Talk:Critical race theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taiowhite01 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doucereuse (article contribs).

WAPO article about state laws blocking the teaching of CRT in universities

[1] Doug Weller talk 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here is a non-opinion one that might be more useful. In particular it provides secondary coverage and analysis of the criticism it has attracted in a way that we currently mostly lack: Although the phrase “critical race theory” refers to an area of academic study, its common usage has diverged from its exact meaning. Conservative activists and politicians now use the term as a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism in the present. Critical race theory is often portrayed as the basis of race-conscious policies, diversity trainings and education about racism, regardless of how much the academic concept actually affects those efforts. --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

-- I dont think its a "common opinion" at all. At least in the field where the term has any meaning. Trying to rewrite a half century of research because some glue eating right wing activists decided to make shit up is a terrible thing to inflict on wikipedia or the people trying to make heads and tails of it all. Duckmonster (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And you are being any different. Wiki is supposed to be impartial.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:81D:6777:B006:DBF4 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that within the relevant fields the term continues to hold its original meaning. But it has entered common parlance via right-wing pundits and politicians, and subsequent news media coverage, and we would be doing our readers a disservice not to describe what they mean by CRT, and how it diverges from the actual meaning. Part of me is beginning to think a split would be in order here, though, since the 2020s usage and controversy in the US is notable in its own right, and also a very different thing from CRT. I'll float the idea in a new section below. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

#Split out an article about 2020s controversies? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias?

My agreeing or disagreeing with this article as written is irrelevant. What matters is that it gives only one point of view: Critical Race Theory is wrong.

I've checked my schedule and don't have time for the research nor re-writing needed. Instead I recommend that the article be flagged for bias.

Kovar (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You have to explain what changes you think should be made otherwise editors would never know if they had made the changes you require. TFD (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also no deadline, so come on back once your schedule clears up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I put it to you that this article is biased in the opposite direction to which you are alleging, and that this article deliberately obscures the fact that Critical Race Theory is an offshoot of Critical Theory/Critical Legal Theory, and that the criticism is superficial and underweighted at best GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)GayAtheistTimPoolFan

My gut feel is that this article is not biased. After reading this article, I was left with the astounding feeling that CRT is actually a more conservative view of race than traditional liberalism, in that CRT emphasizes social constructs over legal frameworks. This is in fact very conservative and evangelical: It does not matter what is in the law. What matters is what is in the hearts of people. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcast Group

See Fake news: Sinclair spreads lies about race education in schools. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAILYKOS is an opinion blog and generally unreliable. Media Matters is slightly better, but this looks out of proportion without mainstream sourcing, let alone academic sourcing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Alcoff, Linda. "Critical Philosophy of Race". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.).

Gives a brief overview of CRT. Could be useful for building the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 October 2021

Change subheading "Political controversies" to "Political opposition". The word "Controversy" implies the movement itself sparked controversies, when in reality, the section deals with Republicans using it as a scare tactic to push for the banning of all examinations of systemic racism.

Also change "Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term 'critical race theory' as 'a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism', according to The Washington Post." to "Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term 'critical race theory' as 'a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism'." This is not a claim made by the Washington Post, it is an objective assessment made by multiple reliable sources, which are also cited elsewhere in the article. I see no reason why this can't just be written in wikivoice, and maybe backed by a second source, if necessary.

Finally, remove the Trump executive order (currently reference number 75), as it is a primary source and entirely unnecessary. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you make fair points though I don't agree with all. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a contentious article and, as such, these changes should be discussed before being implemented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, @Sangdeboeuf:@NorthBySouthBaranof:@Firefangledfeathers:@GorillaWarfare: and @Aquillion:. I was told to establish consensus on the above edit request. You have been active on this talk page in the past few months, so I believe it is appropriate to ask for your input. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Controversy" and "criticism" are generally not a great terms to use for sections per WP:CSECTION, and while in some cases it could make sense, in this case I tend to agree that it's not describing a genuine controversy about the topic. A deeper problem is that a lot of the political stuff the section covers (as I think we describe in the article) isn't even about Critical Race Theory; as it says in the united states section, Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term "critical race theory" as "a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism". I would suggest moving the entire political section out of the controversy section, rewording the criticism section into a more neutrally-worded "reception" section that covers reception evenhandedly, and renaming the political section to "political responses" or the like. "Opposition" isn't ideal for the same reason "criticism" isn't; it encourages the creation of non-neutral sections by suggesting that editors should one-sidedly add things to the section in a way that gives them undue weight. "Academic reception" and "Political responses" are more neutral. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: My point exactly. Incidentally, that quote from the article is the subject of the second edit I was requesting. In the article it is attributed to the WaPo, despite the fact that the other citations, including the republicans' own words confirm that this is not simply a claim made by the WaPo, but rather the objective fact of the matter. Would you agree that the attribution is unnecessary, and this should be said in wikivoice? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:QUOTE, "Quotations must be verifiably attributed", and that sentence contains a quote. The "republicans' own words" do not factor into this at all, per WP:NOR. It is only about how secondary sources describe the topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Also per MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". The quote in question is "a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism" - not the claim itself, that republicans are conflating critical race theory with this. The way the sentence is written now, makes it look like the claim that republicans using the term to describe any examination of systemic racism, is made by the WaPo, when the claim is supported by countless reliable secondary sources, and all that's really being quoted from the WaPo is a very specific wording that can easily be rephrased.

As for the republicans' own words, they are in fact covered in the article already, with proper citations: Rufo's use of the term propelled the controversy into the mainstream; he wrote on Twitter, "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory'."[8][20][76]. The sources are very clear on how the republicans are trying to frame CRT, so I don't know what you mean by "original research" in this case. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

citation link 30

This citation link returns to this article 4R-L1n-3UM (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the citation to Crenshaw et al. (1995, p. xx), this is a shortened footnote that links to a full citation in the references section. All the bibliographic info is there. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cathode ray tube

Can we have a disambiguation link at the top, for the Boomerstanis like me who stubbornly cling to fond memories of computer monitors that were vulnerable to magnets and could give us cancer? Please. I beg for this change. Next stop: the BLM page, where I rant about how Cliven Bundy was a modern civil rights hero... 2600:1012:B00C:C22:1C1:AF8:E967:C884 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. You can add to this article if you have the proper WP:Reliable sources. If you don't know how to code them, just add in plain English, and somebody will come along and fix them. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

CRT already leads to a disambiguation page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We could add:

For other uses, see CRT.

(this presumes the article notes the use of the acronym CRT in reference to Critical Race Theory, preferably somewhere in the beginning of the lede) (OP here again with a dynamic IP) 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary, since the title Critical race theory itself is unambiguous, despite the acronym being used in the article. As EvergreenFir pointed out, CRT does not link to this page. Not sure why Cathode ray tube would be more noteworthy than the other DAB topics. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there precedent for making the CRT in the first sentence a link to the disambig page? I didn't see anything with ctrl+f+"abbreviation". 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

My myopia in favor of crt monitors may stem from staring at them for many hours in my life thus far. I want to make clear that I accept and am open about this potential bias. 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

My cursory investigation suggested that this is not a norm. There seems to be no vehicle dedicated to acronyms (to clear up confusion), in the spirit of the disambig page link at the top of many articles. Wikipedia seems to acknowledge the need to quickly correct readers' potential misidentification for article titles with a convenient disambig link at the top, but presumes there is not a similar need for acronyms that are just as commonly used to identify the topic of the article, and I question this norm. 174.193.133.247 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not normally linked in articles. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree the DAB should not be linked, thank you to whoever removed the link. Suriname0 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary

Wikipedia guidelines on introductions indicate they should avoid difficult to understand terminology. The introduction to this article is difficult to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any particular terminology you found difficult? That would help with improving the lead. Suriname0 (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Explain it like you would to someone in middle school. Bold items are parts that someone could either find confusing or something they may have to research before continuing with the summary. Someone should really not have to go look up other terms or subjects in order to understand the summary. Also, this is bit of a run-on sentence. "Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of US civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race and US law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice." --EdHayes3 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

[2] I propose that the introductory paragraph be changed to read as follows:

"A body of scholarship from scholars who seek to examine the intersection of race, law, civil rights, and equality, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial and social justice. A core tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social, structural, and systemic dynamics, rather than conscious, explicit, or deliberate prejudices of individuals."

My rationale is this [ NOT SURE HOW TO CITE HERE, so ... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764219842623 :) ]:

1. CRT is best described as a scholarly pursuit under the academic umbrella of sociology, so is not specific or limited to to “legal” or “civil rights” scholarship (for instance, I am a social worker and contextualize and apply CRT when assessing and serving the people I work with). 2. The terms “movement” and “activist” should be removed (these terms politicize a sound theoretical proposition / regardless of whether it has, has not, will, or will not spawn a movement or activity, CRT is a sound theoretical proposition) 4. CRT is not exclusively American (for instance, I am a Canadian and I regularly employ tenets of CRT, especially when understand and working with indigenous Canadians / also, think South Africa) 5. Critical Theory and all of its subset theories must diligently apply principles of "critical thinking" and sound reasoning (as a sound proposition, CRT must remain a-political and free of rhetoric and logical fallacies, whose use and application in practice is a good-but-different thing)

NOTES: Like in South Africa, Canada has been going through a long and painful process of Truth and Reconciliation with our indigenous citizens. I see CRT as a wonderfully useful mechanism to see the truth, but it is not truth itself. I see it as a tool to see "truth," such as structural and systemic mechanisms, which can teach people to think critically about what they see. Whether we actually "use" the tool (CRT), or ever apply the principles, or ever see the truth, or ever choose to reconcile racial and social injustices, we ought define the theory objectively, so it can be tested and proved to work. Wikipedia is the first place most people turn for information these days, so the current political climate and politicization of CRT calls for a broad, inclusive, and painfully objective presentation. As a proponent who believes that CRT is not only "reasonable," but fundamentally important to have transformed from theory into practice, I believe it is important to be clear and precise with what CRT is and is not. I think it is important that it is not defined according to any special interest, such as media and political movements. I believe that, by definition, CRT can and does stand up to rigors of scholarly and academic scrutiny and critique. It is my opinion that, due to the importance of both the subject (CRT) and popularity of the medium (Wikipedia), the entire CRT presentation should be reviewed by a trained logician who understands critical theory and critical social theory in general, and critical race theory specifically.

Thank you for the work you are doing and for giving my feedback consideration.

Best regards,

Ken Wessel MSW, BSW, BA kenwesselmsw@gmail.com Edmonton, Canada 2001:56A:FA3F:5100:4DB0:49F6:5237:8D2A (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am deactivating the template because it is designed to alert editors not following this page.

Do you have a source that describes CRT this way? We need that to make changes.

I see your point that CRT is used in other fields. But the article should at least say that it was developed by legal scholars.

TFD (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree there are some issues with the current framing, although I'm not sure the proposal makes the article better. Part of the concern is that there's a body of primary academic work applying CRT concepts to non-legal fields (such as sociology or computer science). Thus, I would prefer to identify and incorporate sources that synthesize that large body of primary scholarship. Suriname0 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical Need for Critical Reasoning in Wikipedia Article

• Vol 63, Issue 13, 2019 of New Directions in Critical Race Theory and Sociology: Racism, White Supremacy, and Resistance (Michelle Christian, Louise Seamster, Victor Ray) First Published April 16, 2019
• The Digital Reading Room for the course "AIS 663: Critical Race Theory in Global Context (Rev. C2)" at Athabasca University https://drr2.lib.athabascau.ca/index.php?c=node&m=detail&n=52363

Hello,

I propose that the introductory paragraph be changed to read as follows:

"A body of scholarship from scholars who seek to examine the intersection of race, law, civil rights, and equality, and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial and social justice. A core tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social, structural, and systemic dynamics, rather than conscious, explicit, or deliberate prejudices of individuals."

My rationale is this:

1. CRT is not limited to “legal” or “civil rights” scholarship (for instance, I am a social worker and contextualize and apply CRT when assessing and serving the people I work with).

2. The terms “movement” and “activist” should be removed, as the terms politicize a sound theoretical proposition

3. Regardless of whether it has, has not, will, or will not spawn a movement or activity, CRT is a sound theoretical proposition

4. CRT is not exclusively American (for instance, I am a Canadian and I regularly employ tenets of CRT, especially when understand and working with indigenous Canadians / also, think South Africa)

5. Critical Theory and all of its subset theories must diligently apply principles of "critical thinking" and sound reasoning (as a sound proposition, CRT must remain a-political and free of rhetoric and logical fallacies, whose use and application in practice is a good-but-different thing)

NOTES:

Like in South Africa, Canada has been going through a long and painful process of Truth and Reconciliation with our indigenous citizens. I find CRT to be a tool to see "truths," such as structural and systemic mechanisms, while teaching people to think critically about what they see. While I see CRT as a wonderfully useful mechanism to see the truth, it is not truth itself. Whether or not we actually "use" the tool (CRT), apply the principles, see the truth, or choose to reconcile racial and social injustices, the theory is still the theory. We ought to define the theory objectively, so it can be tested, at which time I believe it will be proved to work.

Wikipedia is the first place most people turn for information these days, so the current political climate and politicization of CRT calls for a broad, inclusive, and painfully objective presentation. As a proponent of CRT, I not only believe it to be a "reasonable" theoretical proposition, but think it is fundamentally important that it be transformed from theory into practice. For this to happen, I believe it is important to be clear and precise with what CRT is and what it is not. I think it is a sound theory that works. It is critically important that it not be defined by any special interest group, be it corporate, political, media, or other. This includes those who oppressed by racism, by trying to support those oppressed by racism, and by those who have used racism to oppress.

By definition, CRT can and does stand up to the rigorous critique, of scholarly, academics, and citizens. It is my opinion that, due to the importance of both the subject (CRT) and the popularity of this medium (Wikipedia), the entire CRT presentation should be reviewed by a trained logician who, through a sound critical evaluation, sees the merits in CRT. This person must have a solid academic and lived understand of critical theory and critical social theory generally, and then critical race theory specifically. CRT needs to compete in the marketplace of theories and ideas, not be used as a tool that is “sold” to bludgeon am opponent. The truth will do that on its own. Like a mirror, the theory itself just reflect back what it sees.

This is my first attempt to engage with authors on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I don't follow norms and conventions. Please help me understand things I might want to change if it could be helpful. Thank you for the work you are all doing and for giving my feedback consideration.

Best regards, Ken Wessel MSW, BSW, BA kenwesselmsw@gmail.com Edmonton, Canada

As I pointed out above, all information in Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced. You need a source that says what you want the article to say. Wikipedia editors cannot reach conclusions among themselves and put them into articles, but must report the conclusions reached in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

I apologise for now knowing how this works, or who is replying to me, but this is my first attempt at making a contribution. I do understand what you feedback says and means, but to be honest, I am a bystander who wanted to provide feedback. I am not a practiced Wikipedia editor and may never become one, but felt I had something important to say about the way the current article is presented. I do not find that it very accurately reflects what CRT is and should be. The two links I provided go directly to a trove of academic source material, which, along with my one citation, provides all of the supporting documentation for everything I presented. It is presented as information for the regular editors of this page -- now and in the future -- to consider.

Many thanks,

Ken

Were my links deleted?

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

"American liberal" links to a page on liberalism, which doesn't seem to fit with the explanation of CRT. 24.116.105.85 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you think it should link to, or why. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantitative, data-based, reproducible CRT examples

How many studies along the lines of [3] and [4] provide good examples of less anecdote-based, more empirical CRT? Would someone please include those? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Election 2021

Are you gonna add anything about how how this subject was the reason why liberals lost a state that they had for 12 years? Just asking.2001:871:237:2AF5:AD5B:2170:74F:CE7D (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)