Critical Race Theory and other related topics

There have been a number of news articles recently about CRT and related topics. It seems that every day there is some new “controversial” aspect. I’d like to explore a few of these and give some comments on them.

 

The News Articles

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-school-board-approves-controversial-transgender-policy

Policy 8040 requires teachers to use preferred pronouns and allows “gender-expansive and transgender students” to participate in sports and other activities “in a manner consistent with the student’s gender identity.” It also allows transgender students access to school facilities that correspond to their “consistently asserted gender identity.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/amex-crt-training-urged-staff-to-adopt-a-hierarchy-putting-marginalized-above-privileged

[U]rged Amex employees to construct their own intersectional identities, mapping their “race, sexual orientation, body type, religion, disability status, age, gender identity [and] citizenship. White, males, heterosexual people, Christians, able-bodied people, and citizens would presumably count as “privileged.” “If members of a subordinate group are present, workers should practice ‘intersectional allyship’ and defer to them before speaking.” [T]he credit card company should reduce standards for black customers and sacrifice profits in the interest of race-based reparation.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gutfeld-oregon-reading-writing-math-racist

Oregon just decided that reading, writing and arithmetic are racist. It has decided to drop the requirement that students demonstrate that they’ve mastered those skills. They dropped the requirement in order to benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color,” effectively turning their degrees into a participation trophy.

 

Personal Pronouns

Historically, in English, there are several sets of pronouns (see https://7esl.com/english-pronouns/). There is no controversy about the first-person singular set (I/me/my/mine/myself – the subject/object/possessive adjective/possessive/reflexive). Nor is the any controversy about the second person (you/you/your/yours/yourself), nor any of the plural sets (we/us/our/ours/ourselves; you/you/your/yours/yourselves; they/them/their/theirs/themselves). However, there is a controversy about the third person singular sets as there are three: The male set is he/him/his/his/himself; the female set is she/her/her/hers/herself; and the non-person/thing set is it/it/its/…/itself. These are controversial because you need to have a gender assignment to know which set to use and the non-person/thing set is not to be used for people. [Note that I have not encountered any such controversy in other languages, even though such gendered assignment of pronouns also occurs in them – such as “el/ella” for him/her in Spanish]

With the recent increase and public practice of individuals having a gender-identity that may or may not match their biological sex, there are now those who feel that people need to give you the set of pronouns that they prefer that you use. This may be as simple as a trans-gender female (i.e., one who is biologically male but who identifies as a female) asking that you use the female set of pronouns. Or it may be that a person who is bi-sexual asking that you use some alternative form of pronouns such as ze/zir/zirs (or ze/hir/hirs) or that you use the plural set of pronouns (they/them/their) which are gender-neutral. (See https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Files/HSC/HEO/Pronouns.pdf for additional explanation.) But even those who are cis-gendered will often give their preferred pronouns as a way of showing that they are supportive of those who use alternative sets.

Let me give a few examples:

My niece, who lives in NYC, use this type of convention to identify herself as “She/her” (https://alissarumsey.com/about/)

One of the medical coordinators I am working with on the various Alzheimer’s studies that I am a part of, in her signature block has the following: “Fran Reckers (she/her/hers)”. Since Fran is a name that can be used by either sex, this is actually helpful, although each email from her also includes a thumbnail picture that conveys the same information.

Finally, I want to quote another “about” page for an individual who I knew when he was a classmate of my children (http://www.lovemultipliescoaching.com/about/). There are a bunch of somewhat controversial things here, not all of which I will comment on:

“Erik W. House (he/they) M.A., is a love and relationship coach, along with being a spiritual guide and healer, he works closely with people in the polyamorous, consensual non-monogamy (CNM), and kink/BDSM relationships. He helps both individuals, as well as, polycules in digging down to find what their unmet needs are so that his clients can create the lives and relationships they want.

As a neurodivergent child, he was often made fun of, called names like retard, freak, just to say some of the nicer ones. […]

Those who practice kink, BDSM, polyamory, and CNM should have access to spiritual practitioners, coaches, as well as licensed professionals who are willing and able to accept us as we are.”

In many ways, this “controversy” about personal pronouns is just an extension of the issues that existed in the 1950s when I was growing up. In elementary school, the teacher (who was always called “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or “Miss” as a matter of respect) needed to know what to call their students. [For context, I attended a small school that had one class per grade for grades 1-7.] This was usually the person’s legal first name, but it could also be a nickname or a middle name – in all cases the same name that the student’s parents would call them and with which they identified. But there were problems when there were two students in the classroom with the same name. For example, we had two boys with the legal name of “Robert”. If one normally went by “Robert” and the other by “Bobby” that would solve the problem. But since both of them went by “Bobby”, the teacher needed to differentiate and so one was “Bobby Fehrs” and the other was “Bobby Schlager”, i.e., using their last names.

But our class was a bit unique. We had a set of identical twins – Marie and Louise Clement. That was not a problem. But in the same small classroom we also had a cousin of theirs who also had the name Louise Clement. So how was the teacher to distinguish? She couldn’t use last names as with the two boys. She asked if she could call one of them Louise and one Louisa – but “Louisa” said that was not her name and rejected the idea. Fortunately, the two girls had different middle names (one was Marie (the same as her twin’s first name!) and the other was Beatrice. So, the teacher began calling them “Louise M” and “Louise B”.

Thus, on one hand the notion of using personal pronouns that are consistent with how a person identifies is no more controversial that using the name with which a person identifies. But on the other hand, there are no consistent pronoun sets to use when we get beyond the choice of the male/female sets. Even in the references above there is a ze/zir/zirs set and a ze/hir/hirs set (and I have encountered others as well). And what does it mean in the third example when Eric identifies as “he/they”? Is he interchangeably singular-male and plural?

 

Intersectionality

This term only came into being in 1989. It was the work of a legal scholar and was used to denote that sometimes how others perceive us is as a combination of two or more of the facets that define us (for a well written article see https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/intersectionality-part-one-intersectionality-defined). The “facets that define us” are not totally enumerated and are often selected from a broad list of items based on the situation. I have seen the following facets mentioned, and I’m sure that there are many others:

Race, indigeneity, class/socioeconomic status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, spirituality/religion, immigration/refugee status, language, education, employee status, body type

To give an example using just the facets of gender and body type, if you see someone who is both female and “skinny” you may react differently than if you saw a female who had average body type or a male who was “skinny”. Perhaps you would associate the term anorexia with that individual where you would not use that term for the male with the same body type.

I don’t see any issues with this term and there is definite value in recognizing that in order to understand an individual you have to know more than one of their facets. In fact, there is real danger in trying to categorize someone on the basis of only a single factor, such as “All ____ are ___”.

But there are two consequences to this that have gathered momentum in recent years. First, some have tried to attach labels of “oppressor” and “oppressed” (or other similar terms) to the two ends of each facet (Man are oppressors – women are oppressed; college-educated people are oppressors (i.e., smart) – those who only have a high-school education are oppressed (i.e., dumb)). [As an aside, body type is not a facet with the labels on the ends. Both ends of the spectrum, obese and skinny, are “bad” and individuals there would be “oppressed” and the middle is the area of being “oppressor”. The same is true of such facets as religion.] And second, many are trying to make the facet of race the one that trumps all other facets.

In the second news article quoted above, we see a good example of these problems. While asking their employees to “construct their own intersectional identities” is a reasonable exercise, the company then assigns labels such as “privileged” and “subordinate” to these facets. They then ask their employees to “practice ‘intersectional allyship’” and defer to those who are subordinate. Then in the last sentence quoted, they compound the problem by putting all the focus on the race identity when they talk about “reduc[ing] standards for black customers” and “race-based reparation.”

I’ll address these again below.

 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Efforts to ensure diversity have been around for quite a while. And I agree that some of the efforts to combat blatant racism in the past have been necessary. But recently the DEI terms have begun showing up in combination and the focus has been on not “equality”, i.e., making sure that we give equal opportunity, but “equity”, i.e., requiring equal outcomes. And this focus is almost entire race-based.

I was recently invited to listen in on a conversation with the president of Michigan State on the topic “A Foundation for Learning and Deep Inquiry” This conversation featured Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D. Let me quote from her bio which was attached to the email invitation.

“Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D., provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, is a dedicated scientist, committed educator and innovative researcher. During this conversation with President Stanley, Provost Woodruff will discuss the development of diverse approaches to innovative and effective teaching and share news about new initiatives that are increasing access and success for all learners. She will also talk about her efforts to foster diverse, equitable and inclusive work and learning environments for students, faculty and academic staff.”

Note the DEI words (which are always presented in that order) in the last sentence. I have a few problems with this which I’d like to elaborate on.

First, while these “code words” sound nice, they conceal an entirely race-based, one-sided, approach. In the case of MSU, they are looking to have “equal outcomes” in all situations. This means that since blacks comprise 13.4% of the US population (see https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219), that we need to have them represent that percentage in all the university statistics – scholarships, population in each college of the university, graduates, etc.

But let’s look at it another way. Since white individuals comprise over 75% of the population (see the same census figures above), shouldn’t “equity” require that whites comprise 75% in each situation as well? Let’s look at something that is quite public about MSU – it’s sports teams – which are a huge money-making machine for MSU and most other major universities in this country. If we really believe in “equity”, shouldn’t we ask the university to ensure that 75% of the members of their football and basketball teams be white (and they are far, far, from that!) Oh, you respond, but that’s because we select our football/basketball teams based on the players abilities. And if MSU limited the number of black athletes in order to ensure “equity”, they would be at a disadvantage compare to other schools. Someone explain to me why “equity” is only an appropriate topic when blacks are under-represented and not appropriate when whites are under-represented. And why the focus on blacks when those who identify as Hispanic/Latino represent 18.5% of the population. If equity is about equal outcomes, shouldn’t we have those same percentages on the MSU sports teams?

But even more insidious are the ways in which we are trying to achieve “equity” – by eliminating any measurable standards. If MSU (and most other educational institutions) believes that participation in their sports teams should be based on ability, then why don’t they base things like their acceptance criteria to the university on ability (since education should be their primary focus)?

Most university admissions standards have already been bent way out of proportion in order to ensure that the student body is diverse enough, often by lowering standards for particular groups. (It would be interesting to see the average GPA or SAT scores of the starters on the average university football/basketball team compared to the average GPA/SAT scores for the university as a whole – but I digress.) I recall that last year there was a lawsuit against Yale University which alleged that “most Asian-American and white applicants have one-eighth to one-fourth the likelihood of admission as African-American applicants with comparable academic credentials.”

And now we’ve gone even further, as noted in the third news article above. Now an entire state (Oregon) has decided that “reading, writing and arithmetic are racist.” Really? Knowing that 2+2=4 is racist!? So now you’ll be able to receive your high school diploma in Oregon even if you can’t read or write or do simple arithmetic? As the article notes, now a high school diploma will be reduced to the academic equivalent of a participation trophy. And then they give a long list of types of individuals who they say this change will benefit. But they might just as well say “only whites know how to read and write”!

All this madness concealed under the banner of DEI and “equity”!

 

Critical Race Theory

Having dissected the aspects of personal pronouns, intersectionality, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, now let’s look at the topic I started with – Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CRT has been around as an academic concept for over 40 years. The core idea is that race is a social construct and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies (https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05). The basic tenets were created by several legal scholars (including Kimberlé Crenshaw who introduced the term intersectionality above.)

But this same article also states that “CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.” Thus, we see why the above sections on intersectionality and DEI are so relevant to any discussion about CRT and why the problems/issues mentioned above are also problems/issues with CRT.

It was only a month ago that Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said that CRT “has mostly been taught at the college level and is not taught at the nation’s elementary, middle and high schools.” (https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-racial-injustice-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-ce1ca40ecbe5abf10afcc10864d1b3e9). But it’s pretty obvious that this statement is false.

One school district, D49 in Colorado, summarized it nicely when they banned the teaching of CRT (https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-school-district-bans-critical-race-theory) when they stated:

District leaders and staff shall not promote the following principles associated with Critical Race Theory in D49’s classroom curricula:

·        Race Essentialism: The assertion that race is the most important identity

·        Collectivism: The assertion that group identity is more important than individual identity

·        Accusatory characterization of individuals as oppressor or oppressed according to their race

On the other hand, a school district in Kansas recently spent $400,000 on CRT training for teachers, which told teachers to “reject and resist any parents who disagree with” CRT (https://sentinelksmo.org/teacher-leaves-shawnee-mission-over-critical-race-theory-masks/).

It’s pretty obvious to me that we are in a cultural war! On one side are the teacher’s unions, the establishment elite, and the politically progressive (mostly, but not all, democratic). On the other side are parents who care about their children and the future of this country and increasingly many school teachers who are quitting their public-school employers and moving to private schools or other venues where they are free from the union and/or school board dictates. Which side are you on?