I'm willing to take the Lefties' word for it, that CRT, as such, is not being taught in public schools. I can only assume that, like other segments of Critical Theory, it is couched in the opaque polysyllabic jargon of postmodernism and accessible only to those who've had extensive training in that arcane skill. What parents do see, I'm …
I'm willing to take the Lefties' word for it, that CRT, as such, is not being taught in public schools. I can only assume that, like other segments of Critical Theory, it is couched in the opaque polysyllabic jargon of postmodernism and accessible only to those who've had extensive training in that arcane skill. What parents do see, I'm sure, is the resulting policies pushed by CRT initiates such as the war on excellence seen in di Blasio's effort to abolish the selective schools in NYC or the proposal to "reform" the math curriculum in California to make it conform to DIE objectives. In any case, the insistence that CRT is not in the curriculum, that what's being taught is not CRT, reminds me of the Socialists' reply to criticism based on the record of Socialist regimes, that "real" Socialism has never been tried. (Translation: I have not yet been made the Autocrat of All Creation.)
There is a certain tension when you discriminate against Asian Americans to show how "Anti-racist" you are.
I'm your standard white heterosexual male, and I never used to be bothered by affirmative action policies, even if they meant I'd likely be the one getting the short end of the stick sometimes, because I'm sure my identity markers have accrued to my benefit at times. But when I realized that these sorts of policies come at the expense of other racial minorities, it rather infuriated me.
The problem with most of our affirmative action policies is not intent, it's that they were created at a time and for a country that doesn't look like ours. The intention for affirmative action was to give more opportunities to Black americans after the civil rights act was passed. The country's makeup at that time was very much black versus white in terms of major racial blocs. That isn't the case anymore.
In particular, the massive migration from places like Vietnam and Korea after the wars changed the makeup of our country, and no that's not a moral judgement. It's simply true that post war, lots of people migrated here. Their children, and their children's children, have as a result been competing with other minority groups, because the system that was set up was not designed for lots of different minority groups to exist at once.
So what you end up with is that the very system that exists to help one group ends up harming another. And then you start asking, 'well, what if we just did things on merit?' and we end up back at no affirmative action, and generational decline of populations, which it's meant to combat.
On some level, this is all due to the fact that for various reasons, Asian countries tend to have beliefs towards education that border on the cruel and sadistic; just look at their teen suicide rates. In Japan for example, over half of all people who don't get a job immediately after graduating will never have a job. Places like Singapore and Korea and China all have similar issues with parents overworking their children.
This is less prevalent in America, but it's absolutely true that Asian families often bring their culture with them, same as everyone else. And as a result, lots of Asian students are now competing in quotas against others. Which throws the system into chaos. The purpose of affirmative action was to help those who did not have the resources to get ahead, but it's turned into a question of who gets how much of the pie simply because of how racially diverse our country has become.
Again, I'm not sure there's a real solution to be found. But that's why this problem exists.
I'll buy the issue of intent and the anachronism in application, but add that we need to be careful of too broad generalization. It is one matter to discuss affirmative action (or equity) in pubic high schools, it is an entirely different matter to discuss affirmative action (or holistic admissions) in a private college. One can, with a straight face and clear conscience, support practices for one, but not the other.
A lot of this is a matter of perspective in how the left views race and class and education. The reason why liberals have begun to turn on things like selective schools, is because in practice, what tends to happen is that those with the most money and time are able to tutor their children more, and as a result, produce more 'special' students.
This is not a liberal idea either. Look up "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a compelling case that what creates the smartest people and most successful people is their access and time. Example: Bill Gates grew up in a very affluent community, whose school could afford a computer before they were everywhere. As a result, he got more time to use it, and thus had longer to develop the skills that would later make him billions. Another example is used with pro hockey players, almost all of whom are born in one part of the year, because that's right before the cutoff for younger players when they start in their teens. Basically, all of them got more time by being younger, and as a result were more likely by a large margin to become pros later in life.
So the liberal issue is this: if what matters is how affluent you are, not how smart you are, then such programs are little more than segregated schools where rich people who can afford to give their kids greater access to resources send their kids. That's not inherently a race thing, but it's undoubtedly true that poorer schools tend to have larger populations of people of color. Thus, fewer people of color end up at these selective schools, because they're poorer, and have to do things like work jobs and whose parents are likely working more hours to support themselves as well. That's where the 'racist' critique comes in.
I'm willing to take the Lefties' word for it, that CRT, as such, is not being taught in public schools. I can only assume that, like other segments of Critical Theory, it is couched in the opaque polysyllabic jargon of postmodernism and accessible only to those who've had extensive training in that arcane skill. What parents do see, I'm sure, is the resulting policies pushed by CRT initiates such as the war on excellence seen in di Blasio's effort to abolish the selective schools in NYC or the proposal to "reform" the math curriculum in California to make it conform to DIE objectives. In any case, the insistence that CRT is not in the curriculum, that what's being taught is not CRT, reminds me of the Socialists' reply to criticism based on the record of Socialist regimes, that "real" Socialism has never been tried. (Translation: I have not yet been made the Autocrat of All Creation.)
There is a certain tension when you discriminate against Asian Americans to show how "Anti-racist" you are.
I'm your standard white heterosexual male, and I never used to be bothered by affirmative action policies, even if they meant I'd likely be the one getting the short end of the stick sometimes, because I'm sure my identity markers have accrued to my benefit at times. But when I realized that these sorts of policies come at the expense of other racial minorities, it rather infuriated me.
The problem with most of our affirmative action policies is not intent, it's that they were created at a time and for a country that doesn't look like ours. The intention for affirmative action was to give more opportunities to Black americans after the civil rights act was passed. The country's makeup at that time was very much black versus white in terms of major racial blocs. That isn't the case anymore.
In particular, the massive migration from places like Vietnam and Korea after the wars changed the makeup of our country, and no that's not a moral judgement. It's simply true that post war, lots of people migrated here. Their children, and their children's children, have as a result been competing with other minority groups, because the system that was set up was not designed for lots of different minority groups to exist at once.
So what you end up with is that the very system that exists to help one group ends up harming another. And then you start asking, 'well, what if we just did things on merit?' and we end up back at no affirmative action, and generational decline of populations, which it's meant to combat.
On some level, this is all due to the fact that for various reasons, Asian countries tend to have beliefs towards education that border on the cruel and sadistic; just look at their teen suicide rates. In Japan for example, over half of all people who don't get a job immediately after graduating will never have a job. Places like Singapore and Korea and China all have similar issues with parents overworking their children.
This is less prevalent in America, but it's absolutely true that Asian families often bring their culture with them, same as everyone else. And as a result, lots of Asian students are now competing in quotas against others. Which throws the system into chaos. The purpose of affirmative action was to help those who did not have the resources to get ahead, but it's turned into a question of who gets how much of the pie simply because of how racially diverse our country has become.
Again, I'm not sure there's a real solution to be found. But that's why this problem exists.
I'll buy the issue of intent and the anachronism in application, but add that we need to be careful of too broad generalization. It is one matter to discuss affirmative action (or equity) in pubic high schools, it is an entirely different matter to discuss affirmative action (or holistic admissions) in a private college. One can, with a straight face and clear conscience, support practices for one, but not the other.
A lot of this is a matter of perspective in how the left views race and class and education. The reason why liberals have begun to turn on things like selective schools, is because in practice, what tends to happen is that those with the most money and time are able to tutor their children more, and as a result, produce more 'special' students.
This is not a liberal idea either. Look up "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a compelling case that what creates the smartest people and most successful people is their access and time. Example: Bill Gates grew up in a very affluent community, whose school could afford a computer before they were everywhere. As a result, he got more time to use it, and thus had longer to develop the skills that would later make him billions. Another example is used with pro hockey players, almost all of whom are born in one part of the year, because that's right before the cutoff for younger players when they start in their teens. Basically, all of them got more time by being younger, and as a result were more likely by a large margin to become pros later in life.
So the liberal issue is this: if what matters is how affluent you are, not how smart you are, then such programs are little more than segregated schools where rich people who can afford to give their kids greater access to resources send their kids. That's not inherently a race thing, but it's undoubtedly true that poorer schools tend to have larger populations of people of color. Thus, fewer people of color end up at these selective schools, because they're poorer, and have to do things like work jobs and whose parents are likely working more hours to support themselves as well. That's where the 'racist' critique comes in.