You have demonized Hillsdale College, but not interacted with the ideas in this document or the video. That certainly does not further the conversation. Importantly, Hillsdale and its students receive no government money, so their free speech is not subsidized by taxpayer money.
Thanks for the heads up on Candice Owens’ speech. I found it and listened to it? Did you listen to it? (I didn’t think so.) What was the point she was illustrating?
Several years ago, I came to understand that the people who liberals and Democrats most hate are people of color who have left their liberal plantation. Blacks are okay, as long as they stay on the leftist plantation. Candice Owen did not, so she is a black white supremacist.
How much is it to ask someone to responsibly demonstrate a more equitable process for the multi-factorial sides in this?
The 3:38-3:50ish time stamp basically says that CRT is hidden behind these concepts (equity, diversity and inclusion, and culturally responsive teaching). These concepts have rich history from antiquity and can be addressed while touching upon CRT or not. Saying that CRT is presented in these formats without any caveats. What is it?
Here is some work of Kendis (who is one of many vocies)
" Where did he get perfect equity? In How to Be an Antiracist, I define racial equity as a state “when two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing.” I proposed that an example of racial equity would be “if there were relatively equitable percentages” of racial groups “living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties.” By contrast, in 2014, 71 percent of white families lived in owner-occupied homes, compared with 45 percent of Latino families and 41 percent of Black families. That’s racial inequity."
Moreover, I read the quote about Kendi’s idea. Then I went to the actual source. It does not say that this branch is exempt from the courts, it is just not politically appointed and would have to act within the given confines of the legislative and judicial branches. I think this brutal overreach especially in the pre-clearing of laws but I understand where he is coming from. This was not fairly represented in the video and seeing as Rufo made a similar comment in the NYPost. This demonstrates intentionality.
Your comment saying that I mischaracterized him at 11:40ish. No, He said that CRT and its adjacent theoretical frameworks especially CT are playing identity politics (in a negative way). What he doesn’t say which is what I picked up on, is that his institution and associated political party (especially if you consider how democrats and republicans basically swapped mid 20th century) have been playing identity politics for hundreds of years. He should have said that we can reject their solution and insert our own conservative counter-reformational identity politics backed solution. That would have been fair. It is omitted for some reason…
Yes, it is speech that is freely spoken, not government restrained. I agree. Okay, that is a deliberate misunderstanding of what you probably mean by “restraint”, but I note that government money often restrains speech. The less government sponsored speech, the better.
It comes down to who gets to define what is knowledge. And it shouldn’t be the government.
Just as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” bias also is.
I agree. I honestly think we are past the point of productive conversation being possible when it comes to this issue, if one side is “I understand what CRT is and think it’s a useful tool” and the other side is “I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure CRT is the devil’s latest plan to ruin America and get everyone to hate white people.” There is no common ground, no common language and I end up thinking my conversation partners are even more racist than I imagined. It’s a lost cause.
Nope. I have even less respect for her than Rufo. I absolutely do not care what that woman has to say about anything. I think she is a borderline mentally unstable conspiracy theorist with narcissistic tendencies.
That sounds like something alt-right white people say. It doesn’t sound like anything the Black people I respect as Christians and intellectuals say.
Wait, why would we say this?
If we look this up, it’s often reiterated (not by you) as a catch phrase for conspiracy theorists who feel it justifies their opinion without justification. As a government department, engineers, geologists, and scientists are subjected to rigorous review, from all points.
For example, in medicine, whenever people like Mercola say they are not owned by the FDA or CDC, beware of slack manufacturing and potentially dangerous products. About 2001, a movement to subject vitamins and “health” supplements (which are not always healthy) to a quality control (making sure they recommended safe amounts and had what they advertised in each pill) was roundly brought down by the herbalist and quack manufacturers–because they didn’t want to be checked for safety or accuracy. (you may remember Mel Gibson’s commercial about “It’s just vitamins!” when the police came for him–a false impression). You can read about it in Paul Offit’s “Do You Believe In Magic?”. Should we trust independent folks who refuse to bow to official scrutiny?
One example: the Canadian government equivalent of the FDA sets standards that natural supplements can not be carcinogenic. The US does not, because of the above lack of law. A “natural” mosquito rub on repellent produced by a Canadian company failed to show that the compound, which resembled a cancer causing one, was safe on children. The Canadian government demanded that they do the testing. The company refused, deciding it would be cheaper to continue to simply sell the product in the US.
The government makes rules and standards to keep people healthy. I am learning to avoid listening to people who use these “blame game” phrases (not that you do).
There are non governmental standards organizations such as UL and CSA, ISO, etc. that seem to do very well, as well as academic accreditation organizations. Some industries self govern. I would like to see more of that. Admittedly, I don’t see a drug industry self governing equivalence that could replace the FDA, although I do think the FDA could learn from other countries equivalents. There is electrical equipment that is not UL listed, and often code does not allow it to be used. There could be the same for supplements. A non governmental organization could test them against standard, and then we could choose whether to buy certified product. Sotf?
So right now our son is self treating, forced to depend on what could be herbalist or quacks, for what he believes is strep throat . . . because although he has tested twice at home as negative for covid, and once at a drive-thru test site, he is not allowed to go to a clinic that takes his insurance to test for strep throat and get a prescription because he has “symptoms” that could be covid.
Defining knowledge and using “facts” are not mutually exclusive. And “facts” are not always facts. As a mother told her son, “If you don’t stop lying, you will grow up to be a fact checker.”
I am sorry to hear that. I will PM you. We see Covid in the clinic here all the time. It doesn’t make sense to me either. That is not our law. It sounds like a clinic rule. It is not CDC.
Regarding non governmental standards, it is hard to make people adhere without consequences. How do we know someone is up to par without that enforcement? That is why we have laws, it seems…no one is intrinsically good. If someone cheats in making a car, or pollutes the environment, or hurts someone else through self interest or cheating or negligence, how do we correct that without laws and government punishment? Who would listen to suggestions?
Survival of the fittest still doesn’t ensure safety, I think. We have seen blue chip groups take advantage of their status to cheat. Consider some large car companies, one with a problem like emissions falsification recently. We need an impartial government to enforce laws. Nothing us going to be perfect this side of Heaven, of course.
Thanks for your thoughts. Blessings
Then you will live in perpetual disappointment. The one thing that private industry cannot do is self-govern with the public good as their highest obligation. Hoping to see it start is like hoping that big tobacco would tell the truth about their product or that the oil industry would remove lead from their gasoline. None of that stuff happens without outside (usually government) agency listening to science and bringing it to bear with regulatory action. Climate change continues to be yet another tragic demonstration of the same. Consensus science continues to rack up the score for truth on its side, and right-wing idealogues continue to come up empty-handed with little to show except fear-mongering lies. [And that ‘little to show’ is not an insignificant concession there … because there have been (and still are) valid critiques of government and society that conservatives have traditionally championed, but those few good and important things have become buried now underneath an avalanche of conspiracy and deceit so as to hopelessly poison the entire party with all of its messaging.]
More likely … will become employed by a right-wing think tank. There’s lots of money to be had selling right-wing alternative realities to people these days. But you have to sell your soul first.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
77
There were at one time. But now, nearly all the widely circulated criticisms of CRT have been so poisoned by right-wing partisanship and falsehoods that one despairs of finding much truth among any of them. Its detractors can see nothing but Marxism in the whole lot of … pretty much everything. Never mind that Christianity and most of history - all Christian teaching about slavery and oppression and the lights we ought to see those things in - that all of that predates Marx and owes exactly nothing to Marx, … never mind all that. That’s all part of real history that we’re apparently supposed to just roll over and pretend we’ve forgotten. Apparently our youth are too fragile to even just learn about anything unflattering from our past that nearly everybody else was obliged to live through. It might hurt their self-esteem.
The account in Acts of putting people with minority names in charge of bread distribution, to correct the favoritism against the foreigners, was a Biblical reason for correcting the problem of systemic racism, I think. However, there are certainly iterations that can be abusive, just as anyone can make mistakes. We need to be careful to avoid the proverbial “drunk on a horse” by overshooting the opposite direction. Thanks.
Yes, and by critics I mean people who are critically analyzing actual CRT primary sources (not strawmen, not children’s literature) for strengths, weaknesses, usefulness, and over-reach.
I will listen to Nathan Cartagena, the Wheaton prof who has studied CRT for years and has a book coming out on the topic with IVP Academic.
Even the idea that people choose to take drugs is not always 100% true. In “A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier” Ishmael Beah tells how, at the age of 13, he was forced to become a soldier in Sierra Leone. He was also forced to take drugs.