Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[drumdude]

The question here is how to address the injustice. I notice every time someone defends critical race theory, they have to use language ("small way", "leg up") to minimize the reality. The methods Critical Race Theory has come up with are things like denying Asians admittance into colleges because there are too many Asians. You can hand wave that all day. It is still denying someone something they earned because of the color of their skin. It is, by definition, racist. Just like MLK said, the ends do not justify the means.

But in critical race theory, equality of outcome (not opportunity) is the goal, which has to be achieved by any means necessary including blatantly racist policies.

Where, in your Introduction to Critical Race Theory book, are these gems.

Did you read the passages I quoted here? We're moving from the abstract theory to its application in the real world. The abstract principles are what I quoted from the book, and are what is used to justify the application, which in this case is affirmative action admissions to Harvard and other Universities.

[drumdude]

Here are some passages about affirmative action from the textbook. Again, this is the introductory textbook on Critical Race Theory. This is what children would be reading (some condensed age-appropriate version of these ideas).

A version of white privilege sometimes appears in discussions of affirmative action. Many whites feel that these programs victimize them, that more qualified white candidates will be required to sacrifice their positions to less qualified minorities. So, is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument that it is rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white person displaced by affirmative action.

“Box checking” allows people of white or near-white appearance to gain the benefits of affirmative action without suffering the costs of being thought of and treated as black or brown.

The decade of the nineties saw the beginning of a vigorous offensive from the political Right. Abetted by heavy funding from conservative foundations and position papers from right-wing think tanks, conservatives advanced a series of policy initiatives, including campaigns against bilingual education, affirmative action, employment and educational set-asides, and immigration. They also lobbied energetically against hate-speech regulation, welfare, and governmental measures designed to increase minorities’ political representation in Congress. Some of the backers of these conservative initiatives were former liberals disenchanted with the country’s departure from color-blind neutrality. Others were nativists concerned about immigration or national security hawks worried about the threat of terrorism. Critical race theorists took part in all those controversies. They also addressed identity issues within critical race theory, intergroup coalitions, and the use of empirical methods in theorizing and confronting discrimination

A few legal scholars have been pointing out how universal programs such as the G.I. Bill, federal housing supports, or even Social Security end up widening the gap between whites and blacks. The programs fall on already-plowed ground. Whites are more able to take advantage of them than blacks are. Sometimes the programs contain hidden preferences and assumptions that enable whites to benefit more from them than people of color can. The same is likely to happen if society retires affirmative action based on race for a version based on socioeconomic disadvantage, as many writers have suggested.

Critical race theorists have launched a thoroughgoing attack on the idea of conventional merit and standardized testing. Conservatives make points by charging that affirmative action gives jobs or places in academic programs to individuals who do not deserve them. The public receives incompetent service, while better qualified workers or students are shunted aside. This argument has resonated with certain liberals who equate fairness with color blindness and equal opportunity, rather than equal results (see chapter 2).

It's honestly quite hard to stomach reading most of this stuff. It reads very much like creationist textbooks - unapologetically biased and ignorant.


The entire textbook is available for free here:

https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpres ... -org-1.pdf

[Physics Guy]

Concerning college admissions, I think the whole idea of measuring applicant quality is naïve. All measures that might be used—test scores, grades, essays, interviews—are at best clumsy proxies for what colleges should be trying to measure if they could. So adjusting standards for applicants from different backgrounds is not simply rejecting objectively better white applicants. It’s rejecting white candidates who have done better at the proxy tests.

The proxy tests of all kinds were developed almost solely with rich white applicants as the target test pool. In turn the education and upbringing of rich white applicants has had generations to adapt itself to meet those proxy tests. The tests and the rich white applicants have co-evolved to suit each other. Other groups of applicants do not find the tests so nicely tailored to fit them.

Some groups are better prepared for some kinds of proxy tests than others. Competitive written exams are a centuries-old tradition in China, for instance. The young scholar frantically studying to win a coveted place was a major Chinese meme back when American protagonists were gunslingers and lumberjacks.

It’s not clear to me exactly what’s really fair, but simply taking our crude proxy tests as objective facts is ridiculous.

[Morley]

Where, in your Introduction to Critical Race Theory book, are these gems.

Did you read the passages I quoted here? We're moving from the abstract theory to its application in the real world. The abstract principles are what I quoted from the book, and are what is used to justify the application, which in this case is affirmative action admissions to Harvard and other Universities.

Sure, I read them. You still didn't answer the question.

[Morley]

Here are some passages about affirmative action from the textbook. Again, this is the introductory textbook on Critical Race Theory. This is what children would be reading (some condensed age-appropriate version of these ideas).

A version of white privilege sometimes appears in discussions of affirmative action. Many whites feel that these programs victimize them, that more qualified white candidates will be required to sacrifice their positions to less qualified minorities. So, is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument that it is rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white person displaced by affirmative action.

“Box checking” allows people of white or near-white appearance to gain the benefits of affirmative action without suffering the costs of being thought of and treated as black or brown.

The decade of the nineties saw the beginning of a vigorous offensive from the political Right. Abetted by heavy funding from conservative foundations and position papers from right-wing think tanks, conservatives advanced a series of policy initiatives, including campaigns against bilingual education, affirmative action, employment and educational set-asides, and immigration. They also lobbied energetically against hate-speech regulation, welfare, and governmental measures designed to increase minorities’ political representation in Congress. Some of the backers of these conservative initiatives were former liberals disenchanted with the country’s departure from color-blind neutrality. Others were nativists concerned about immigration or national security hawks worried about the threat of terrorism. Critical race theorists took part in all those controversies. They also addressed identity issues within critical race theory, intergroup coalitions, and the use of empirical methods in theorizing and confronting discrimination

A few legal scholars have been pointing out how universal programs such as the G.I. Bill, federal housing supports, or even Social Security end up widening the gap between whites and blacks. The programs fall on already-plowed ground. Whites are more able to take advantage of them than blacks are. Sometimes the programs contain hidden preferences and assumptions that enable whites to benefit more from them than people of color can. The same is likely to happen if society retires affirmative action based on race for a version based on socioeconomic disadvantage, as many writers have suggested.

Critical race theorists have launched a thoroughgoing attack on the idea of conventional merit and standardized testing. Conservatives make points by charging that affirmative action gives jobs or places in academic programs to individuals who do not deserve them. The public receives incompetent service, while better qualified workers or students are shunted aside. This argument has resonated with certain liberals who equate fairness with color blindness and equal opportunity, rather than equal results (see chapter 2).

It's honestly quite hard to stomach reading most of this stuff. It reads very much like creationist textbooks - unapologetically biased and ignorant.


The entire textbook is available for free here:

https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpres ... -org-1.pdf

I had already bought the kindle version after you mentioned it.

Yeah, it seems to have a bias. It should. It's advocacy. No, it's not ignorant. I'm guessing your background isn't in the social sciences.

Earlier, you say this is how critical race theory defines itself. No, this is how the authors define critical race theory for their purposes.

[Kishkumen]

No one is saying the injustice should not be addressed, and no one has a problem with voluntarily helping out people. We can and should debate the best ways forward. Just because a movement like critical race theory has good intentions, does not mean they are the solution.

The question here is how to address the injustice. I notice every time someone defends critical race theory, they have to use language ("small way", "leg up") to minimize the reality. The methods Critical Race Theory has come up with are things like denying Asians admittance into colleges because there are too many Asians. You can hand wave that all day. It is still denying someone something they earned because of the color of their skin. It is, by definition, racist. Just like MLK said, the ends do not justify the means.

But in critical race theory, equality of outcome (not opportunity) is the goal, which has to be achieved by any means necessary including blatantly racist policies.

I’m skeptical, frankly. Usually it is GOP types who spout off about equality of outcome. The type of people who don’t agree with the amendment of the constitution dealing with taxes, etc. It’s a real “I got mine now you get your own” attitude grounded in selfishness and no grasp of the value of community.

The choices aren’t critical race theory or a Randian paradise/dystopia.

[Kishkumen]

Your post perfectly explains why critical race theory is a disease and hurts POC! If I'm reading your post correctly, when you SEE a black person, you SEE a person that needs a leg up because of their skin color. Basically, you SEE a victim. And that's what critical race theory teaches, that POC are victims and white people are the oppressors. Teaching children they're victims because of their skin color is mental slavery. Living a life with a victim mentality is one of the hardest things you can do to yourself emotionally. The sad part is, if a group of people are taught they're victims, they'll always feel like they need someone to support them, take care of them, make important decisions for them. That's why critical race theory is dangerous! critical race theory tells POC that they need whitey to help them, to watch over them, hold their hand, comfort them, make sure they have what they need. If you actually think about it, critical race theory sets up POC to be dependent on White people, it takes away their mental freedom. In that aspect, it's not much different than Mormonism.

That’s a load of hogwash, AM. I see a Black person I don’t know and I see someone I don’t know. Perhaps you are so used to stereotyping that you assume everyone else is engaging in the same mental laziness. Some people need help; others don’t. I can’t tell that by the color of a person’s skin on an individual basis. I do know that there is a wide gulf in the wealth distribution between different groups. That gap was deliberately created by white Americans to the detriment of Black Americans. It can be partially redressed by policies that reverse the oppression and theft. That has nothing to do with “equality of outcomes” or critical race theory. If white Americans had not systematically oppressed Black people, we would not be here. We don’t move ahead by unilaterally deciding to let bygones be bygones.

[Morley]

In another life, when I used to teach Intro to Organizational Theory, we taught a variety of frameworks. The course would include, for instance, theories like: Classical, Neo-Classical, Motivational, Mechanistic, Behavioral, Organic, Bureaucratic, and Scientific Management. Each framework explained some things about org theory, but none was quite adequate to explain everything. Students would adopt two or three or seven of these approaches for different aspects of their practice in leadership.

Critical Race Theory acts as a lens through which to see and explain politics (ha! or even critique art), a little like laissez-faire capitalism, Marxism, feminism, or even evolutionary psychology all do.

[Atlanticmike]

Your post perfectly explains why critical race theory is a disease and hurts POC! If I'm reading your post correctly, when you SEE a black person, you SEE a person that needs a leg up because of their skin color. Basically, you SEE a victim. And that's what critical race theory teaches, that POC are victims and white people are the oppressors. Teaching children they're victims because of their skin color is mental slavery. Living a life with a victim mentality is one of the hardest things you can do to yourself emotionally. The sad part is, if a group of people are taught they're victims, they'll always feel like they need someone to support them, take care of them, make important decisions for them. That's why critical race theory is dangerous! critical race theory tells POC that they need whitey to help them, to watch over them, hold their hand, comfort them, make sure they have what they need. If you actually think about it, critical race theory sets up POC to be dependent on White people, it takes away their mental freedom. In that aspect, it's not much different than Mormonism.

That’s a load of hogwash, AM. I see a Black person I don’t know and I see someone I don’t know. Perhaps you are so used to stereotyping that you assume everyone else is engaging in the same mental laziness. Some people need help; others don’t. I can’t tell that by the color of a person’s skin on an individual basis. I do know that there is a wide gulf in the wealth distribution between different groups. That gap was deliberately created by white Americans to the detriment of Black Americans. It can be partially redressed by policies that reverse the oppression and theft. That has nothing to do with “equality of outcomes” or critical race theory. If white Americans had not systematically oppressed Black people, we would not be here. We don’t move ahead by unilaterally deciding to let bygones be bygones.
[/quote

That's crazy talk. You gotta look backwards to find your talking points. critical race theory doesn't ""reverse"' anything! Actually, it does just the opposite. critical race theory is a group of white people using past events, events we can do absolutely nothing about because they're in the past, and yoking POC around the neck with the past because it's easier to CONTROL a person if they FEEL like they're helpless without a SAVIOR. Again, critical race theory makes POC out to be victims and even worse, it makes white people out to be the ""Savior"".

White people that support critical race theory say, we're going to implement these policies so you can "Progress" and become more like us! White people thst support critical race theory say, we're going to implement these policies because you're unable to ",progress" on your own. White people that support critical race theory say, we're going to implement these policies because you, black people, need us to change so you, so you black people, can become better people. What I just explained is a SAVIOR mentality. People that feel the need to ""save"' others, often attach themselves to groups of people that they feel would benefit from their knowledge, setting up the group as the Savior's pet project. Basically, what I'm saying is, critical race theory has nothing to do with the ""colored"' people you're so desperately trying to ""save"". It has everything to do with satisfying your internal need to be a Savior. Sorry sir, but critical race theory sets up a toxic codendence that benefits no one.

Mormons got this one correct kishkumen!


Here's an American passionately explaining how some white people's savior complex can go to hell.
https://youtu.be/m66rcHzWaPU

[Morley]

Here's an American passionately explaining how some white people's savior complex can go to hell.
https://youtu.be/m66rcHzWaPU

This is a guy who elsewhere claims that American slavery didn't have anything to do with race.