This 2019 book published by Routledge, a mainstream educational publisher, crossed my social-media horizon today, so I read through the material available via Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature.
The volume seems to be CRT-lite or a usual expression of concerns about racism. In either case, I didn’t notice anything indicating a heavy-duty advocacy of Critical Theory. (My quick overview of what heavy-duty CRT is comes at the 17-minute mark of this discussion.)
Some sample claims extracted from the quick read-through:
- Some math teachers have prejudicial attitudes.
- Some students come from racial groups that are marginalized.
- Math educators have ignored the experience of African-Americans.
- The contributors themselves have been on the receiving end of racist behaviors.
- Racism is a permanent feature of our society.
- Many racial minorities attend schools that are weak, both in the quality of their facilities and the quality of the teachers.
- Even being a black teacher in an all-black school was a frustrating experience due to bad management by the administration.
- The lack of “fiscal equity” in such schools is due to racism.
- Meritocracy is a myth.
- Whether race realism or race-as-social-construction complicates math assessment.
All of that strikes me as rather ordinary and arguable and not necessarily CRT. A few other points mentioned almost in passing do, though, send stronger CRT signals:
- One suggestion to the effect that “mathematics is considered to be an objective and raceless discipline.”
- One suggestion that the contributors challenge “Whiteness, White supremacy, and the status quo” in math education.
- A mention of the usually acknowledged founders of CRT: Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, and Mari Matsuda.
Those few remarks were all made quickly and without elaboration, so who knows how deep the CRT engagement is.
My sense, accordingly, is that the book is a collection of essays by writers who think we live in a too-racist society but who are using “CRT” as a label more because it’s trendy than because they’re deeply conversant with and committed to CRT.
Sooo … basically you’re reviewing Amazon’s trailer for the book? Hmm. That seems a bit lazy.
Certainly many (if not most) of the claims you observed in Amazon’s trailer are features of Critical Race Theory.
CRT is a decades-old academic concept that race is a social construct, that racism is more than the product of individual bias or prejudice, and that it’s something embedded in legal systems and policies. You might not agree with any of that, but misrepresenting CRT contributes nothing to the discussion.
sean s.
Why, Sean, are you telling other people how much time they have to devote to things? That seems a bit bossy.
Also, maybe re-read the post to note that it says some of those things could or could not be CRT, while others most likely are. Before jumping in with condescending (and obvious) points, be a little more careful. The whole point of the post was to illustrate not jumping to knee-jerk reactions to things seen on social media.
Why, Stephen, no! Spend as much time or as little as you like on whatever you choose. However, if you do a superficial job on something, don’t expect it to be seen in any way other than that.
There’s no need for me to reread your post; you said some of those things could or could not be CRT. Most-if not all-are; something you’d know if you chose to go deeper into the topic.
Which, OF COURSE, you don’t HAVE TO do!
But as folks like to say: choices have consequences.
sean s.
You’re still doing it, Sean.
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to something on social media; I’m commenting on your low-effort post because 1) I heard about it, 2) I bothered to actually read it, and 3) it’s blameworthy.
You provide an option to “Leave a Comment”; if all you can tolerate is praise or admiration, you should adjust the text on your blog to make that clear.
sean s.
Advice: Stop digging yourself in deeper, Sean.
Thanks for the advice, Stephen, but you should heed your own words. Your “non-responses” are beginning to resemble those pesky knee-jerks; they are pretty-much substance-free.
To be honest, I didn’t expect much more; tho’ I really did hope … I don’t want to generalize but my prior experience with Objectivists has been characterized by bold talk that runs for cover whenever challenged. I’d really like to find an Objectivist with more robust beliefs. But alas! So far …
Thus it was unsurprising, in your video on CRT, to hear you confuse ‘dialectic’ for ‘attack’, and ‘questioning’ for ‘rejection’. Ideas that cannot withstand dialectic or questioning deserve to be rejected. That’s why philosophers all the way back to Socrates used dialectic to examine ideas. Kant? Hegel? Marx? Mere newcomers to the art.
sean s.
BTW, Stephen, regarding “traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism” you need to reread MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
“This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.; “I Have A Dream” Speech
“… this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.; “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
sean s.
Sean you’re awesome, Stephen, get a real job, or learn how to do this one. If your article has merit you shouldn’t resort to petty bickering against the slightest criticism. You must be a real authority on CRT if you can write an article about it, but refuse to actually read anything. Instead of addressing Sean’s warranted criticism of reviewing something you did not read, you accused her of being bossy and tried belittling her on a subject she obviously knows more about than you do. How the hell did you get a PhD. when you refuse to do the work, can’t admit when you’re wrong, and have no debating skills. Did Mummy and Daddy buy your PhD? You’re a joke!