Gadianton]

Watch the first video. The Color Line Exercise.

I'm not going to watch any videos on a website called "welcomewhitness" unless you buy the book and read it for yourself. Since you'll never do that, I'll never watch the video. I've already read two of your junk articles carefully. Until you can make good on substantiating the obvious lies you've already told, there's no point in reading more of your lies.

views some would say are Marxist

You don't know what Marxism is so it doesn't matter.

Are there going to be some inaccurate assumptions made on both sides

I'm not talking about the inaccurate assumptions, I'm talking about the blatant lies. The American Thinker article you linked that contained no citations to its claims and is from beginning to end a list of lies, and they aren't even creative lies. Nobody "assumes" calculus is being cancelled at elite schools. They do lie about things like that, however.

Calculus isn't being cancelled anywhere, liar.

Deserves digging deeper. Maybe some else is up for it.

Right, you're not up for substantiating any of the lies you've told on this thread about calculus being cancelled. Of course you aren't. You come here to lie, link, and run.

[sock puppet]

AtlanticMike, MG 2.0 and/or drumdude to a lesser extent,

Why does the "White"-washed version of American history need a 12 year head start over the complete picture, including America's racist past and the continuing privileges for segments of society, and then only presented to the subset of high school grads that would go to college?

Is it the same reason that Mormonism's cherry-picked history needs to be presented without its warts alongside? So that there can be brainwashing with a distorted version?

[Res Ipsa]

I don't find "repentance" as a personally helpful concept in this area. Maybe that's my LDS upbringing -- I was taught to repent of my own sins and not the sins of others.

One thing I find fascinating is the rise of the Orwellian right and it's deployment of Newspeak. In Right-wing Newspeak, "racism" is completely divorced from its original meaning of "treating someone less favorably on the basis of race" to "anyone who dares talk about race." It turns the majority white folks into poor victims of "racism," which, in reality, is nothing more than people talking about racism.

Look at how Atlanticmike twists himself into pretzels to cast a virtue (e.g., the Good Samaritan) into a vice. Under his version of the scriptures, Jesus would have castigated the Good Samaritan for treating the person he helped as less than a victim. It's pernicious and racist as hell.

Part of the newspeak is use of "colorblind" or "I don't see color" by white folks. It goes hand in hand with pretending that racism has simply disappeared from the U.S. But, of course, it's complete nonsense. If you can't see color, you have no idea whether racism exists or not. Here's the Newspeak version of "I don't see color" applied in 1800. Q: "Why do you enslave black people?" A: "What black people. I don't see color. You're just a racist."

To have an actual colorblind society means having a society that doesn't systematically disadvantage certain racial groups. There is no escaping the fact that racism was explicitly woven into the fabric of American society for hundreds of years. You can't understand the institution of slavery in the U.S. without understanding racism. You can't understand the de facto reinstitution of slavery after reconstruction without understanding racism. You can't understand Jim Crow and lynching without understanding racism. You can't understand the Great Migration without understanding racism.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is whether racism is still woven into our tapestry. If it isn't, then "moving toward colorblindness" is simply denial of an existing race problem.

There are are two good examples of how racism in the more recent past has had generational effects on black folks. The first is education. even after Brown v. Board of Education was decided, lots of white folks fought tooth and nail to keep their children from having to go to school with black children. At least a generation of black children received inferior education because of those efforts at the very time that education presented a powerful opportunity for upward economic mobility.

The other is redlining. After WW II, the U.S. Government promoted economic growth in the middle class through home ownership in the form of Virginia and FHA loans. But redlining largely shut black folks out of that ability to tap into that source of wealth, costing them billions, if not trillions, of dollars in wealth.

And the best current example is the criminal justice system. We have good evidence that the criminal justice system disadvantages black folks at every step of the process. The rate of incarceration for black folks, especially black men, is unconscionable. When combined with how we treat criminals who have served their sentences, the inevitable result is a permanent underclass of U.S. citizens based on race.

It's not enough to close our eyes and pretend we're color blind. That's just being willfully blind.

I won't be convinced that we've left racism behind as a country until white folks can have a rational conversation about race without getting all butthurt. Making the ridiculous claim that the only racism is talking about race = butthurt. Passing legislation prohibiting the teaching of a subject in circumstances where it isn't being taught = butthurt. Bursting into tears when a POC gives an example of racism in the work place = butthurt.

I don't wear a hair shirt over these issues. I simply view racism as a problem that keeps America from being the exceptional nation that it could be. "All men are created equal" are pretty words that have been a lie for most of our history as a country. I think it's worth living up to our ideals rather than just cosplaying them.

So, in other words, the problem continues and needs to be addressed.

Yes, that’s my view.

[MG 2.0]

And now we have school districts changing their requirements for placement/graduation based upon racial groups rather than as individuals. The standards are being dumbed down or done away with....All in the name of equality/equity.

Could you give an example of this? Or explain why you think this? The link you gave talks about changing requirements, but it does not say it is race-based. I asked for examples of your comment before, but wanted to ask again in case you missed it.

It’s been happening for a number of years.

Under a dramatic new approach to rating public schools, Illinois students of different backgrounds no longer will be held to the same standards -- with Latinos and blacks, low-income children and other groups having lower targets than whites for passing state exams, the Tribune has found. In reading, for example, 85 percent of white third- through eighth-grade students statewide will be expected to pass state tests by 2019, compared with about 73 percent for Latinos and 70 percent for black students, an analysis of state and federal records shows.

The concept is part of a fundamental and, according to critics, troubling shift in how public schools and students will be judged after the federal government recently allowed Illinois to abandon unpopular requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.A key NCLB measure long considered unreachable -- that 100 percent of students must pass state exams -- will be eliminated. But the complex new approach of different standards for different groups is troubling to civil rights activists, who are not convinced that school districts will be held accountable for failing to educate minority students, and to some local educators, who say the lowered expectations will send a negative message to students.
-Chicago Tribune

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-soft-big ... ids-alike/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/race ... -mobility/

SAT scores are not being required now at some major universities. What does the future hold?

You can hop around the web and find similar references showing that ‘equity’ has become the primary driver and individual achievement based on high achievement in a rigorous educational environment has taken a backseat.

Rather than finding ways to lift ALL boats the educational establishment has dumb downed requirements across the board for the sake of equity. This can’t be good as we (the United States) are competing in the world marketplace.

Focusing SO MUCH on racial preferences and perceived inequalities…and dividing students into privileged and disadvantaged, with no solutions except dumbing down the education for ALL students, is going to end in a sad state of affairs.

Yesterday I spent a LOT of time on this thread. Last night I mentioned I was at I point where I would like to leave it to others to continue the conversation. I’ve said my thing and am now interested in seeing what others have to say. Earlier in the thread there were actually a few folks that were floating the idea that critical race theory and race based educational philosophies might not be such a great thing. Others took alternative views. I came in and set off a bomb. Now, let’s see what others have to say.

I need to take another break.

Happy New Year!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You come here to lie, link, and run.

You, of course, are free to have that opinion. I seemed to have pushed some of your buttons this time around, Gadianton. I DO NOT come here to lie, link, and run. You are free to point out what you believe to be inaccuracies in what is said or linked to. I have absolutely NO problem with that.

But being called a liar? By the way, if I have at any time directly called you a liar, I apologize.

Happy New Year Gadianton. Sorry that your anger and/or displeasure seemed to have gotten riled up on my part.

Signing off for now…but not running.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Hi Res -
Since I'm a proponent of one of the statements you took issue with in this post I feel I should defend the position. And hopefully do so in a way that is contributes to the OP topic rather than is a tangent.

In replying to Doc Cam, you said,

...I guess my ask for you is what does your end game look like? Because when I hear equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, I don’t see a way to get there without artificial constraints levied upon the body politic. All you’re doing, in my opinion, is trading one set of problems for a solution that creates another terrible set of problems.

- Doc

...One common argument made on this subject is that what America is about is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Part of my argument was to call BS on the notion that America is about equality of opportunity for exactly the reasons you cite. I’m not talking about small groups that have tried small, limited utopian experiments. I’m talking about the country as a whole.

I've argued that democracy in the United States is an ideal about access to opportunities, an equality of conditions, that were in stark contrast to the social class gridlock of European aristocracies of the time of the founding. This was articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote of his observations from travelling the young nation in Democracy in America writing primarily for an audience of post-revolution French whose attempts at achieving "equality, fraternity, liberty" revealed that democracy alone could be disastrous if unprincipled or misguided. But that, in his view, the spread of the equality of conditions or opportunities could be seen in the progress of the enlightenment; that France and the rest of Europe was following in this direction, and opposition to it was regressive and oppressive to the aims of the enlightenment and liberalism.

Democracy, in this sense, being realized in the US as access to otherwise elite goods and services. Those include public education, public lands, parks, libraries, fire departments, protection under the law, the ability to move freely, to work for whom one would, to start a business, to realize one's potential.

The problem I see isn't with this ideal. Rather, it's in failing to recognize it as the ideal and understand it rather than abuse it.

To use an example of its abuse and application to this thread, when the issue of racial bias in policing is raised, its not uncommon for people to argue that the real problem is with how people react to the police. The assumption is the initial conditions of the encounter with police are indeed "equal", and everyone involved is more or less being given the same equal protection under the law. So if African American males are arrested more often, are more likely to be involved in a violent, potentially deadly encounter when approached by law enforcement, the issue isn't equality of opportunity or equality of conditions, but rather with the specific the individual involved having caused the outcome. It being viewed as "earned".

This bias leads to an inequality of outcomes. And as you suggest to Doc Cam, this should tell us there is a problem with the actual initial conditions not being equal.

My argument is that this shouldn't cause us to reject the principle that we fail to achieve as an ideal, and instead seek to abandon it to rebalance the outcomes. It should tell us the problem is with those who do not admit to the failure in initial conditions.

As to solutions, my view is that this initial aim to achieve equality of conditions is the most viable for achieving the aims of western liberal democracy. On the one hand, there are those who are abandoning the aims of the enlightenment in favor of authoritarianism and maintaining a divided citizenry by class. But my sense is the very idea of western liberal democracy is tainted in many other people's views as having been the vehicle that enabled current oppressive/suppressive institutional racism and other bigotries. So there is a baked-in opposition to the structures that overthrew the old aristocracies because we failed to advance those aims to the full realization. At that point, I think all sides are dangerous in their decisions and rhetoric because as Doc Cam noted, what's the actual end game if not the realization of the goals of western liberal democracy?

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Res -
Since I'm a proponent of one of the statements you took issue with in this post I feel I should defend the position. And hopefully do so in a way that is contributes to the OP topic rather than is a tangent.

In replying to Doc Cam, you said,

...One common argument made on this subject is that what America is about is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Part of my argument was to call BS on the notion that America is about equality of opportunity for exactly the reasons you cite. I’m not talking about small groups that have tried small, limited utopian experiments. I’m talking about the country as a whole.

I've argued that democracy in the United States is an ideal about access to opportunities, an equality of conditions, that were in stark contrast to the social class gridlock of European aristocracies of the time of the founding. This was articulated by Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote of his observations from travelling the young nation in Democracy in America writing primarily for an audience of post-revolution French whose attempts at achieving "equality, fraternity, liberty" revealed that democracy alone could be disastrous if unprincipled or misguided. But that, in his view, the spread of the equality of conditions or opportunities could be seen in the progress of the enlightenment; that France and the rest of Europe was following in this direction, and opposition to it was regressive and oppressive to the aims of the enlightenment and liberalism.

Democracy, in this sense, being realized in the US as access to otherwise elite goods and services. Those include public education, public lands, parks, libraries, fire departments, protection under the law, the ability to move freely, to work for whom one would, to start a business, to realize one's potential.

The problem I see isn't with this ideal. Rather, it's in failing to recognize it as the ideal and understand it rather than abuse it.

To use an example of its abuse and application to this thread, when the issue of racial bias in policing is raised, its not uncommon for people to argue that the real problem is with how people react to the police. The assumption is the initial conditions of the encounter with police are indeed "equal", and everyone involved is more or less being given the same equal protection under the law. So if African American males are arrested more often, are more likely to be involved in a violent, potentially deadly encounter when approached by law enforcement, the issue isn't equality of opportunity or equality of conditions, but rather with the specific the individual involved having caused the outcome. It being viewed as "earned".

This bias leads to an inequality of outcomes. And as you suggest to Doc Cam, this should tell us there is a problem with the actual initial conditions not being equal.

My argument is that this shouldn't cause us to reject the principle that we fail to achieve as an ideal, and instead seek to abandon it to rebalance the outcomes. It should tell us the problem is with those who do not admit to the failure in initial conditions.

As to solutions, my view is that this initial aim to achieve equality of conditions is the most viable for achieving the aims of western liberal democracy. On the one hand, there are those who are abandoning the aims of the enlightenment in favor of authoritarianism and maintaining a divided citizenry by class. But my sense is the very idea of western liberal democracy is tainted in many other people's views as having been the vehicle that enabled current oppressive/suppressive institutional racism and other bigotries. So there is a baked-in opposition to the structures that overthrew the old aristocracies because we failed to advance those aims to the full realization. At that point, I think all sides are dangerous in their decisions and rhetoric because as Doc Cam noted, what's the actual end game if not the realization of the goals of western liberal democracy?

Thanks, Honor. I think you accomplished exactly what you set out to do. I think that, if one takes critical theory seriously, there is no necessary connection between the ideals of western liberal democracy and equality of opportunity. Likewise, there is no necessary connection between the ideals of western liberal democracy and oppression or institutional racism. The following two things can be true: western liberal democracy has been a vehicle of oppression and western liberal democracy can be a vehicle to provide equal opportunity for all. I'm sure if you or I look hard enough, we could find authors or speakers who argue that western liberal democracy should be rejected because of how it has been used in the past. I disagree with those people. I also disagree with people who equate criticism for the effects that have resulted from western liberal democracy with rejection of western liberal democracy. My position is, if we truly believe in the ideals of western liberal democracy, we should face up to the fact that believing in or teaching the ideals is not enough to obtain the benefits of western liberal democracy.

In my opinion, both the strength and the weakness of Critical Theory is that it cannot generate a plan that will get society to any given goal. What it leaves is with is try, check, try, check, try, check. It gives is a broader range of things to try, but provides no guarantee whatsoever that our attempts will achieve the desired result. It requires a willingness to honestly and critically appraise measures we take with respect to problems and the humility to say, "well, it doesn't look like that worked. Let's try something else." Which is, of course, at complete odds with our current political dynamic in the U.S.

[honorentheos]

Thanks, Honor. I think you accomplished exactly what you set out to do.

Since my aim was to defend the proposition that our strength comes in affirming the ideal of seeking equality of opportunity or conditions, and better realizing them rather than rejecting this premise, I indeed hope I did. Thank you.

I think that, if one takes critical theory seriously, there is no necessary connection between the ideals of western liberal democracy and equality of opportunity. Likewise, there is no necessary connection between the ideals of western liberal democracy and oppression or institutional racism. The following two things can be true: western liberal democracy has been a vehicle of oppression and western liberal democracy can be a vehicle to provide equal opportunity for all. I'm sure if you or I look hard enough, we could find authors or speakers who argue that western liberal democracy should be rejected because of how it has been used in the past. I disagree with those people. I also disagree with people who equate criticism for the effects that have resulted from western liberal democracy with rejection of western liberal democracy. My position is, if we truly believe in the ideals of western liberal democracy, we should face up to the fact that believing in or teaching the ideals is not enough to obtain the benefits of western liberal democracy.

In my opinion, both the strength and the weakness of Critical Theory is that it cannot generate a plan that will get society to any given goal. What it leaves is with is try, check, try, check, try, check. It gives is a broader range of things to try, but provides no guarantee whatsoever that our attempts will achieve the desired result. It requires a willingness to honestly and critically appraise measures we take with respect to problems and the humility to say, "well, it doesn't look like that worked. Let's try something else." Which is, of course, at complete odds with our current political dynamic in the U.S.

I agree about the later paragraph. We have a lot of work to do, and there is an almost radical entrenchment of anti-enlightenment, anti-western liberal ideals draped in the flag even as the underlying principles behind it are trampled. We have to confront our failures to realize the ideals. I hope we do so in the context of first affirming the importance of the ideal itself, followed by an examination of what you pointed out - that disparate outcomes are a sign our biases may be blinding us to inequality in the conditions that demands change. How best to achieve that change? I don't fully know as I think the institutions of democracy are imperiled on all sides with little demonstration that behind that imperilment is a considered positive aim when articulated beyond platitudes.