Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[drumdude]

You went from the specific “white people can’t understand” to the general “people need to understand.”

It would be like teaching the golden rule by saying, “black people need to be treated like you would like to be treated.”

That is true, but it’s a narrow subset of everyone needing to treat everyone how they would like to be treated.

So? The context was an old white guy, like me, pretending that he knew what the impact of an exercise would be on someone unlike himself. Why is it that you object to general principles you actually agree with when they applied in a specific racial setting? That’s kinda what the whole concept of white fragility is about.

I guess what I'm struggling with is to see how critical race theory is a general principle. How would it be relevant to say, China, where white people are almost non-existent? Does does another ethnicity step into the white role? Or is it only whites who are uniquely able to oppress minorities?

[Res Ipsa]

First, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren’t mutually exclusive. Second, equality doesn’t mean identical. Third, outcome is a test of opportunity. … We don’t even really try to create anything that resembles equal opportunity.

You sure about that? That we haven’t tried? People have attempted to create utopian systems, fought wars of liberation, waged revolutions, and created republics. Even within our own system we continue to fight one another to better reflect our idealism, whatever that means for the body politic, getting some things right and getting some things wrong. The problem with creating opportunity for some, it appears, is that we have to hamstring others, take their property, or otherwise create artificial disadvantages for all sorts of individuals and groups. We have to curtail their rights to self organize how they see fit to ‘level out the playing field’. That sounds great, but the ugly reality is when you remove opportunity from one person based on whatever criteria, in order to give it to another because ‘representation matters’, you still literally discriminated against the former on an unfair criteria for them. It’s literally bigotry, but bigotry deemed as socially acceptable. How is that justice when you just switch aggrieved parties?

So, 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

I think you just made the point I was trying to communicate. 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 don’t think I have an endgame in the way you are thinking about it. Part of my game, so to speak, is to push back against a false consciousness that keeps us from even acknowledging, let alone trying to address, problems in society. Another is to seriously examine problems we are experiencing and treat them pragmatically — take steps to try and fix them. Finally, and this is what I mean by not having an end game, honestly appraise the results of our actions in terms of results on the ground. If, after a fix has been given a chance to play out, it isn’t working, try something else. One of the most important lessons of critical theory is similar to chaos theory: tiny differences in conditions can overwhelm what we expect to happen. So, no matter how sure we think we are that action X will have consequence y, we have to accept that our predictions may be flat wrong. So, no, I’m not sure of anything.

One thought on your part about artificial constraints: I don’t believe there is a meaningful distinction between artificial and natural in this context. All law is artificial. Advantages in opportunity that exist are created by artificial laws that we pretend are natural. So, in my opinion, laws that try to make opportunity more equal are no more artificial than the existing laws that resulted in the unequal opportunity in the first place.

[master_dc]

It seems to me there is actually a ton of common ground here. There aren't many (any?) examples of critical race theory overtly being taught in K-12 in Utah. This seems to be because even the proponents agree that it should be taught in college and not in K-12.

And I'll assume that Atlantic Mike and MG2.0 agree that we should teach children about the history of racism in America. They just think critical race theory is not the way to do that.

Both sides are operating based on a fear of what might happen rather than a fear of what is actually happening. The critical race theory proponents are afraid that a ban on critical race theory will lead to children not learning about racism at all, not learning about the history of oppression. The critical race theory opponents are worried that their children will be secretly taught critical race theory, and brainwashed to support a radical ideology.

I don't think either of those fears are reasonable.

Not quite. I think this issue is a false flag. I don't think critical race theory is being taught. The website you posted earlier allows people to list instances from their school districts of critical race theory... It reminded me of evidence central, LOL. We all just need to listen, avoid facts from websites like "realclear", understand that privilege exists, don't get defensive about it, and have real conversations with people. Avoid the gotcha moments. We are all born into situations that dictate major directions of our lives. The truth is that the color of your skin is more important than the zip code you lived in. We as a country are failing people of all races, all classes, but it is hard to ignore the impact that society has in inheriting certain behaviors/beliefs that negatively impact groups to have the same opportunity at living the life they want.

[Morley]

So? The context was an old white guy, like me, pretending that he knew what the impact of an exercise would be on someone unlike himself. Why is it that you object to general principles you actually agree with when they applied in a specific racial setting? That’s kinda what the whole concept of white fragility is about.

I guess what I'm struggling with is to see how critical race theory is a general principle. How would it be relevant to say, China, where white people are almost non-existent? Does does another ethnicity step into the white role?

Of course. See, for example: The Han Chinese and the Uyghurs.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I guess what I'm struggling with is to see how critical race theory is a general principle. How would it be relevant to say, China, where white people are almost non-existent? Does does another ethnicity step into the white role?

Of course. See, for example: The Han Chinese and the Uyghurs.

Speaking of Asians (and Harvard admissions), there was an under-reported lawsuit against Harvard going on from a group of Asians who were denied despite having the best qualifications. The documents released showed Harvard was giving then low scores on personality and leadership so they wouldn't pass admission. You want institutional racism? There, you have an actual racist institute.

- Doc

[Morley]

I think race shouldn't be considered at all in admissions. Plenty of other metrics could be used, such as socioeconomic status, so that lower income whites and blacks, from single parent inner city or rural households, could have an opportunity to compete with rich kids.

The same arguments that are used against affirmative action regarding race could and would be made for affirmative action and SES. If anything, class and single parent distinctions would be more problematic than racial ones.

That you're going to deny some kid access just because he was born rich is the same whinge given as that about being born white and having some black kid get your slot.

[Morley]

Of course. See, for example: The Han Chinese and the Uyghurs.

Speaking of Asians (and Harvard admissions), there was an under-reported lawsuit against Harvard going on from a group of Asians who were denied despite having the best qualifications. The documents released showed Harvard was giving then low scores on personality and leadership so they wouldn't pass admission. You want institutional racism? There, you have an actual racist institute.

You're right. You'll note that I'm not arguing for it. I think it's complicated as hell. What I'm arguing for is not shutting down discussions about race and privilege.

I'm not even that sure about Critical Race Theory. I just don't think that the screaming against it comes from a place of knowledge. Most who want to ban critical race theory don't have any idea what they're trying to eliminate. At least people like drumdude make a good faith effort.

[Morley]

In general, I think master_dc's approach is direction in which universities are increasingly moving.

[master_dc]

You're right. You'll note that I'm not arguing for it. I think it's complicated as hell. What I'm arguing for is not shutting down discussions about race and privilege.

I'm not even that sure about Critical Race Theory. I just don't think that the screaming against it comes from a place of knowledge. Most who want to ban critical race theory don't have any idea what they're trying to eliminate. At least people like drumdude make a good faith effort.

I share this sentiment. Let's have discussions. I tend to catch myself when i start to internalize these issues and how the impact me, as opposed to how others are impacted by them. And I do agree that Drumdude is doing a great job explaining where he is coming from, and I used to be in near total agreement with his reasoning, but life experience for me has changed my feelings about it.

Sometimes these discussions can feel a bit like a bunch of straight people discussing the struggles of LGBTQ(etc). Unless you have experienced their lives/situations, our privilege is hard to understand.

[master_dc]

In general, I think master_dc's approach is direction in which universities are increasingly moving.

Organizations are investing large sums of money to improve these precesses and are finding positive returns for identifying bias in their data. The way "success" is evaluated is ever changing and growing in ways that seemed unlikely or even impossible a few years ago. Organizations that value trusted data services are embracing it and moving forward, it is awesome to watch it in action.