Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 1

Unencyclopedic pseudoscience?
On this page, it says that this entry may be unencyclopedic. Though there may be points where it needs to be edited, there does need to be an article here about critical race theory. It is a way of looking at the world and it is important for scholars to understand that other people believe this theory could be true. If anything, someone with more knowledge than me needs to edit it. Please don't delete it.

The "Thoughts" section is word for word the same as the intro to this page http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jp49/ and because of this doesn't make sense in some places.

This article implies CRT is limited to the USA. This is not the case. Needs a rewrite.

Issues with linking and then linking again and again to a last name or such ... ugh ... wasn't my cleanup, i'm working on Bell disambig--Rbeas 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm new and don't know the etiquette on this. Should the tag still be there? The article seems pretty clean to me. . . but, like I said, I'm new. . . Soulful scholar 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that CRT is considered pseudoscience by the scientific mainstream? There is also no 'con' section. The fact that one of CRT's main tenets is that race is a social construct says volumes about the validity of the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.255.73 (talk • contribs)


 * Critical race theory is a humanities area of study and doesn't present itself as a science, so I doubt that the scientific mainstream bothers addressing itself to the topic of whether it is pseudoscience. --Grace 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to meet standards, which it doesn't. 'Humanities' does not mean free reign to make things up. Even the pseudoscience article here on Wikipedia lists CRT as pseudoscientific.


 * If Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (which by the way also does not contain a "con" section) manages to avoid classification as unencyclopedic, I fail to see what's wrong with this article. As long as it maintains a neutral point of view, the information is valuable. Just because someone disagrees with the theory or the soundness of it's foundation does not automatically deem it fodder for deletion. It is a published theory in the literature of law and education. Removing this article would not be maintaining Wikipedia's standard of a neutral POV because it would be suppressing the full sum of all available theories on this topic. The correctness of the theory may be up for debate, but not its existence, and as such, it demands inclusion in Wikipedia.Casimps1 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean its pseudoscience. If it is scientific enough for the Harvard Law Review, it's *probably* scientific enough for Wikipedia.

It's no more pseudoscience than feminism... Just a theory, a way of looking at social issues, not a matter of fact or fiction.

I honestly don't know why this article is up for debate. It is an branch of critical theory and that theory is not questioned as being unencyclopedic on it's wikipedia page. Other than some posters not agreeing with the theory, I don't see a problem. There are plenty of scholarly journals and prominent researchers that embrace and/or research critical theory. I don't think it's our job to censor things we don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.simpson (talk • contribs)


 * The "unencyclopedic" tag generally means that someone thought the article as written is unencyclopedic, not that there shouldn't be some article on the subject. I think the current article is moderately good, but it's clearly written by a proponent of the field, while preferred Wikipedia style is for articles to read such that a reader can't tell if they were written by a proponent, detractor, or neutral party.  The quotations starting each section are particularly stylistically odd for an encyclopedia article. --Delirium 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

CRT is a sociological theory, and I agree that it is encyclopedic. The article does seem a bit more cleaned up now, though. Verkhovensky 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tautology?
The paragraph explaining Crenshaw's "expansive" and "restrictive" properties of anti-discrimination law is opaque. Some concrete examples would definitely help explain the distinction this paragraph is trying to make. And please consider the concluding sentence: "The implication of Crenshaw's argument is that the failure of the restrictive property to address or correct the racial injustices of the past simply perpetuates the status quo." All it seems to be saying is that the failure to do something that changes the status quo perpetuates the status quo. Such tautologies are not very informative. I hope that someone with knowledge of this subject will fix this paragraph. —Blanchette 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious problem is that this article never actual says *what* is being referred to under the name Critical Race Theory. What is the theory? What does it state and how does this change the idea of a social perspective? For that matter, it needs to explain more about some of the claims it makes. CRT originated in the 1970s by a group of law students and professors, so how does W. E. B. Du Bois filter in?

Of course it doesn't say "what" is being referred to it is post-modernist rubbish. Jmm6f488 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

R.A.V. and the votes on the Supreme Court
It is misleading to suggest that the Supreme Court in R.A.V. voted unanimously in favor of Scalias opinion. In fact, Scalia was only able to win five votes for his opinion. His reasoning was very sharply attacked in three concurrences by Justices White (the lead concurrence), Blackmun and Stevens. As Justice White makes clear in the opening paragraph of his concurrence, he agreed with Scalia in the result - "but our agreement ends there".

Whereas Scalia's opinion found the St. Paul ordinance at issue - not cross burning as such (another inaccuracy in the article) - to be impermissibly content- and even viewpoint based for outlawing fighting words on the basis of the particular opinion they convey, Justice White found the ordinance to be overbroad as it was not properly limited to the constitutionally proscribable category of fighting words.

Thus, the rationales of Scalia and White are severely at odds and reflect a deep division among the Justices about the validity and meaning of the so called categoric approach. The fact that all Justices agreed that the ordinance under review was in one way or another unconstitutional cannot and must not be taken as evidence of a unaminous per se-rejection by the Supreme Court of arguments in favor of hate speech regulation.

The entry should be corrected accordingly.

131.220.201.107 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)YFU

What is this huge first section about?
There is a huge rambling of weird writings in the beginning of this article that seems kinda like spam and is above the introductory notes on CRT. One example is "someday, maybe TO BE CONTINUED, postmodernanarchisthardcoreleftorganizerauthor 128.32.119.122 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC), CRT adherent

== Dec. 7, 2007 ... Dec. 7, 1941 ("12/7") (remember, remember, "a date which will live in infamy")"  That's a little weird.  I am going to remove this large rambling first section as it seems to be of very little use because there is already an introduction on what CRT is. Jack Stephens (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How can there be no section containing "Criticisms of Critical Race Theory"
By the way, I appreciate the snarkiness and subtle irony of the the person above who said CRT made as much sense as feminism. EXACTLY! They are both complete sh*t in their *current* forms. They are both tools of oppression masquerading as tools of liberation. They are both founded on many untestable concepts that they like to call theories. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This section need explanation
I'm adding in italics what the statement means or could mean from the text.Would someone who has Delgato footnote and explain, in straightforward English, this list? Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic note the following major themes in critical race theory writings:


 * A critique of liberalism CRT does not consider individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
 * Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality" facts shouldn't count in making legal decisions
 * Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress no idea
 * Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems like what 
 * Structural determinism, how "the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content" what is structural determinism/ is there unstructured determinism? 
 * The intersections of race, sex, and class again what?- does this perhaps mean a poor white woman should be treated differently than a rich black male?
 * Essentialism and anti-essentialism This means either one or the other depending on what makes your point stronger 
 * Cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism no idea
 * Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar wouldn't legal institutions and minority lawyers be the same category 
 * Criticism and self-criticism of what in particular Nitpyck (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to add in enough information on some of these, mostly with wikilinks to make them clear. However, these words may the most important: "major themes in ... writings." That is, this is not a manifesto, nor is it an expression of CRTheorists' beliefs; instead it's a list of themes discussed in a large body of work written by scholars who read and cite each other, within the broader domain of legal studies. So, for example, many CRT writers have taken "anti-essentialist" positions (social categories, like blackness, do not reflect an unchanging essence), while others have critiqued this (usually arguing that a shared historical experience has generated a common perspective or urging strategic essentialism as a political position). Regardless of individuals' arguments, a lot of text has explored this.--Carwil (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit of CRT Basis
Arguing that CRT is primarily a reaction to Critical Legal Theory limits the scale and influence of the doctrine. I think it is best argued as an extension of (and ultimately, reaction to) the interdisciplinary legal research done by A. Leon Higginbotham, et.al. in the wake of the Civil Rights reforms of the 1960s. While both Bell and Higginbotham believed in the inherent racism constructed in early American law (the limitations of "all men are created equal," etc.) their difference in how to approach reform (or if reform was even possible) is the primary basis for the creation of the CRT school of thought. Interactions and journal articles traded, etc. between the two men and their proteges would seem to reinforce this. Can we, at the least, give the ILS/CRT argument equal time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.113.43 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Current article fails to describe/explain
The current version of the article fails to explain, describe, or define CRT. Even the introduction begins with, "CRT began as a response to..." It would help if, someone who understands (and perhaps supports) CRT could introduce the topic more clearly, e.g. "CRT is a way of approaching..." (or whatever is appropriate). The rest of the article is no better: it talks a lot about what CRT is not, scholarly topics to which it can be applied, but not what it is or why someone should (or should not) embrace it.

I agree with a previous post that the article should discuss critiques and/or criticisms of the theory. However, there's little point in commenting on a theory that hasn't been well defined. 76.202.63.148 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added several tags to the page in hopes that one of them will pay off and we'll get a good working definition. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Me again. I found Delgado and Stefancic's book through Google Books and summarized the definition they provide in their introduction. Is that definition sufficient for the introduction? We might be able to move some of the other paragraphs in the lede to other sections of the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Defining CRT
I'd like to change the beginning of the intro to this: "Critical Race Theory (CRT)is a method of describing and understanding racism and discrimination. It emphasizes the socially constructed and discursive nature of race. It views race as the primary factor in reaching judicial conclusions, which are always social phenomena. It opposes the continuation of all forms of subordination." Because it reads better. But I don't know if it is accurate. What is the discursive nature of race? Are legal judgments always social phenomena? Depending on what is meant by social phenomena isn't this true of most legal theories? And I really doubt that all subordination is opposed in CRT. So I'm putting this here and I'll come back in a month to see if there are any objections before making any change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs some work. As I read the article I was struck by the fact that its thrust appears not so much to present and explain to the reader just what CRT is, but rather to list the names of its adherents and point out how influential and important they are in the field. For example, there are 12 CRT proponents in the field of education mentioned (and they are even broken down into two waves) but there is little or nothing written as to what, if anything, they have accomplished.  All article says is that they have used CRT “to examine racial inequity in education by expanding methodological, epistemological and pedagogical boundaries.”  This doesn’t really say anything.  I would like to suggest that the article would benefit greatly if its editors placed greater emphasis on the substance of CRT and less on its theorists.  An example could be taken from the article on Postmodernism.  Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Critical Theory according to the Frankfurt School means- critiquing the existing social reality in terms of the potential for human freedom and happiness that existed within that same reality. (What is v. what might be.) Is there a similar one sentence definition for CRT anywhere in the literature? Nitpyck (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Critical Theory and Critical White Theory (see off-shoots) are Marxist theories is CRT also? Nitpyck (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the intro a bit- Added a founder and beginning date for when this became a field and deleted some verbage- discursive means rambling and that's not the nature of race CRT is interested in. - It opposes the continuation of all forms of subordination. This means there is no legal priority between for instance jay walking and rape. I doubt any of the CRT writers believe that. Nitpyck (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the intro section defining CRT is too full of technical jargon that only people well-experienced in sociology would understand. It might be a good idea to add a sentence or two at the very beginning that would give a general impression of what CRT in plain language, even if it is overly simplistic. This would give readers a point of reference from which they can delve into the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.184.15 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring?
Hey, I stumbled on this from the recent changes thing, and a glance over this article's history suggests to me that there's been an edit-war. If y'all are having content disputes, there's ways to resolve that besides randomly reverting each other. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is clearly being whitewashed for political reasons by someone who wants it to match the ill-conceived views of a certain cable television host, even blatantly so, using her exact language in places. I recommend reverting the page to the last revision before March 7, 2012 (before the TV segment took place). -- Glynth (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to follow the pre-March 7 revert with a lock until the issue has blown over, to prevent additional politically motivated editing. ak4mc (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process"
Why has this been removed from the article? Shame on you wikipedia for changing the definition of something based on a clueless leftist cnn obama-lackey reporter! 99.249.234.66 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Simple: They are doing a Wikiality: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality Kusanagi-sama (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits and warring
Recently a bit of an edit war has festered in this article centering over a phrase used to describe CRT and its potential replacement. The phrase in question, as it appeared originally in the article, was “white supremacy and racial power”, with its proposed replacement being “racial hierarchies”. One editor removed the original requesting a source for its usage and another removed it later calling it “bollocks.” So, is the original phrase “unsourced bollocks” and is CRT really about the neutral disdain for “racial hierarchies”? To find out I reviewed the edit history of the article before this kerfuffle started. The phrase in question occurs in the second paragraph of the lede and the paragraph as a whole is supported by a single reference. The reference cited is a book which is a collection essays by Gotanda et al, Critical Race Theory: Key Writings That Formed the Movement, New Press (1995), and it specifically directs the reader to the introduction. This introduction was written by the esteemed Harvard professor Cornel West who wrote, “This comprehensive movement in thought and life – created primarily, though not exclusively, by progressive intellectuals of color – compels us to confront critically the most explosive issue in American civilization: the historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding white supremacy…” Reading this it is difficult for me to agree with those editors who support “racial hierarchies” and find the original phrase to be “unsourced bollocks”. For this reason I am restoring the original phrase. I would ask that any editor who desires that it be replaced with the phrase “racial hierarchies” do so with a proper citation. Cheers, Hammersbach (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, SIR! 99.249.234.66 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the latest edit, Hammersbach restored the white supremacy aspect to the definition and supported it with this quote from Cornel West: “This comprehensive movement in thought and life – created primarily, though not exclusively, by progressive intellectuals of color – compels us to confront critically the most explosive issue in American civilization: the historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding white supremacy…” Hammersboch said that "Reading this it is difficult for me to agree with those editors who support “racial hierarchies” and find the original phrase to be “unsourced bollocks” "    I think Hammersboch is misreading the quote.  By saying the movement..."compels us to confront," Cornel West is drawing implication out from critical race theory here, not seeking to define it.  Not only is inserting white supremacy inflammatory, it is wrong, because critical race theory can as easily be applied to, for instance, conflicts between Korean immigrants and African-Americans in L.A.
 * Hurling dervish, first the admonition as you are violating WP:TPG by deleting the comments of others. Second, if you are going to reply directly to a comment that someone has made, please do so in the section that the comment was made.  It helps others follow the discussion in a logical manner, hence my moving your comment to this section.  Third, I am not the one inserting “white supremacy”, Professor West is.  Fourth, your assertion that CRT “can as easily be applied to, for instance, conflicts between Korean immigrants and African-Americans in L.A.” requires a proper citation, otherwise you are violation of WP:OR. Hammersbach (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From : as a gross oversimplification, "[CRT studies efforts] to maintain domination and enhance white privilege.” This supports the “white supremacy and racial power” phrasing.  I do not claim or deny that Prof. Bell was a racist.  I do believe that his belief that society will tend to favor whites is an important part of CRT in general and the Breitbart clip in particular.  As such, I believe that it should be included in this article.Optomorrowist (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Optomorrowist

This will be a high traffic content
Lets please be selective in our edits and source any changes made. Dont be petty. It will come up again since it is an election year in the US and the POTUS evidently has a history with the professor largely responsible for Critical Race Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashel (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting To Pre-News Version
After sleeping on this and going through the article's history this article had been stable for some time before the media mention. I hate to lose some of the sourcing that was done but I can't agree with established consensus that was changed due to some media attention to the article. This is not an endorsement of any version of the article, just what appears to make logical sense to me as portions of this article were read verbatim on CNN and then some partisan editing on both sides started happening. Once the article exits protection I hope work can ben continued to add sourced information to improve the article. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Request that the current unsourced sentence of the second third paragraph of the lead

"Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory inherited many of its political and intellectual commitments from civil rights scholarship and Critical Legal Studies, even as the movement departed significantly from both."

be replaced by this sentence cited to a published source "Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory began as a reaction to Critical Legal Studies,"

Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks sensible to me, if there are no serious objections I will make the requested edit later today. --WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2012
In the second paragraph of the lede section, you currently have -- "First, CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process." Aside from the controversial use of the words "white supremacy", which I think should be qualified, I would change "reproduced over time" to "perpetuated by institutions".

Reproduction mostly refers to "copying photos or paintings", growing the human race by sexual reproduction, or other forms of multiplication. What the "Critical Race Theory" proposes is not that "white supremacy" is being reproduced, but rather that "an appearance of underlying white supremacy and powers devolved by racial hierarchies are perpetuated by institutions, such as those in the United States of America."

Therefore, I would rewrite the relevant sentence as: First, CRT has analyzed the way in which an appearance of underlying white supremacy and powers devolved by racial hierarchies are perpetuated by institutions, such as those in the United States of America, and in particular, the role that law plays in this perpetuation.

Skol fir (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Skol fir, I have read this sentence a few times now and I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say.  Could you please clarify it a bit?  Thanks in advance, Hammersbach (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, this is the gist of what I was trying to say. I don't like the word "reproduce" in this context. That implies creating a new form of something from scratch. The concept of "white supremacy" is not something that has to be reproduced. It is already there, and has been there ever since slaves were introduced into the USA. Dismantling the yoke of "white supremacy" does not mean removing "whites". It means restoring equality of opportunity and justice to a society that continues to perpetuate a form of racism in its educational, social, economic and political institutions. Hence, I am replacing "reproduce over time" with "perpetuate by institutions". What's there to reproduce, when the powers given to people of a different skin color already allow for discrimination, perpetuated by the institutions of that country, and encouraged by its laws? That is what I meant. --Skol fir (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and I apologize as I can see by what you have written that I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. The “reproduction” aspect is easily enough understood, and I concur to an extent on that point, but what I am curious about is the phrase, “… an appearance of underlying white supremacy…”.  Not looking to pick a fight, just curious.  Thanks, Hammersbach (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree that "perpetuate" is a better verb than "reproduce" in this context, but is there a reference that supports *adding* the modifier "by institutions" rather than simply replacing the verb? Is there reason to think that the adherents of the theory hold that *only* institutions perpetuate the conditions noted, rather than other agencies (ie, persons, etc) also being involved? (Yes, it's penny-ante nit-picking, but this article is going to subject to that kind of critique.)Kerani (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kerani, see what I wrote below. It also explains the "institutional" aspect of my phrase 'perpetuated by institutions,' and provides a reference as well. --Skol fir (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hammersbach, I thought that phrase would also catch your attention! As the CRT is a theory, it does not mean that it is always right. Let's hope that it is wrong on the existence of "white supremacy" in the constitutional laws, institutions, etc. of the USA, and that this problem of racism by law is non-existent! However, I entertain the possibility of an "appearance (manifestation) of underlying white supremacy." I am just following the suggestion of authors like Gillborn—Gillborn, D. (2005) 'Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform', Journal of Education Policy 20(4), 485-505—who states, "Some scholars argue that mainstream political parties, and the functioning of agencies like the education system itself, are actively implicated in maintaining and extending the grip that white people have on the major sources of power in 'Western' capitalist societies."


 * My use of the word "underlying" implies an underpinning of subsequent actions. I suggest that "white supremacy" may still be a driving force, whether intentional or not, in the execution of powers given to those higher up in the hierarchy of the racial ladder. --Skol fir (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Perpetuated" is definitely an improvement over "reproduced". Looking at other sources, though, I think the core claim is that the law itself (not just the use of it by institutions) perpetuates actual white supremacy (not the appearance of such).  For example, from a 1993 NY Times article about Asian-American supporters of CRT: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/29/news/two-new-law-journals-plan-to-focus-on-asian-americans.html?scp=1&sq=%22critical+race+theory%22&st=nyt


 * ["Critical race theory"] holds that to properly understand law in American society, one must recognize that it has systematically subordinated non-whites. "Law is not just neutral, to be used by good and bad people," said Angela Harris, a Berkeley law professor and adviser to the Asian Law Journal. She noted, for example, how economic competition between Chinese and white laborers near the turn of the century led to the Exclusionary Acts, which suspended Chinese immigration. "Subordination of people of color is woven into the law," she said. -- AyaK (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One step further: the lead anecdote in this NYT story is about a law professor applying CRT to the actions of a conductor on a train. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/05/us/for-black-scholars-wedded-to-prism-of-race-new-and-separate-goals.html?scp=4&sq=%22critical+race+theory%22&st=nyt -- AyaK (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice that I provided a more definitive word than "appearance" above: "manifestation", which means "an indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something." That might address that issue. --Skol fir (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good discussions (happy dance) do we have consensus for a change? --WGFinley (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As a result of the above discussion (happy dance) I propose another wording, maybe less verbose than the original... CHANGE OF TEXT: First, CRT has analyzed the way in which a manifestation of underlying white supremacy and the powers devolved from racial hierarchies are perpetuated by institutions,—Gillborn, D. (2005) 'Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform', Journal of Education Policy 20(4), 485-505—or by individuals,—For Black Scholars Wedded to Prism of Race, New and Separate Goals. NY Times, 5 May 1997—and in particular, the role that the law plays in this process. Now that's something we can vote on. --Skol fir (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Skol fir (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I think it would be better to end the sentence with "in this process" rather than "in such perpetuation" (which repeats "perpetuation" from earlier in the sentence). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I made the additional change. --Skol fir (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No objections.Kerani (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree (and my apologies as I just now saw this and really don’t have the time at the moment to respond properly). It is important to keep in mind that CRT is a theory and as such the wording should reflect that.  The start of the sentence should be written along the lines of “CRT speculates that…”, “CRT holds that …”, or “CRT proposes that…”.  Hammersbach (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The protection has now expired so anyone is free to make (or not make) the edit. Tra (Talk) 06:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional reference
I'v found a reference that might be useful in clarifying the article - to be cited as "Jeffrey J. Pyle, Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism, 40 B.C.L. Rev. 787 (1999)" found at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol40/iss3/6 Hope this helps. Kerani (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See also section
Can anyone tell me why the "See also" section lists Survival of the fittest? It doesn't make any sense to me. CRT is about how humans sub-divide themselves socially, not about which species persist into future generations. Am I being dense? 70.137.136.121 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC) The article is extremely obtuse. If I want to find out what "Critical Race Theory" is, I won't find it here among this mumbo jumbo. One test of whether an author understands his subject matter is his ability to explain it simply and clearly. It needs a complete rewrite by a more savvy author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xperrymint (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Press Attention
I've tagged this article with the press references, they are as follows:


 * On Soledad O'Brien's CNN show she was directly quoting the first lines of this article as the definition (as the article existed at the time):
 * Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller noted this and the resulting edit war on this article:

It seems there are efforts by even registered editors to start some partisan edit warring here, I've fully protected the page for 2 days until the media attention cools down. I was tempted to revert it back to the way it was before the press attention but thought better of it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What has gone on here over the last day or two is really troubling. This page was established long before the mash up on CNN and now it's being edited to reflect the sterile, innocuous definition that Soledad O'Brien posited. Long before CNN's piece, CRT was understood here to be an examination of how the US legal system reinforces "white supremacy" and that was clearly documented by the scholarly writings of Cornell West (Harvard/Yale & others) and Adrienne Dixson (Ohio State). That phrase may not sit well with some, but there's no logical argument for changing it. The "white supremacy" foundation of CRT was posited by SUPPORTERS of the theory long before it became a political issue, and now history is being revised to lessen the damage to the President's and O'Brien's reputations. This can't be allowed to stand, or Wiki will just be turned into another blog. Clearly, the article should include a mention of its assumption of white supremacy being reinforced by the America legal system and the best way to do that is to go back to version of the article of yesterday morning. Phocion1 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "white supremacy" is a loaded phrase with two different meanings. The one I believe that's used by the CRT people means whites have a higher level of control and privilege. The other, more common meaning, and one that people react viscerally to, is that of the "White Power" and KKK crowd. That's what the Breitbart crowd are seizing on and are exploiting. There needs to be a replacement of, or fleshing out of, that hot-button phrase in the entry to clarify what the CRT advocates mean. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But, it's their phrase. Dixson's book came out in '06. There may have been a couple interpretations of "white supremacy" 20-30 years ago, but Dixson was characterizing the theory this way 5-6 years ago. Having read a great deal of social theory, I'm sure their books have whole chapters discussing how they define white supremacy. But, that's not a reason to keep the term out of the article. It's controversial, probably intentionally so given Dixson's publishing date. So, let's have the conversation they want us to have. Leave it in the article, allow it draw further contributions/context and we're all better off for having a fuller understanding. We can't sit on someone's stated views because we're not sure we understand them correctly...that's censorship. Phocion1 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * no, that's not "censorship". we owe the readers an article that easily places the concept of the article in appropriate context (as far as we can, using existing reliable sources]]. Deliberately leaving confusing jargon is inappropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship might be a bit harsh given the forum...I'll give you that. But, I was trying to be polite by allowing for "other interpretations" of the phrase "white supremacist". The simple facts are that practitioners/scholars/theorists SUPPORTIVE of CRT are using the phrase in published material and in interviews. They are the ones introducing what you call jargon into the discussion, not their detractors.So, if you want to alter the article from where it stood for years...including yesterday at this time...the burden should be on you to prove that they mean anything OTHER than the generally accepted concept/definition of white supremacist. What else did they mean? Phocion1 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is my first exposure to this sort of edit warring on Wikipedia and I am horrified. I will no longer be able to trust any entry on here that has a political context. I suspect many, many thousands of others will now come to the same conclusion. I have been an adamant defender of Wikipedia even at the public school but now I will fall silent. I will also stop donating. The facts in this case are simple. The article here on Wikipedia was more or less stable until a media event spawned a political revision. Fair enough, political revision in and of itself is not bad (it's how history has always been written -- revised repeatedly) and the democratic nature of this site certainly leads on to believe that bursts of activity and revision are likely, but to have a sanctioned editor blessed by the Wikipedia organization step in and LOCK this entry into a state different than it existed in before the uproar is so biased it is staggering. I can understand reverting to and locking down the state on 3/7 but clearly this individual is interested in locking the entry down to a revised and preferred form until the peak of attention passes. Why not lock it down to its original state and then revise it when cooler heads prevail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.201.147 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The real Wikipedia. This is how it's done. This is how it's always done. There are actually studies and scientific polls about this, it's become such an issue. Wikipedia has a systemic bias, and they're cool with that. In an interview with PBS, Jimmy Wales said as much. So why not do it another way? Oh, they'll make token efforts, they'll even in their conscious mind say NPOV is truly the goal (self-justification for violations of this come later), and not all editors are the same, certainly, but the bias is still systemic and, when you think about it for a moment, you'll quickly understand why. 1) The most active segment of Wikipedia's population is biased heavily to one direction; nonpartisan polling shows this. 2) Heavy bias leads to agenda-pushing, self-applied blinders, and great offense at facts that don't fit your own world view. 3) Agenda-pushers' heads never cool, so "cooler heads" will never prevail on topics where a large number of them are involved. 4) Agenda-pushers will always be involved on political topics like this that grace their favorite blogs as well as on articles about "political celebrities" like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or what-have-you because the hotheads put all these "controversial" topics on their watch lists. (I can't even get non-controversial, indisputably relevant, apolitical, extremely-well-sourced facts (like which school someone attended, per school records, and per the person themselves unashamedly saying as much on CNN) on such pages because they're perceived as... some sort of slight? I can't even relate to you what the excuse was other than "consensus says no", which is asinine... by hot-and-bothered agenda-pushers.) -- 67.166.108.180 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you really know how Wikipedia works, and have read all the policies, and have taken part in numerous open-ended discussions here -- then, and only then, do you have the right to criticize how it works. I have been active on this encyclopedia for almost three years, and it's only getting better. You must be one of those "agenda-pushers" you're talking about. They don't last here. --Skol fir (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And who are you, the gatekeeper of acceptable criticism?? And appointed to this lofty position after only three years! How impressive! I know how it works, thanks, and I'll criticize it all I want. It's not ignorance but bitter experience over many years, now backed up by credible studies and nonpartisan polling, that has shaped my opinion of Wikipedia and has taken me from the naive initiate's outlook of "oh yay, cooperative editing" to "geeze, these people sure like to gang up on conservatives, but surely even they will admit this obvious, relevant, apolitical, relatively well-known fact is a fact and has its place here" to the far more learned and wise outlook I have today. If you don't see the systemic bias, that's because you're a cog in the machine. -- 67.166.108.180 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

credibility gone
Breathtakingly cynical "sanitization" of the definition of CRT. Absolutely astounding. Your credibility is shot. 70.113.74.72 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) M. Mann
 * "Clarification" is not "sanitization", Mr. Clean. --Skol fir (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide references that support an alternate definition.Kerani (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This definition appears to be from an authoritative source (http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/faculty_documents/dabrown7/61_Wash_and_Lee_L_Rev_1485__2004_.pdf):
 * Critical Race Theory (CRT) examines how the law and legal traditions impact people of color, not as individuals, but as members of a group.
 * Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color. One of CRT's central tenets is the pervasiveness of racism in American society. At its core, CRT accepts the notion that even in the twenty-first century, if you are a person of color in America, you are the victim of racial subordination.
 * Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color. One of CRT's central tenets is the pervasiveness of racism in American society. At its core, CRT accepts the notion that even in the twenty-first century, if you are a person of color in America, you are the victim of racial subordination.

Link to the author's home page: http://www.law.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/dorothy-a-brown.html Glendower99 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Proection
Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I'm semi-protecting the article for a week. It seems at least one of the anons was trying to make meaningful contributions but given the blatant vandalism I've decided to semi-protect the article. If anyone disagrees feel free the chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 Controversy
Many thanks to David Whittle for writing up a section on the current controversy. I think it may be longer than is warranted, with too much space devoted to reactions by left and rightwing commentators. I'd cut it by about half. The long quote from the Washington Post blogger is vapid and could be cut to a phrase or two, if it's even worth including. Cheers, ChrisB 15:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.174.26 (talk)
 * This is excessively detailed, non-encyclopedic content, about yet another political mudslinging game. Yech.-- The Red Pen of Doom  15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When an academic theory enters the public debate, especially in relation to a POTUS who apparently adheres to the theory, how is that "yet another political mudslinging game?" If anything, we don't have enough in there to help readers understand how and why this debate is relevant to the topic. The reason I spent the time to expand this entry is because I came looking for information to help me understand the controversy, and this entry was a mess. I agree with ChrisB, though - the Washington Post comment is vapid. I'll do an edit. Let me know what you think.Davidwhittle (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider how much space a week-long flurry of news articles about say human evolution (assuming that a presidential candidate once denounced the theory, for instance) should take up on that article. This media treatment is deeply undue and ultimately fleeting. It reflects not the President's engagement with the issue in any way at all but Obama-as-law-student's engagement with Derrick Bell. Put a small amount of material on Bell's page and wait to see whether this has any enduring impact on the field.--Carwil (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the whole kerfuffle could be summarized in a two- or three-sentence paragraph. I'm concerned about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and WP:BLP. Just because the right-wing smear machine wants to link Obama to critical race theory doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Wikipedia content is continuing to be sucked into the mass media hysterical drahamaz mongering 24 hour slime cycle. Not a good sign for the future of the project or society. Hopefully this rise is only election year quirk and will self correct.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe my most recent edits add substantively to the article's ability to communicate how differently Critical Race Theory is viewed by both sides of the controversy. The "kerfuffle" is not only immediately relevant to the societal context of Critical Race Theory, but has long-term implications that should be readily apparent based on what might be viewed as an excessive response from the left attempting to minimize the narrative posited by the right. Davidwhittle (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fair explanation of the current debate, with the qualification that I see a central part of the current debate being the revelation of "white supremacy" as part of CRT's self-identification. I don't think the section in its current form captures the "yes it is/no it isn't/but its right there/no that's not right there/yes it is in the definition the founders used/well that's not what that word means" nature of the squabble. However, it remains to be seen just how long this particular topic remains relevant, and so how much weight, therefore, should be given the squabble. (The same could be said for CRT itself - history is full of competing theories and schools of thought which are now beneath irrelevant to the modern world.) Kerani (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Having a lot of concerns with the pretty pure editorial words being used in the section:
 * "dramatically expanded"
 * "lively debate"
 * "the range of opinion was striking"
 * four entire graphs taken verbatim from Shapiro's editorial
 * Several graphs taken verbatim from the Fortin editorial
 * "seminal 1985 Bell article" (we have several "seminal" articles - according to whom??)

I wish to remain in an admin capacity and not get involved so at this point I will just point out the last couple of sections seem to have abundant violations of WP:EDITORIAL, WP:WEASEL and WP:COPYOTHERS (given the amount of direct quotation). --WGFinley (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. This section is a bit bloated. It really should only be a few sentences long and no more.  Hammersbach (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how it can be cut to a few sentences, or even a few paragraphs, and not lose significant explanatory value regarding the controversy surrounding CRT, which is important in understanding CRT.

The graph about Jon Stewart, IMO, adds nothing of consequence in relation to an enhancement of reader understanding of CRT. OK to remove?

WGFinley, have my recent edits (after removing the Stewart graph) addressed the concerns with WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:WEASEL and WP:COPYOTHERS?Davidwhittle (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, respectfully, suggest you review WP:Notnews and WP:Recentism, I think you will better understand my concern that, at this point in time, only a few sentences will suffice. Hammersbach (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:Notnews and WP:Recentism and I find nothing whatsoever to warrant the removal of the entire section, which was useful BECAUSE it offered additional insight about the potential significant relevance of CRT. Isn't that what the article about? What, pray tell, is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to offer factual perspective and information? To delete the context under which the differing perspectives on CRT arose, as well as those perspectives themselves, calls into question the motives of those who made the deletions. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made another edit (including a restoration from an apparent vandal) addressing all concerns. Please let me know if I'm getting warmer.Davidwhittle (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF, WP:NOTVAND, and WP:NPA, and don't you ever refer to constructive edits as vandalism again, whether in your edit summary or on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I do not think the concerns of most editors commenting here were addressed enough. The section was way out of proportion to the rest of the article - the rally, and therefore the video of it, in fact was not at all about CRT, it was about suppporting Bell regarding his stance on diversity on the HLS faculty - this had been completely unexplained. There was certainly some subsequent media discussion about CRT and whether it influenced Obama, so it is reasonable to have a short section in the CRT article, but only a short section at this time, unless specific actual information - not speculation - is unearthed about some connection beyond a complimentary introduction of a prominent professor by his student, and the hug. Also, the section had an extreme POV, especially in the choice of sources, and was therefore not appropriate. I have boiled it down to a much shorter explication of what happened, and feel strongly - as appears to be the overwhelming consensus of the participants here - that it should not be expanded at this time. The points raised above by Hammersbach, WGFinley, Malik Shabazz, Carwil, others all speak to the issue of undue weight, recentism, bloat, etc, and I think this pared down version addresses those concerns more than the previous good faith edit. Further neutral shortening of this would be ok with me too. Tvoz / talk 08:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt to make it more acceptable. Unfortunately, I believe you've made it less helpful. Here's the problem - it's been noted that this article is receiving and will potentially receive a lot of visitors wondering what the controversy over Derrick Bell and CRT is about. If this article provides no context for those visitors and fails to present the thinking of both sides, then the article fails in its fundamental purpose of introducing readers to CRT in an unbiased manner that lets them choose what to believe for themselves. "Sanitizing" the article by excluding or minimizing the perspective that CRT is radical implicitly sides with only one side of the controversy. One side is trying hard to make a big deal of the ties between the President and CRT; the other side is trying to present CRT as less of a theory than the obvious reality that the law has racial implications, while simultaneously minimizing even the potential that CRT might have influenced the first black President, and if it did, it was no big deal. How do we serve readers by taking one side or the other? It's readily obvious to all of us that every detail of this controversy should not be in this article if it sheds light only on the nature of the controversy; however, we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath by excluding those elements of the controversy that shed light on CRT itself and the differing perspectives of the parties on CRT. Any edit of this article that attempts to promote the agenda of the right with such irrelevant details should rightly be excised; however, all arguments put forth here that this controversy is a tempest in a teapot simply beg the question and all of the edits that exclude or minimize the assertions of the right that DO shed light on CRT and its role in society simply serve the left. I'm taking another stab at presenting a balanced take on the issue.Davidwhittle (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not here with a primary purpose to clarify current muckraking about politicians. This article is to be about the topic of the article: Critical Race Theory. The only content in the controversy section directly relating to the topic of the article critical race theory is Soledad O'Brien engaged Breitbart's Joel Pollak in a debate on the definition of critical race theory and the implications of the video, with Pollak asserting that critical race theory "holds that the civil rights movement was a sham and that white supremacy is the order and it must be overthrown" and O'Brien saying that Pollak's description was a "complete misreading", asserting that "critical race theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law".[20]" The question is - are O'Brien and Pollak's views of CRT in any way notable or important in the context of CRT? Seems very doubtful. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Attempting to address concerns and add balance" Its not really helping. You have expanded the section to set the context for simply O'Brien and Pollak's views of the definition of CRT to be 350 odd words when the main definition in the lead is only 260 odd words. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We're seeing classic WP:IDHT behavior. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tvoz / talk 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Yes, David, of course I am well aware of the potential for traffic - but that is not a good reason to distort this article or place excessive weight on this one piece of news, and in fact is a good reason to not do that unless it is truly warranted - we should not be contributing to the public perception, we should be neutrally describing something that has already happened. It seems to me that the facts are that the video was not the bombshell that Breitbart and his associates expected/hoped it would be, nor has it at present turned into any kind of public discussion over the radicalism or lack of radicalism of CRT except among conservatives.  This is not like, say, the contraception issue that was raised, or the Rush Limbaugh matter, which were discussed in great detail across the spectrum of political opinion for more than a moment and I'm sure have been included in several articles. I think the way you've revised it is going too far back in  the wrong direction, and while you say you are trying to make it balanced and neutral, I think you've given much more weight to the idea that there is a controversy than the reality of the coverage it is receiving, now just a few days later, and the sources added are not neutral - Breitbart.com's view is not neutral (2 refs added), and also the utterly partisan AmericanJournal (banner headline is "Soledad Unhinged" - doesn't exactly sound neutral to me). The Crugnale Mediaite ref is better than the Christopher I added, so I'll swap out the Christopher that I added (I had missed the Crugnale last night), but I think this is the point. If there are neutral sources - not from the right or leftwing blogosphere - analyzing this and referring to it as a political controversy, and giving any evidence of Obama's embracing CRT by embracing his professor, then there could be something to consider in this article about CRT.  But I haven't seen that, and  I think the sense of the discussion above and the edits by multiple editors, plus the tags, suggests that there is no consensus for including the level of detail that is there or the biased sources, even after your recent revision. I don't want to misrepresent other editors' takes, but that's what I'm reading here and in edit summaries, without support for the expansion. Let's see what others say, but I am making some tweaks, including changing the heading to "Media coverage" which, again, is more neutral. Tvoz / talk 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time now to restore more neutral text, but the section needs to be pared down again, in my opinion. Right now I don't see support for the longer version(s). Tvoz / talk 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, sorry I offended you to failing to recognize that the deletion of an entire section of well-sourced, balanced commentary with a two-line, biased, one-sided replacement was not, in fact, the vandalism it appeared to me to be. I've heard tales of how Wikipedia can be so biased that it fails to recognize bias, but now I've seen it with my own eyes. The mere fact that everyone is bashing on Breitbart as being disreputable, and right-wing perspectives as being easily dismissable, even when their entire point is that the media is dismissing something important, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that such easy dismissal of their POV and all of the pretended concern for the integrity of Wikipedia is just that - pure pretense. Not one person has addressed my primary point, namely that arguments put forth here that this controversy is a tempest in a teapot simply beg the question, and that all of the edits that exclude or minimize the assertions of the right that DO shed light on CRT and its role in society simply serve only one side of the controversy and fail to provide any information about public perspectives on CRT. All of my research on CRT (because I came here first to understand it better but found this entry to be factually lacking) has led me to see the value in a critical examination of the divide between how white America sees the Constitution and how black America must see it - which is essentially what the debate is about, and the reason this section (and this issue) needs to be expanded, not contracted.166.70.45.120 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Disreputable" is not the standard invoked on Wikipedia, "neutral" is. And Breitbart and associated sites are anything but neutral. If this video were a valid matter for inclusion in an article about crt - and it theoretically could become so, but is not at present - then uninvolved, third-party, neutral sources would be writing about the connection between the video and the debate.  The most that has been presented of any relevance to crt at all is the Soledad O'Brien-Joel Pollak exchange, which I've left in for the moment but have serious questions about including any of it as it is just  not that significant. If you think that the rightwing perspective on crt - separate from the video - has not been adequately addressed, then see if there is another, NPOV way of introducing it to the article, rather than attempting to use this fairly innocuous video as the entry point.  They tried, but so far they have failed. It looks to me like you are approaching this as an academic, researching and writing a paper, complete with your own analysis -  potentially interesting, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  I see no way that your concluding point above, about the value in an examination of the differences in perception of white and black Americans regarding the Constitution, has anything to do with this section at all, let alone "the reason this section (and this issue) needs to be expanded, not contracted".  Tvoz / talk 07:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting mob response on this page, I am not surprised about the 'vandalism or edits' that started based on Soledad O'Brien recent interviews. Things are very relavent not so much for the page lead but for the "controversy" in the section this "talk" is about an article on http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/14/whats-the-matter-with-soledad-obrien/ we see that Soledad O'Brien tweeted on Oct. 6, 2011 "Prof Derrick Bell died yesterday also. Rough day." - yes you can still find this on twitter. Michelle Malkin's site also asserts a lot of "deep" connections between Soledad O'Brien and Derrick Bell with verifiable sources. The issue here is she had some sort of "axe to grid" and was not acting like a journalist as Malkin put it "O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments". The importance here is that it sheds light on CTR and also an attempt to whitewash "what it is", a form of mob censorship, by the mob when the media spotlight swung on it. This prior cite and also and other Malkin's view :
 * "O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.”

After all Wikipedia is about sources that can be cited, we weight cites that are more current and also newsworthy. It is fairly amazing that twitter searches on Soledad_OBrien Bell, Soledad_OBrien CRT, Soledad_OBrien Brown or Soledad_OBrien Joel have an amazing number of hits. The same is true of Google for Soledad O'Brien Bell, Soledad O'Brien CRT, Soledad O'Brien Brown or Soledad O'Brien Joel. As of today on google a restrict search on +"Soledad O'Brien" +"Derrick Bell" has 51,300 hits talk about a set of citable sources. Even limiting the search to stop at 3/2/2012 on +"Soledad O'Brien" +"Derrick Bell" we still get 40,600 results - this just sucks in most of the same headlines. Of course I am not saying merely stick in quotes from Malkin's article, but the underlying facts do need to eventually percolate onto the actual wikipedia article and sectin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Media_coverage as long as there is a reference to the "controversy". Cites are what they are of course we avoid "opinionated" statements form blogs yet a neutral analyses shows that the community or a spike of participation form a false community was a set of "mob" responses to control the content of this page. Everyone has the chance to contribute and in the end the Wikipedia model works but all should remember that it is about sources that can be cited and sources that are reliable and sources that are newsworthy it is not about the truth (sorry it ain't a perfect world), however with that said it also isn't about sock puppetry or meat puppetry to express the viewpoint of the day. Perhaps when this all calms down we might have an entry like
 * "Soledad O'Brien attempted to ignore the accepted definition of CRT as including a key assertion "CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy", a controversy ensued showing her bias and what some might call deliberate duplicity".

The important point is not whether CTR is true or false, IMHO I think that in some respects it is, but that this section shall capture what is the core of the media "controversy" in March of 2012. In the end this isn't so much about CRT but about the length an individual went to, the actual "bombshell" here, first to avoid talking about CRT in what she perceived as a negative light and then later in a failed attempt to support her position in a faux followup interview with Dorothy Brown, the Wiki edit storm itself will become a non-issue. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Jon

Thank you, Jon, for bring another voice of thoughtful reason to the discussion. As much as I believe the exchange between Pollak and O'Brien was enlightening in regards to CRT, and the response to it enlightening in regards to the polarization of opinion about it and the apparent motives on both sides of the controversy (and I agree with your assessments there), I think there are larger issues arising that so far have not been addressed in the article on CRT, that need to be included if both perspectives on CRT are to be "represented proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Those issues include: the partisan attempts to associate the first black President with CRT by opponents of CRT and the ironic attempt by supporters (not just O'Brien) to minimize the import of CRT and the ties of the President to Bell and CRT, whether either or both sides are misrepresenting or suppressing the more controversial aspects of CRT, Obama's inclusion of a Bell book in his curriculum, the attempt of the right to exploit the more controversial aspects of CRT for political purposes, whether Obama's understanding of CRT may have influenced the Justice Department and their decision not to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, and the "mob" effect you refer to and whether it's influenced the Wikipedia entry. Many of those are unresolved issues and open questions, but there are nonetheless already reliable sources pointing to factual information, and sources pointing to other credible observers either ignoring the facts or saying "So what?" I think the issues are important on their face, regardless of their political implications, because they indicate just how divisive an issue race can still be, even in an America with a black President. Just because it's Breitbart blowing the smoke doesn't mean there's no fire or that the issues being raised are nothing but a smokescreen. Davidwhittle (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)