Debate on Critical Race Theory on Dr.Phil on Wednesday

[Magical Realist]

Heads up if you are interested. I'd like to learn what it is myself. I'm not clear on what it is a study of or why it is so controversial.

[Syne]

CRT isn't a "study," it's a "theory," hence the name. It's, broadly, a Critical Theory of criticizing society solely through the lens of power structures, only CRT attributes all discrepancy in power to race alone.

Like Critical Theory, it's basically just a theory for the perpetually dissatisfied to have any target for their angst but their own choices and behavior. And as such, there is no end-game, where such criticism can stop, regardless of advancements made. Hence they have to act as if it's still as bad as the 50s or 60s. They disparage things like merit, being punctual, having intact families, etc. as if they are things some races somehow cannot achieve. And while they claim this lack of achievement can be solely attributed to "structural racism" (a bogeyman created since there's not enough supply of actual, individual racism to fill their demand), the actual implication is that those who espouse CRT really do think that some races are incapable of achieving the same things as another without "white saviors" to aid them.

CRT is essentially racist, as it presumes that black people are somehow not as capable as whites, and thus should not be held to any standard whatsoever.

[billvon]

CRT isn't a "study," it's a "theory," hence the name. It's, broadly, a Critical Theory of criticizing society solely through the lens of power structures . . .

Nope.  You make the usual mistake that "critical" means "criticize."  It does not.  Here's the relevant definition: "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art."

CRT is essentially racist, as it presumes that black people are somehow not as capable as whites, and thus should not be held to any standard whatsoever.

Again, no.  CRT is the study of structural racism in society.  Nothing about blacks being less capable.  That is your creation.

[Syne]

CRT isn't a "study," it's a "theory," hence the name. It's, broadly, a Critical Theory of criticizing society solely through the lens of power structures . . .

Nope.  You make the usual mistake that "critical" means "criticize."  It does not.  Here's the relevant definition: "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art."

Hiding behind semantic games does not change the fact that Critical Theory largely criticizes its subject. But go ahead, show us all an example of Critical Theory extolling the virtue of something that exists...as opposed to lauding the ideals with which it contrasts them.

CRT is essentially racist, as it presumes that black people are somehow not as capable as whites, and thus should not be held to any standard whatsoever.

Again, no.  CRT is the study of structural racism in society.  Nothing about blacks being less capable.  That is your creation.

Nope. Since structural racism is a purely subjective contrivance, it can only be a cover and excuse for the actual, racist "white guilt" of those who espouse CRT. Otherwise, the onus is on the CRT proponents to show the clear existence of systemic racism (by naming the specific policies, cultural mores, etc.) and a clear causation between that and specific outcomes that cannot be otherwise explained.

[Leigha]

I think that discussing CRT in an open, honest way can be very helpful for anyone interested in learning more about it, but my concern is that it seems to be racially dividing the US even more than it already is. I don't believe that is the intent, but that's what seems to be happening. There'll always be disagreements/finger pointing, but this seems to be politically/racially dividing Americans.

From my understanding, CRT suggests that all systems in the US are inherently racist, and that the sum total of a person's quality of life comes down to their race (advantages/disadvantages). I think that's where the pushback comes in - people who are advocates of CRT believe that no matter what an individual does in life, the result was due to their race, whereas the opponents of CRT believe that racism exists, but that it's not systemic, and every individual has the potential to achieve success (however that is defined), regardless of race.

Just posting what I've observed relating to the arguments for and against it, there's likely a lot of grey areas in there, that I'm not touching on.

[Syne]

CRT is absolutely intent on division. That's how it satisfies its roots in the Marxist deconstruction of Western democracy and capitalism (read prosperity for everyone). The finger pointing is CRT activists excusing any and all behavior from one group by blaming it all on another group...or the system, propped up by that same blame group. It's literally racist and foments racial animus.

There are no positive aspects to CRT. What few good assumptions it does make are complete ruined by the rest of CRT and can be espoused without CRT at all.

[C C]

Segment of episode

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-zPwXyQxwDk

Segment of episode

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Q7Dl0fl-j-Q

---

CRT: Common Themes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_r...mon_themes

Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993 was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence", including affirmative action, color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle. Specifically, they claimed that the liberal concept of value-neutral law contributed to maintenance of the U.S.'s racially unjust social order.

An example questioning foundational liberal conceptions of Enlightenment values, such as rationalism and progress...

[...] Essentialism vs. anti-essentialism: Delgado and Stefancic write, "Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common?" This is a look at the ways that oppressed groups may share in their oppression but also have different needs and values that need to be analyzed differently. It is a question of how groups can be essentialized or are unable to be essentialized.
- - - - - -

The (biological or cultural) essence of essentialism: Implications for policy support among dominant and subordinated groups (re: cultural hegemony)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5447748/

excerpt: The literature commonly defines racial essentialism as a belief in a genetic or biological essence that defines all members of a racial category. Researchers have identified biological basis as one of the dimensions of essentialism. However, the imagined essence of a racial group need not be biological; people also define racial groups in terms of particular cultural characteristics, or conflate race and culture.

Relatedly, essentialist beliefs about race can have implications for perceived cultural differences and cultural identification. It is possible for individuals to understand racial categories in terms of essential cultural features. Cultural essentialism is the idea that “[p]eople are …more or less passive carriers of their culture, whereby their attitudes, beliefs and achievements are supposed to reflect typical cultural patterns”.

Applied to racial identity, cultural essentialism is the belief that racial categories are associated with distinct, fixed, and stable cultural patterns (e.g., values, beliefs, practices, and lifestyles); these fixed cultural patterns definitively and permanently shape the psychological characteristics of individuals within a racial group, and differentiate them from members of other racial groups.

Cultural and biological forms of racial essentialism share the idea that differences between racial groups are determined by a fixed and uniform essence that resides within and defines all members of each racial group. However, they differ in their understanding of the nature of this essence. Both forms of essentialism may coexist; indeed, many people perceive race as having both biological and cultural foundations.

SEP: Critical Philosophy of Race (no individual entry for CRT, the latter is subsumed by broader activity like this)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/criti...itLegaStud

INTRO (excerpt): Critical Philosophy of Race offers a critical analysis of the concept as well as of certain philosophical problematics regarding race. In this approach, it takes inspiration from Critical Legal Studies and the interdisciplinary scholarship in Critical Race Theory, both of which explore the ways in which social ideologies operate covertly in the mainstream formulations of apparently neutral concepts, such as merit or freedom. While borrowing from these approaches, the Critical Philosophy of Race has a distinctive philosophical methodology primarily drawing from critical theory, Marxism, pragmatism, phenomenology, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and hermeneutics, even while subjecting these traditions to critique for their omissions in regard to specifically racial forms of domination and the resultant inadequacy of their conceptual frameworks.

[Magical Realist]

The debate seemed to be centered on if CRT was being taught in high school. The pros said no, that it is a college course and is thus taught with the free will of the students. The cons made various surprisingly good arguments that various principles and premises of CRT are infiltrating high school level studies, not the least of which that there is widespread systemic racism in the US and must be recognized for its insidious effects. All in all a good presentation and demonstration of the turmoil this subject causes among parents and teachers.