Jump to content

Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT


PHLaggie

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Once again, anything dealing with Black people and their history is automatically deemed CRT by the radical Republican party. 

 

You can drop the "radical" part.  It's all of the GOP, soup to nuts.  The few rare exceptions are rare enough and insufficiently outspoken as to deserve to be lumped with the rest of them.  Mitt Romney?  MTG?  Samesame.

/signed/

Recent former Republican.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southern Baptist Convention stopped from going full-on hard right.

https://apnews.com/article/southern-baptist-convention-election-2382914265734c595378131aa279003c

Quote

The Southern Baptist Convention tamped down a push from the right at its largest meeting in decades on Tuesday, electing a new president who has worked to bridge racial divides in the church and defeating an effort to make an issue of critical race theory.

Quote

Ed Litton, a pastor from Alabama, won 52% of the vote in a runoff against Mike Stone, a Georgia pastor backed by a new group called the Conservative Baptist Network that has sought to move the already-conservative denomination further right. 

Quote

Litton, who is white, was nominated by Fred Luter, the only Black pastor to serve as president of the United States’ largest Protest denomination. Luter praised Litton’s commitment to racial reconciliation and said he has dealt compassionately with the issue of sexual abuse within SBC churches, another hot-button subject at the gathering of more than 15,000 church representatives. 

Quote

Stone had campaigned aggressively, including speaking at churches across the country. And the Conservative Baptist Network had encouraged supporters to come to the meeting as voting delegates. 

But in the end, the message that seemed to resonate with voters was that Stone — who supported a motion to repudiate critical race theory, an academic construct for framing systemic racism that has been a target of religious and political conservatives — was a divisive choice. 

Quote

“We’re a family, and at times it seems like an incredibly dysfunctional family.” Litton said after the results were announced. “But we love each other.”

Delegates rejected a proposal that would have explicitly denounced critical race theory. Instead they approved a consensus measure that does not mention it by name but rejects any view that sees racism as rooted in “anything other than sin.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed under: no fucking shit.

Fox’s anti-“critical race theory” parents are also GOP activists

Quote

Nearly a dozen of the Fox News guests the network has presented as concerned parents or educators who oppose the teaching of so-called “critical race theory” in schools also have day jobs as Republican strategists, conservative think-tankers, or right-wing media personalities, according to a Media Matters review.

Critical race theory is an academic legal framework which examines the systemic impact of racism in the United States. But “critical race theory,” like “cancel culture” and “political correctness” before it, also functions as an umbrella term the right-wing movement uses to turn its mostly white adherents’ racial anxiety into political energy

In this case, a sophisticated, nationwide network of conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, media outlets, and GOP officials have seized on the term and, in the words of Christopher Rufo -- a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a key player in the effort -- sought to render it “toxic” and apply to it “the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.” Republicans have proposed or passed a slew of legislation restricting “critical race theory” and hope to use it as a core part of their political strategy in upcoming local, state, and federal elections.

Fox, the leading propaganda outlet for the GOP, plays a key role in this strategy. The network has mentioned “critical race theory” nearly 1,300 times over the past three and a half months. The purportedly sinister spread of “critical race theory” provides a perfect framework for Fox’s technique of highlighting local concerns to fuel the culture war. The network supercharges the individual, at times dubious, stories that filter up with the help of nationally backed local activists, other right-wing outlets, and social media. Fox has targeted the purported influence of “critical race theory” in corporate America, the military, and particularly schools, hosting parents, teachers, and other educators to talk about how they don’t want it taught in their communities.

In several of those cases, the locals Fox has highlighted are also Republican strategists, conservative think-tankers, or right-wing media figures -- ties the network has downplayed or ignored altogether. This trend is particularly notable when Fox covers “critical race theory” controversies in Northern Virginia, a bedroom community for Washington, D.C., in a state where GOP gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin has sought to make his opposition a central issue in the fall.

“The first test will be here in Virginia,” Fox chief Washington correspondent Mike Emanuel reported last month. “If this issue works in the governor's race in November, it will likely be part of the GOP campaign playbook in the midterm elections next year.”

Republican strategists have every right to advocate for their children and their communities, if not to manipulate nationwide education priorities. But since Fox has identified opposition to “critical race theory” as central to the party’s political strategy, the network has a responsibility to inform its viewers about exactly who it’s talking to.

TL:DR - fox has been presenting their own political operatives as "just normal parents" in all of their segments on CRT, in order to astroturf conservative grievances 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Filed under: no fucking shit.

Fox’s anti-“critical race theory” parents are also GOP activists

TL:DR - fox has been presenting their own political operatives as "just normal parents" in all of their segments on CRT, in order to astroturf conservative grievances 

You might even call them "crisis actors." Just another every accusation is a confession moment brought you by the folks of the GOP. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captainant said:

Filed under: no fucking shit.

Fox’s anti-“critical race theory” parents are also GOP activists

TL:DR - fox has been presenting their own political operatives as "just normal parents" in all of their segments on CRT, in order to astroturf conservative grievances 

Gonna go out on a limb here and say people in favor of CRT might also have some involvement on the Democrat side of things.  And they could still be normal parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, landman said:

Gonna go out on a limb here and say people in favor of CRT might also have some involvement on the Democrat side of things.  And they could still be normal parents.

Price is right losing horn.  Nice try though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, landman said:

Gonna go out on a limb here and say people in favor of CRT might also have some involvement on the Democrat side of things.  And they could still be normal parents.

So your position is that there's no disparity in treatment by the law based on race or skin color? And that any argument that there is, isn't a statement of fact but just a partisan talking point?

I'm just trying to parse out how you're framing CRT as a "democrat" issue

Edit: or is this another attempt to #bothsides the issue to dismiss the abhorrent behavior of the right by arguing without evidence that the left is doing it too?

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, landman said:

Gonna go out on a limb here and say people in favor of CRT might also have some involvement on the Democrat side of things.  And they could still be normal parents.

There is a difference between GOP political operatives pretending to be regular concerned parents on Fox News to push the narrative that regular parents are up in arms about CRT and Democratic parents supporting CRT, which they’re not doing, because CRT isn’t a real issue. The pushback has to do with outlawing teaching about racism and pretending racism doesn’t exist, which is exactly what is happening because the racists are uncomfortable learning they are racists. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

First, most of the posters on this thread are not in favor of CRT, because what's being complained about is not CRT.

What many or most of us are in favor of is an honest and unflinching look at racial history in the US and how that affects things today.

The question isn't whether they are objectively or subjectively "good parents."  It's whether they're pressing a made-up narrative to create fear and division and drive credulous people into the waiting arms of the party of culture war.

This should not be a controversial issue, but because the GQP can't seem to attract votes with actual policy or plans to improve government, they just make up or distort social issues into a wedge to divide people.

It's like conservative types used to laugh at the "free shit army."  Well, now current GOP "conservatives" are assembling a "dumb shit army."  From basically the same people.

I think there is a question whether some of them are real parents. For instance, the guy from the video a couple of posts up with Candace Owens (not literally her brother from what I can tell). 

Here is his youtube: 

https://www.youtube.com/c/ModernRenaissanceMan1176

instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGOrRPGgBUs/?utm_medium=copy_link

patreon

https://www.patreon.com/posts/make-sure-you-22446751

I don't see any evidence that he actually has two medical degrees as stated in the video or that he has children. I looked, and I don't see any medical license for him in Illinois.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Interesting and fair/balanced article about CRT and it's origins as a political football and how the term/idea has morphed and is being applied and known.

Quote

 

As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.

He thought that the phrase was a better description of what conservatives were opposing, but it also seemed like a promising political weapon. “Its connotations are all negative to most middle-class Americans, including racial minorities, who see the world as ‘creative’ rather than ‘critical,’ ‘individual’ rather than ‘racial,’ ‘practical’ rather than ‘theoretical.’ Strung together, the phrase ‘critical race theory’ connotes hostile, academic, divisive, race-obsessed, poisonous, elitist, anti-American.” Most perfect of all, Rufo continued, critical race theory is not “an externally applied pejorative.” Instead, “it’s the label the critical race theorists chose themselves.”

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

 

Edited by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Interesting and fair/balanced article about CRT and it's origins as a political football and how the term/idea has morphed and is being applied and known.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

 

Lulz, that entire article is about how Christopher Rufo (who was y'all's go-to wHiStLeBlOwEr on the issue) found "political kindling" in CRT and has been stoking white greivance politics. Interesting read, thanks for the share. Some of the more anti-CRT folks would do well to know the source and agenda of their propoganda. 

Especially interesting too how the article even outlines the strenuous linkage to "red-baiting" as a means to trigger a stronger conservative response. Of course the DT audience swallowed the hook while taking the bait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Lulz, that entire article is about how Christopher Rufo (who was y'all's go-to wHiStLeBlOwEr on the issue) found "political kindling" in CRT and has been stoking white greivance politics. Interesting read, thanks for the share. Some of the more anti-CRT folks would do well to know the source and agenda of their propoganda. 

Especially interesting too how the article even outlines the strenuous linkage to "red-baiting" as a means to trigger a stronger conservative response. Of course the DT audience swallowed the hook while taking the bait. 

Yea it’s about as honest of an origin story as I have found— and it further supports my hypothesis that this is a smart play if the interest is in maintaining status quo.

That said it’s also interesting because, as often happens, original definitions morph and evolve overtime through overuse or misuse. I think we are seeing that here with CRT being something that will effectively be an umbrella term for “anti-white racism teaching and pro-status quo” versus the original, rather narrow academic framework definition (much to the chagrin of people like Pancho).

It’s like how “woke” started as a good term and became a parody/insult, over time.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Captainant said:

So your position is that there's no disparity in treatment by the law based on race or skin color? And that any argument that there is, isn't a statement of fact but just a partisan talking point?

I don’t agree with his statement, but this does not at all follow from what he said. This type of fallacious argument is way too common here and everywhere else these days. When we misstate each other’s positions, we can’t ever have legitimate discourse

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t agree with his statement, but this does not at all follow from what he said. This type of fallacious argument is way too common here and everywhere else these days. When we misstate each other’s positions, we can’t ever have legitimate discourse

Which is why I asked if that's what his position was, because that's what I understood it to mean in the context of the discussion in the thread. Claiming that CRT is a "democrat" political tool is arguing that racism doesn't exist and it's just a club used by the left. 

I'd think it's a fair thing to ask for clarification when there's a misunderstanding. Otherwise we just end up using the same words to describe completely different things. Which is the objective of Chris Ruso and Donkey and the like, all to protect the existing status quo

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't expect much in the way of journalistic standards from Austin's NBC station KXAN, I think the first sentence in this story about Ted Cruz' most recent remarks illustrates just how difficult it is to keep sloppy reporting out of the public eye.  Consider the opening sentence:

Quote

On Friday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz took aim at critical race theory — the much-derided school-age teaching about America’s history of racism — calling the set of teachings “every bit as racist as Klansmen in white sheets.”

That's not CRT.  Right out of the gate, the reporter gets a key fact wrong, and of course no editor catches it.  (I doubt they have editors of the traditional sort.)  The worst part is, later on in the story he quotes people refuting this very first claim, yet he doesn't have the integrity or even curiosity to pick up the phone and call a UT sociology prof familiar with CRT to verify that it is a collegiate study, not something being taught to schoolkids.  For instance:

Quote

Earlier this week, NYT contributor and author Kurt Eichenwald slammed the Texas law, saying “Texas has banned “critical race theory” with a law that doesn’t define it — since it is not taught in any public school and no GQP [a reference to QAnon] politician could explain what it is.”

It's just infuriating.

Ted Cruz on CRT

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Which is why I asked if that's what his position was, because that's what I understood it to mean in the context of the discussion in the thread. Claiming that CRT is a "democrat" political tool is arguing that racism doesn't exist and it's just a club used by the left. 

I'd think it's a fair thing to ask for clarification when there's a misunderstanding. Otherwise we just end up using the same words to describe completely different things. Which is the objective of Chris Ruso and Donkey and the like, all to protect the existing status quo

Reducing an argument to its most extreme is not intellectually honest. It’s akin to just asking questions 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Reducing an argument to its most extreme is not intellectually honest. It’s akin to just asking questions 

It's not reducing the argument, it's following their argument to it's conclusion. If CRT is "something that only democrats are interested in", is that not also arguing that it's purely a political tool? It's either that, or that republicans don't think that racism is something that should be addressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Segregation ended in 1954?

Brown v Board of Education rules segregation unconstitutional in 1954

but to your point, Civil Rights Act didn’t pass until 1964. And even then, I’m sure it was after that in most states 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Al Franken podcast just had a guy named Michael Harriot on and as expected it was lots of Frankenisms but the guy did a nice job of explaining the difference between CRT, the 1619 Project and he also said a few intelligent sentences about reparations.

Not high level at all, but I haven't been following these issues closely, so a good starter.

You tube link:  Maybe longer than the podcast?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 10:17 AM, tantric superman said:

The Al Franken podcast just had a guy named Michael Harriot on and as expected it was lots of Frankenisms but the guy did a nice job of explaining the difference between CRT, the 1619 Project and he also said a few intelligent sentences about reparations.

Not high level at all, but I haven't been following these issues closely, so a good starter.

You tube link:  Maybe longer than the podcast?

 

He’s also good for a few tweets every time there is a white mass shooter.  He’s less passionate about it when it’s anyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Cruz lies his ass off about CRT. Don’t miss the thunderous applause after he finishes lying:

 

 

 

Well because he, along with 99% of other radical republicans, really have no idea what CRT is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Providence def does.  But I think the biggest minority is actually Portuguese. 

Yeah, see...Brazilians are black...right?  

In case you had any doubts about how the Kansas Higher Ed. Board of Regents was gonna rule on CRT---the guy delivering the recommendation to them is named Blake Flanders.  I guess Brody McWhitey was busy starring in a Simpsons episode as a colonial villain.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Well because he, along with 99% of other radical republicans, really have no idea what CRT is.  

But they know their base. They’re the party of white grievance and they know how to appeal to that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s more than a bit troubling that a sitting US Senator would knowingly tell his constituents something he knows to be categorically false. One can search sources from the sublime to the ridiculous and won’t be able to find a definition of CRT that is anywhere close to what Cruz shared with those poor, pitiful, clueless people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

It’s more than a bit troubling that a sitting US Senator would knowingly tell his constituents something he knows to be categorically false. One can search sources from the sublime to the ridiculous and won’t be able to find a definition of CRT that is anywhere close to what Cruz shared with those poor, pitiful, clueless people.

Troubling for an average sitting Senator? Yes
Troubling for Ted Cruz? No. He's been so wrong about every single issue of consequence that even Wolfgang Pauli would be impressed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But they know their base. They’re the party of white grievance and they know how to appeal to that. 

Right, this isn't about debating/discussing the merits of CRT. This is just another, as Bill Maher would say it, "thing to hate."

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...