CRT as one of many ways of evaluating a legal structure is perfectly fine. The strict formal definition of CRT makes it fit that usage and is valid for that purpose. It should be a secondary check. 1st thing is to be sure the law actually accomplishes its primary purpose while passing all constitutional checks. Then check for secondary effects.
For example the GI Bill could have been made more evenly effective by also designating money to improve programs at HBCUs as an add on. (Not sure that could have made it through Congress at the time.) The bill itself seems to have been neutral with regard to race. The effects were not due to interactions with other laws.
CRT has become a social/political issue because the framework was brought over into education, mixed with intersectionality, and a bunch of other race based theories. The resulting abhorrent mass has been labeled CRT for shorthand. This version of CRT, as implemented in schools and corporate trainings, is poorly thought out, divisive, and damaging to American society.
Yes, policies interact. The obvious one is that “neighborhood schools are a Good Thing” prolongs racism because housing is segregated.
I get that. But, people who never heard of “Critical Race Theory” knew that.
The GI Bill was intended to help all vets advance their educations. But in practice it helped whites more than blacks due to the racial discrimination in higher ed at the time (I’m looking at Alabama first, but Harvard doesn’t get a pass, either). The after effects of that lived on for multiple generations.
It would be a Good Thing if all HS grads could say something like that, with more examples than just the GI bill.
Is that what you mean when you say “critical race theory should be taught”, or is there something more?
In 2021, the question is …
Suppose a state requires that all citizens, regardless of race, creed, sex, … must show a gov’t issued photo id to vote. Is that something that requires the federal gov’t to step in?
Given that Mexico manages to have this for its Federal Elections as well as several European nations. I’m going to go with this does not constitute a hardship for US for the vast majority (99%+) of US citizens and would therefore be legal.
Not to mention how many regular activities require this. Getting credit, applying for an apartment, applying for a job, utilities accounts, …
If the id is easy to get and free then no, otherwise it constitutes a poll tax which is unconstitutional. I am an advocate for free federal voting id’s as easy to get as a ss#.
I think CRT should be incorporated into courses that cover US history or civics in public education. Not that conservative legislatures should pass laws forbidding it be part of a school curriculum.
I used this example of something that I think should be taught
The GI Bill was intended to help all vets advance their educations. But in practice it helped whites more than blacks due to the racial discrimination in higher ed at the time (I’m looking at Alabama first, but Harvard doesn’t get a pass, either). The after effects of that lived on for multiple generations.
A slate of new bills proposed by Republican legislators this session attempt to regulate how teachers can discuss racism, sexism, and issues of equality and justice in the classroom. And some state boards of education have adopted rules that would similarly dictate teachers’ practice.
Many of these lawmakers say their proposals are designed to keep critical race theory out of schools. The academic framework, created by legal scholars in the 1970s and 80s, posits that racism isn’t just the product of individual bias—but embedded in legal systems and policies.
As of July 15, 26 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism, according to an Education Week analysis. Eleven states have enacted these bans, either through legislation or other avenues.
This seems so anti-free-speech, where discussing simple facts (not even opinions) is being squelched.
Also implied is: “I don’t want you ‘indoctrinating’ our kids with your viewpoints. We prefer they be indoctrinated with OUR viewpoints.”
I have suggested that if it’s going to be required to have a govt ID to vote, there ought to be a free federal voting id that you can get at any post office. Because right now it’s hard for people who don’t need to drive to get an ID. (It’s hard for drivers, too, but the value-to-time-extended is much higher if you need the id to drive, too.)
If we had such an ID, i wouldn’t have any strong opposition to requiring a govt ID to vote. We currently don’t, though. So i do object.
Also, i just got a new credit card without showing an ID.
That’s where my comments about the different definitions of CRT come in. The formally defined CRT as a LEGAL theory has some merit and would possibly be appropriate in a simplified format for HS history and government classes.
The other mess being called CRT with anti-racism, whiteness, white supremacy, oppressors, …
That is being brought into schools and corporate training, from elementary schools on up. That junk needs to be removed from curriculums. Also free speech is not an issue here as we are discussing what is taught as part of a government job. So it is not private speech and does not impinge on freedom of religion.
i think we can point to both. if the GI Bill was designed in an era when colleges and universities were acknowledged to be limiting acceptance/presence of minorities for racist reasons (overt racism or glaringly disparate impact with a shrug) then touting a program as having a benefit that brings advancement for all is dishonest. the govt was doing NOTHING to change those patterns and this benefit of the GI bill was (intentionally written that way or not) pretty clearly not going to benefit the races equally. So no, the govt does not get a free pass.